that we take money and you can approve that. we take any money or have the agenda but there is no answer now. when we talk to the people, crossing about the agendas and

funding, the people -- every member joining the movement. so we tried to keep the mubarak regime, the same regime but changed -- they are keeping this. >> when we come back -- [inaudible] >> voice of america. do you think there's any situation leading up to the elections or immediately afterward where the elections are not conducted in the way you envision or not fair that might precipitate another massive gathering? your focus right now just to get out the vote and get participation? if not conducted any way you think is fair is their chance there might be an arab spring 2.0? something like that? [inaudible]

[speaking in native tongue] >> i think the next election is very important. there's a chance to will lead to the next stage because we think about the generality, it was after the inclusion in the treasury exam. now the same conditions, problems with christians and egypt and running for bad positions because there was control -- system of mixing this, will keep the same persons of the mubarak regime. if you watch what happened with both of the candidates you would

see the same party as the mubarak regime. maybe it will be conditions in cairo and alexandria and the main cities. been some places it will depend on money, weapons, not big elections. so we have this homogeneous parliament. vix that that to be 65% islamic parties or more from these people. and 30 or 45 looking that parliament and suffering from pressure because they have a base solution to keep some

power. but the next parliament will be very important. it will lead to the second situation. >> i don't want to debate the intentions but since you mentioned this camp is not really intending to hand power to civilians, i think there's a time table and there are elections and these elections are important. very strong pressure and a push towards democracy from all of the political parties in the political sphere in egypt so it is much more promising than you could try. this is my -- my question is regarding your renew win ways of acting right now are you

considering this a different environment? some things have changed? >> yes, of course. we will have several countries -- leave of 40 as soon as possible. many questions like why they didn't apply -- why they are keeping the same in the media. like the revolution--a program against the revolution. on national tv calling for defending or protecting -- the

main reason for clashes between muslim and christians, why this system -- list program -- many questions about that. so i think they try to keep in some point the government to the budget of the army or the authority of the army and the future to the pressure group or living group and some change in freedom of speech and more free to talk to people and more free to make sure the people and

setting on fire in many places to change but to need more changed to change the mentality of the position in egypt and the poor places. and we will, using any tools and conditions for people to make pressure and -- [inaudible] >> you gave an account to the fall of the government and after that sounded quite cooperative with the conversation and that a certain point, more recently we had the violence you draw witnessing the real concern.

what do you think has changed in terms of the way the movement has engaged the military? and what happened to the most recent violence? >> i think the government -- no tricks like they won't. we need to leave tahrir square and groups -- also now the party like the current party are aiming for that. it is used to focus political party and put pressure so the pressure between these groups and staff at the end of july.

between these groups -- between the staff, we follow the same lot of action, we will have a meeting. >> my name is steve winter, local researcher. i asked an expert at georgetown university, very knowledgeable on egypt, what would you make of the composition of the group that reached the israeli embassy in cairo and lead to evacuation of the staff and he told me he had met some of the people in that actual group and that his assessment was groups consisted of frustrated revolutionary humans. do you find the level of

frustration in your group growing for reasons you said? is that leading to difficulties managing the group? >> they don't -- any place or any country. also the behavior -- to support -- using palestinian countries. so it increased, angry power generation, so i think in front of the embassy started in june and remaining, there is no problem at the embassy. but after the beginning in sinai

and the administration to -- to the tavern on the border. and make modification of the camp david agreement to put our army and our land where we must save our land from any groups. that is no problem with that. in nine of december we were trying to organize at that time on the ninth of september and again, connections for the embassy. and travel to poland before the ninth of september. a new national newspaper talking

about the order to destroyed many places and escape to poland. so in egypt, must speak to the organization at 6:00 p.m.. any group organized something else, you will say no. we finished the day and we will go. we made the assessment and published the administration, our main goal -- and elections. and we found groups tried to attack the embassy and the three things if anyone tried to reach the building they would take it. if anyone tried to attack the israeli embassy, at that time

there is no solution. so it is from someone who traveled and sent the message, we will go there. >> my name is lacy from the republican third council. this has been a political discussion but i want to veer off into the cultural. i know that the main deck of this youth movement is to put pressure on the government to make sure the political outcomes are -- become what the revolutionaries wanted. but are you making any effort to unify the youth across the country to become part of your group or your motivations? because the youth movement that started is a unique group in egypt have access to the internet and computers and western ideology and in the poor areas you mentioned in upper

egypt they are more confined in their political understanding is. what do you think? what are your goals with that? >> to those two groups. all of the groups united the mubarak regime and our main goal is to sit down with that regime and take steps for what is left and many debate and discussion about what is next and discussions about how we think that would -- [inaudible] -- involved in discussions between these groups. after the revolution we find

hundreds of people every day, many participate everyday. it is strange that as many groups with several demons, but now the group's are united about the same demons. those -- how to decrease -- how to make the army back to the camp again. and discussing altogether the party and youth movement to find to decrease the champagne. now we try to find a united map or schedule and compare the group's and parties, they are

also the decrees to syndicate the unions and increasing. that is the group that will agree. we can't make united organizations. main goal, not organizations. >> are you going to go outside the bounds of the political organizations and involve the general use of egypt across the egyptian territory? >> which side to do that? we have many governments for the people everyday and we try to not only intercept -- we try to talk with the people to join any organization and to do that. >> you can ask questions by twitter. what can the u.s. do to stop the

revolutionary measures? the united states's role -- [inaudible] >> i am not agreeing with pressure on -- the rule of anti states before revolution supporting mubarak because he was the solution and wiki of issues in egypt. and the revolution of american government -- they would support them at the end. now i think they support --

they're talking about the rule of maskarraf. i think they may support the people, not any government. they must uphold freedom and democracy. also the united states. and to stop any support to any regime against the people and change the behavior of other countries. they must not support israel for anything or the rights of palestinians. and support the people by investment and projects and support the health in egypt

education. it would be support to the egyptian. >> i am jeff kerri from the state department. you mentioned earlier that the media have this same faces that existed before the revolution saying many of the same things against what you were trying to accomplish. i understand there is more freedom in the media's fear since the revolution happened. what do you regard as the good news centers of investigative journalism in the country? where do people in your opinion get accurate information and do you think the people listening to those good sources or do you think they are still listening to the traditional sources that are against what you are trying to accomplish?

>> the new sources? the exhibition media? >> could be on line. but reporting. where do people go if they want accurate, reliable information these days? [inaudible] >> some people in poor areas dependent on international tv and there is also cable-tv or private child and the internet. the national tv plays an important role. and also under control. we are trying to find a new way to reach people and we must calendar control from the staff

to the national tv and newspaper because they allow for more freedom but control many things. [inaudible] >> they can't control but some locals talking about many others. they can't control the media or many private chances but have control with national tv and many others with national guides from the regime and also new channels from that -- they try to establish a new chapter. >> eric trader of washington policy. good to see you again.

my question is about your tactics, the tactic of demonstrations has decreased in popularity in egypt. public opinion suggests very much opposed to prolonged sit ins and demonstrations. how are you thinking of shafting your tactics to deal with the transition moving forward? >> it depends -- our main goal to make the people as part of -- the movement to make more people involved in egypt. so we are -- what we will need. our main goal is to speak for the people and get people involved. so we try to improve our methods

and improve our message to make the people -- we have a campaign called solutions and also campaign called white circles and black circles and the criteria of members in white circles or how to choose a good man in parliament. that is our rules, to get people involved. >> i with national public radio. you initially mentioned the amount of unity people have in terms of getting mubarak out of office. now or it looks like things are really in disarray and i am wondering what concerns you the most moving forward? what really worries you? [speaking in native tongue]

>> i think nothing. groups will do their best to continue the revolution and we are searching between the roots and all the groups agree with how to agree in egypt. >> any other questions from the audience? >> i am curious about the staff are commission and security and i am wondering what your organization's approach to the coptic christian decrease in violence. >> we supported christian rites before the revolution. our member was arrested to

support christian acts in december. because we are calling for equality in egypt. after the clashes we're talking about churches and mosques, try to than any -- [speaking in native tongue] -- but there are delayed to apply this law and this is the main reason for clashes between many people in upper egypt. tried to have clashes with christians. we advise we must do that

quickly. what happened in front of the bastille building is no clash -- having this army look over the people in the street and shoots many in the street. they tried to ban the administration at that time and the national media used the same way as and said that the coptics attacked the army. many muslims go to the streets to protect the army against christians. they are the main reason for what happened. so we are insisting on an investigation of that issue and to end the control from the government or staff for national

tv and make the media more free with respectability in and because they can cause many troubleds talking about this. [inaudible] >> you are going to attempt a conference for egyptian americans friday, through sunday and the conference will see the egyptian rights and talking about the policies in egypt and the future of egypt. what message do you want to give to egyptian americans living here? what would you like them to do to support egypt? [speaking in native tongue]

thank you so much. >> my message to asian-americans is they can build egypt by more investment and help egypt to buy pressure for the rights for voting for the egyptian league approach so that they make pressure on that and make pressure about monitoring -- we need real supervision and directions and also we may allow

foreign observation for journalists. [inaudible] >> i am kelly mcnicholas and are was wondering if you could talk more about the activities of the movement in the context of the election. will you be endorsing any candidates or trying to educate people on what their rights are or where their polling stations are? if you could talk about those activities. >> we divide that through three sections. we have two matters to talking about the rights of people voting, and elections, the white circle and the black circle. we had candidate in that and talking about the criteria for that. >> just a minute or so left in this program.

you can see it in its entirety on c-span.org. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to begin their day. general speeches our first followed by continued work on three appropriations bills rolled into one measure. amendments are expected throughout the day and we may see the first vote around noon eastern and live to the senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. immortal, invisible, god only wise, you are surrounded by inaccessible light. today, help our lawmakers to make substantive progress. in their efforts. to keep america strong. remind them. to trust you for today's challenges and difficulties, knowing that you hold. all our tomorrows in your hands. may this perspective. of trusting the future. to your powerful. and loving providence. infuse them. with a spirit of optimism. to believe that they will reap.

a bountiful harvest. if they persevere. in doing what is right. lord, give them the serenity. to accept the things they cannot change, to change the things they should, and the wisdom to know the difference. we pray in your righteous name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 19, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no.

mr. mcconnell: madam president, i just want to make a couple of observations this morning about what's going on in washington at the moment and what isn't. what's going on is the democrats are obsessed for some reason with raising taxes. that's the only possible way to explain their latest idea to impose a permanent tax hike on about 300 u.s. businesses, business owners, and then use the money to bail out cities and states that can't pay their bills. that's the proposal we'll be voting on, apparently, tomorrow. now, i don't know if our friends on the other side have noticed, but washington can't pay its own bills right now. think about it. the federal government spent $3.6 trillion last fiscal year, a new all-time record, and in the wake of the single largest spending year in history,

democrats want to put together another bailout. add up the projected deficits of all 50 states this year and you get $103 billion. that's all 50 states' deficits added up. well, what about us? what about us here in washington? we're expected to run a deficit of $1.3 trillion. washington needs to prove it can get its own house in order before it starts demanding more money from job creators and throwing together another bailout. this is the third time in three years the president has asked us to bail out the states. how many more times and how many more billions before someone realizes this is a very bad idea? more bailouts, more bailouts are not going to solve the problem. they will just enable it. but the bottom line is this --

everyone knows the last thing you want to do in a jobs crisis is raise taxes. it's just common sense. the president himself has said as much. but for some reason, he's determined to keep trying anyway, and republicans aren't about to go along with it. so democrat leaders in congress have decided to do nothing instead. if they don't get their tax hike, then they don't want to do anything at all. and that's why, rather than working with us on legislation that would get the government out of the way so the private sector can create jobs, including legislation that's in the president's own bill, they have choreographed a political side show this very week. here's how it works. the president proposes a stimulus bill he calls a jobs bill, congress rejects it in a bipartisan way for very sensible and straightforward reasons. the president goes on a bus tour

to criticize republicans for voting against the so-called jobs bill. democratic leaders consult with the white house on breaking the same bill into smaller pieces, and how do they break it up? by identifying parts they know republicans will oppose, then add the tax hike just to make sure. then another bus tour or a press conference with the president complaining about republicans again. repeat for 13 months in the hopes that americans will forget that they are all now living under the economic policies that were enacted during the first two years of the obama administration and hope for success. that's the game plan. in other words, they are actually designing legislation to fail on the other side so they will have someone else to blame for the economy 13 months from now. that's what's going on in the senate this week. so what's not going on?

what's not going on is the kind of bipartisan cooperation that americans really want. my friend, the majority leader, is out there telling people the republicans are rooting for the economy to fail. nothing could be further from the truth. look, if republicans wanted the economy to fail, we would all line up behind the president's economic policies rather than opposing them, because they haven't solved this jobs crisis. we have been there, we have done that. the president got everything he wanted the first two years he was in office. so i think it's time democrats realize that they were elected to lead, not to choreograph political theater. it's completely preposterous at a time when 14 million americans are looking for a job in this country for the president to be riding around on a bus, saying we should raise taxes. completely preposterous for the president to be riding around on a bus, saying we should raise

taxes on the very folks who create jobs. think about that. we have got 14 million people out of work and two self-identified conservatives for every liberal in this country, and the president is out there doing his best howard dean impersonation. he's completely out of touch. let's forget about the tax hikes, let's drop the talking points about millionaires and billionaires, and let's work together on bipartisan jobs legislation that's designed to pass, not designed to fail. the republican leadership in the house and the republican leadership here in the senate has been crystal clear, we're ready to work with the white house on legislation we can all agree on. two parties did it just this last week on trade bills. there are other areas where we can do the same thing. the house voted on three bills this year. one as recently as last week, to

roll back excessive regulations by bureaucrats here in washington that are destroying jobs and threaten to put even more americans out of work. all three of those house bills got solid bipartisan support. why don't we have those votes in the senate and show that we can work together to help businesses create jobs? let's park the campaign bus, put away the talking points and do something to address the jobs crisis. the american people want action. the election is 13 months away. why don't we do what we were elected to do? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour. the republicans will control the first half, the majority will

control the final half. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2112, which is the agriculture, commerce, state, justice and transportation appropriation bill. at noon, there will be a roll call vote in relation to the mccain amendment regarding surface transportation. additional roll call votes are expected during today's session. we hope to lock in an agreement on the third -- i'm sorry, on three district court judges as well as the nomination of john bryson to be commerce secretary. madam president, my friend, the republican leader, -- i will go in more detail in a few minutes -- is complaining about a tax of .5%, .5% on people who

make more than $1 million a year to stop a program that would lay off teachers. the massive layoff we have had in america today, of course rooted in the last administration, and it is very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine. it's the public sector jobs where we have lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about. it's unfortunate my friend the republican leader is complaining about that. i would also note that my friend said the house passed another bill. well, they pass lots of bills, but they rarely go anyplace. a report led by henry waxman of california, a long-time member of the house, indicated last week that the house has voted 168 times to roll back regulations on clean air, clean water. these safeguards are important

to have a healthier america, but the republican response has been cutting back environmental health safeguards. i guess helping a sicker, more polluted country is a better place to create jobs, and it's not. madam president, i'm going to talk a little bit today about the legislation that i moved to on monday dealing with, as i have indicated, maintaining jobs for teachers, firefighters and police officers. 75% of the americans support this legislation. this is not a poll that some democratic pollster did. it's a cnn hp gallup poll. -- it's a cnn/gallup poll. this week, my republican colleagues have rallied against teachers and first responders. that's our latest proposal to

create hundreds of thousands of american jobs and save other jobs. republicans point to a stellar program with a proven track record of keeping 422,000 teachers in the classroom. that's important. and they are using this as evidence that our programs are a failure. now, madam president, i know that the american recovery act saved nevada for going into bankruptcy. the money that we got there, hundreds of millions of dollars, allowed the governor, republican governor, to save medicaid. that money is fungible. it saved teachers. it saved a lot of programs in nevada. so i say again, they call democratic legislation, my republican colleagues, my friend the republican leader, legislation that created hundreds of thousands of jobs a failure. that's because they are using a different benchmark for success

than we are. democrats' number one priority is to create jobs. there are 14 million americans out of work today. so putting hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work they do so well, that's our priority. but it seems the number-one priority of my republican colleagues is to defeat president obama. their strategy is to keep the economy weak as long as possible so they oppose legislation with a solid record of creating jobs. never mind that republicans have yet to propose a single idea on their own. a single idea on their own to get 14 million people working again. never mind that in the past, they've supported every one of the job measures created that we've proposed. we have a bill, it was defeated, so we've taken pieces

of that legislation and virtually every piece of that legislation, republicans in the past have supported. so it appears that republicans suit up every day to come down here and come to work with the sole purpose of defeating president obama instead of suiting up with the sole purpose of creating jobs and they oppose the policies that will turn our country around for one reason and one reason only, to defeat president obama. the famous author, gore vidal, said, "it's not enough to succeed. others must fail." end of quote. it seems that this is the republican motto this congress. to -- putting politics head of this country's economic failure, it is important, we must put politics ahead of -- let's start over, madam president. i, most americans, believe

that putting politics ahead of this country's economic future is far outside of the mainstream, it's barely on the map but that's where the republicans have headed. republicans have been very candid about their goal this congress. my friend the minority leader has said and i quote, "the single most important thing peewee want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president" close quotes. so defeating the job creating legislation and defeating the aren't, that's how the senate republicans measure success. but it's not how republicans in the rest of the country measure success. the rest of america doesn't share those out-of-touch values. like democrats, the rest of the country believe that there are some things more important than politics, even in an election year, creating jobs is that most important thing. to democrats and the vast majority of americans, there's no goal more important than putting our economy so it's humming once again. that's why americans

overwhelmingly support our plan to retain or rehire more than 400,000 teachers and put more cops and firefighters doing the things that they do to keep our communities safe. in nevada, this legislation will provide an additional $260 million to keep heechers in the classroom and maintain class size. it will support 3,600 jobs in my state and pump much-needed money back into the economy. 75% of americans believe we should help state and local governments with teachers, police and firefighters back to work and 76% of americans agree the wealthiest people in this country should help get our country back on track. i repeat, three out of every four americans, actually a little more than that, 76%, including two-thirds of republicans, support the democrats' teachers-first responders back to work act. republicans in congress aren't just out of touch with america, they're out of touch with other republicans.

54% of republicans support the democrats' plan to create job-build -- jobs building modern roads and bridges and schools. 58% of republicans support the plan to extend the payroll tax for workers and businesses. 63% of republicans support our plan to put teachers in the clam and police officers on the beat. 56% of republicans even support orproposal to ask millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share, .5%, to pull our nation out of the terrible recession. the trend is clear. americans overwhelmingly support the democrats' plan to create jobs with even republicans supporting our deals by -- our ideas by a wide margin. and yet my friend the republican leader said this on the senate floor, there is growing bipartisan opposition to trying the same failed policies again. again, he said, there's growing bipartisan opposition to trying the same failed policies

again. and there's bipartisan opposition to raising taxes especially at a time when 14 million americans are out of work. close quotes on my friend, the republican leader. well, madam president, i say to my friend the republican leader, you're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. there's not -- there is not bipartisan opposition to this the legislation which will create and save jobs for teachers and first responders. on the contrary, there is bipartisan support for the legislation and i've just gone over those numbers. republicans, like the rest of americans, do not oppose our proposal to ask millionaires to contribute their fair share. on the contrary, they support that proposal. .5% surtax on people making more than a million dollars a year. it's only here in congress that republicans oppose creating legislation and fair tax policy for the sake of politics. in the rest of the country, republicans like other americans

are focused on where their next paycheck will come from and how they'll make the mortgage payment. they're tired of republicans rooting for the economy to fail instead of working with us to secure our economic future. madam president, will you announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half.

mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: cons the senate proceed to consider nominations 27, 274, upon the yielding back of time, calendar 272 and 274 be confirmed and the senate vote with no intervening action or debate on calendar 273. the motion to reconsider be considered paid ma and laid on table, and that no further motions be in order to any nominations, any statements be printed in trord, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session with two minutes of debate equally divided between senator mccain and boxer or their designees.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. what we'll do, we shouldn't do this but i'll go ahead and do this, -- so i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. reid: before i note the absence of a quorum, whose time runs? the presiding officer: it's on the republican time. mr. reid: because they're first. okay. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: correct. a senator: and i also understand that we are in morning business. the presiding officer: correct. a senator: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i also ask that i be allowed to speak in morning

business, although i believe we're in the republican time. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, madam president. in some ways, i hate to come to the floor today and talk about this because i very seldom do this, but i am announceing to all my colleagues and to the administration that i'm putting a hold on all treasury department nominations. mr. pryor: until i get something resolved. and let me back up and tell the story. some of my colleagues are familiar with this story because this has come up a few times before, and i have already spoken on the floor a couple of times about this and certainly in the homeland security committee i've spoken about this. a few years ago, in arkansas, we had some floods. in this one particular area around mountain view, arkansas, some folks -- some people's houses were flooded. fema came in.

they -- actually in one particular case, in the gugliamanas case, which is a family there. they talked to this couple -- they are on social security. they talked to this couple about how they are entitled to some fema recovery money to repair their home. fema was actually in the home, took pictures, helped them fill out the paperwork, walked them through the entire process. they ended up getting $27,000 in this fema money for disaster recovery. the gugliamanas did absolutely everything by the book, they followed all of fema's direction, they did it exactly picture-perfect, exactly the way you would think all citizens should conduct their business. then three years later, they get a notice in the mail and fema says oh, we messed up. we didn't -- we shouldn't have given you that money because of some technical reason, and

because of that, we now want all that money back. well, they worked a great hardship on this family. this is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people. that's not what has happened in this case. this has worked a great hardship on this family. there were lots of community efforts around these floods. local civic clubs, churches, just the community at large rolled out to help people. the gugliamanas said they didn't need that because they had fema's help. they have foregone a lot of local assistance, a lot of charity assistance, just a lot of general help from their friends and neighbors because of fema. now fema has come back and said you owe us the entire $27,000. this could ruin them financially. i have met with the fema director fugate. he and i have had very -- what i would think of as productive

conversations. we're trying to get an amendment on the existing statute. we're working on that. we're working a bill through the system right now in the senate. worked with colleagues on the homeland security committee and the appropriations committee. i'm not saying we would have unanimous agreement on my approach on that, but certainly i'm trying to work with anybody here in the senate to make this bill better. unfortunately, what has happened in the last few days is fema has now taken the additional step of turning this matter over to the department of the treasury for debt collection. they have turned it over to treasury for debt collection. to add insult to injury and to rub salt in the wounds, this 27,000-dollar debt now with fines and interest has gone to

$37,000 in debt. $37,000 in debt that these folks were assured by the government that they were completely entitled to because this was flood recovery, and the only reason they are not entitled to it is because of some technical issues that fema should have recognized from day one, they should have never offered to help these people, but what they have done is they have now caused them great injury. so, madam president, this is really a matter of equity and fairness. i think at this point what i would say is enough is enough. you know, we have been talking to fema for months about this. now treasury's involved. enough is enough. we need to get this resolved for this family and maybe a few others. it's not just localized in arkansas. you're going to see this happen over and over and over around the country because fema has a backlog of these cases. it's a long story that got tied up in litigation for a few years, but nonetheless there is a backlog of these cases.

i can almost guarantee you that virtually every senator in this chamber at some point is going to have to deal with this. so i would hope that you all would listen to what i'm saying and hopefully help me get this resolved, but that's why, madam president, i am putting a hold on all the treasury nominees. we need to get this resolved. we're going to do whatever it takes to get it resolved. we want to resolve this situation fairly for this family in arkansas. and again, they are just the first of many, many that you're going to see that have this same type problem. fema has done them harm. our government has done them harm, put them at a disadvantage. there is a principle in the law called detrimental reliance. these people clearly relied on the government, relied on fema to their detriment, and they're paying the price -- paying the penalty for that now. and like i said when the i.r.s. and treasury gets involved, there is penalties and interest. just american citizens should

not be treated this way, especially those that are playing by the rules and really don't have any other recourse. so, madam president, that's all i wanted to say in my morning business. i see that we have several here to talk on other matters, so before i close, i just want to say i am putting treasury on notice that i'm going to hold all of their nominees until we sit down and work through this and hopefully get a good, fair result for this one family in arkansas. madam president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. johanns: madam president. there has been a lot of talk about how we go about rebuilding infrastructure after recent disasters and how we assist struggling states to accomplish that goal. many in this body do not believe the federal government should borrow money in an attempt to bail out states. we have our own financial mess right here at the federal level

that citizens across this country are saying rightfully so we have got to get solved. but we can all agree that one of the best things that the federal government can do is get out of the way, cut through the red tape. we must remove federal hurdles, the barriers. so much cumbersome process that constitutes the largest barrier to rebuilding our infrastructure. in fact, i am very pleased to rise this morning and report that there is language in the appropriations bill that i believe should get unanimous support in this body. it's part of the transportation section. it simply says that states may rebuild their roads and their bridges that have been damaged in disasters without having to repeat environmental study after study. gosh, what a commonsense

solution. keep in mind, we're talking only about replacing roads and bridges that have already been through process, that are already there, that were carrying traffic before the disaster. and what we're saying is the most practical thing you could possibly say, and that is no need to repeat the expensive studies, the time-consuming studies. let's get out there and let's help the states get the work done. in other words, it saves states time and money by cutting through red tape and allowing them to just very simply rebuild their roads and bridges. now, i personally want to commend the senior senator from the state of nebraska, senator nelson, for authoring this language. it's a commonsense approach, something we're used to in the midwest, and it doesn't add a dime or a dollar to the federal deficit.

this language, as i said, should receive unanimous bipartisan support, especially from every senator whose home state has been hit by disaster and literally as i speak our state is trying to figure out how to recover. now, notwithstanding the fact that i think most people would agree that this is so common sense, my colleague from washington state, senator murray, has an amendment that would strike this language. i can't imagine why this body would stand in the way of states trying to rebuild their roads and bridges. in fact, in addition to states, senator nelson's language would help counties and communities that are so cash strapped with so limited a tax base, it's saying we'll help them, too. for local authorities, the cost of repeating environmental studies is crushing. even president obama has called

on its administration to drop unnecessary regulations and to look for red tape to cut through. senator murray's amendment, in all due respect, would do exactly the opposite. her amendment would dig our bureaucratic hills into the sand and it would say to states and communities and counties we know that you have been struggling, we know that you have been hit hard by disaster, but we are not going to keep our expensive hurdles squarely in place. we're going to force you to jump over each and every one of them. the language authored by my colleague, senator nelson, is a commonsense way to remove these federal hurdles. i received assurance just this morning from the department of roads in my home state that this language would clear the way for several rebuilding projects in nebraska, but we're not alone.

i'm guessing road departments across this country would say the same. there is little doubt in my mind that it would do the same for other states that have been faced by disasters from the midwest to the northeast. we should rally behind senator nelson's language and make sure that his efforts to clear a pathway for recovery are not blocked by the murray amendment. i encourage my colleagues to vote against the murray amendment, to stand with me on the side of cutting red tape and preventing states from rebuilding roads and bridges. madam chair, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i rise today to speak to an issue that i think has been on the minds of a lot of people here, and hopefully people across this country, too, and that is this failed class act program which

last week we finally got some, -- i think i would characterize it as good news because i think this is a program that was destined to fail. but on friday last week, secretary of health and human services kathleen sebelius came out and said despite our best analytical efforts, i do not see a path forward for class implementation at this time. and what accompanied that was a volume of analysis that had been done that essentially supports that conclusion, that it doesn't add up, you can't make the math work. i think that's something that hopefully my colleagues as what we know now will recognize that we ought to eliminate, we ought to repeal this class act once and for all. you know, something i tried to do as we were debating the health care bill almost two years ago now, i offered an amendment in december of 2009 that would repeal the class act believing at the time that it wasn't going to work, and we had plenty of at that time

evidence to that effect. unfortunately, it was included a part of the health care reform bill to help pay for it. at that time it was estimated wyatt generate about $70 billion in revenue to be used to offset the cost of the health care bill or at least to put it in balance and claim there was some deficit reduction associated with it. now i think the more recent estimate of what it would generate in terms of revenues in the early years is on the order of about $86 billion. but we have all, those of us who have been skeptics about this program, suggested from the very beginning that this wasn't going to be the case, this was in fact a budgetary dpimmic, would saddle the nation with additional debt, that's what the congressional budget office concluded as you got into the out years. there would be revenue in the early years but in the out years and demands started to come in that it just didn't add up. it would add significantly to the federal deficit. i think that's a conclusion now that's been drawn even by those who supported the program and so

my thinking at this time is that we as a senate and hopefully the house of representatives ought to move to repeal the class act once and for all. we shouldn't leave this thing on the books and allow it to become an opportunity at some point in the future for someone to say we ought to try and reactivate this thing or implement this thing knowing full well that it doesn't work. and so there were lots of warning signals along the way that were ignored, repeated warnings by the actuary and the administration this wasn't going to work which were ignored by the obama administration in their push to pass health care reform. it's really become interesting to me, we did a report not that long ago, a working group that examined this, the report was called "class' untold story" 3450eu6s, some of my colleagues in the senate and our house colleagues that requested it and delved into a lot of the e-mail traffic that had occurred prior to its inclusion in the health care reform bill. and came across a number of

things, a number of warnings that were issued by the h.h.s. actuary. the chief actuary predicted at the time that it would result in an insurance death spiral. he said this could be a terminal problem for this program. it is intended to be sound but at first glance may be impossible. the resulting premium increases required to prevent fund exhaustion would reduce the number of participants and a classic insurance death spieferl would ensue. that was in may of 2009. may of 2009 that warning was come from the actuary at h.h.s. some time passed, this continued to be part of the discussion with regard to the health care bill and come to july of 2009 and that actuary went on to say and this was again after an additional analysis, review, examination of this particular proposal, that 36 years of act twearl experience lead me -- actuarial experience lead me to believe

that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue. madam president, that it would collapse in short order. that was what was said by the h.h.s. actuary in july of 2009. and so they continue to plow forward thinking somehow this was going to, again, they were going to be able to salvage this program, making out a way to make work. august and september of 2009, the actuary again says as upping, i continue to be convinced the class proposal is not actuarially sound. that was the expert advice given to the veterans administration e administration about this proposal yet they plowed head and they added it to the health care bill april tsunamiing it would offset the cost of that legislation. at the time many might have colleagues on the floor talked about what a great program it was, and how it all was going was going to pay off and would all balance out.

we had people say it was a critical program, a breakthrough program, a bin win-win. we had democrats come here and talk about the virtues of this program i believe knowing full well there were questions about it. now, having said that there was a pig -- a big push to pass health care reform and as a consequence this reform was included notwithstanding our efforts to repeal or strike it at the time. so we went forward. well, here we are 18, 19 months later and full provision of the enact this does not pencil out, does not add up, the math flat doesn't work. so where do we go from here? well, in my view what we ought to be doing is repealing this bill which is why it seems mistifying to me that the administration is now suggesting that if congress were to repeal the class act that we veto the repeal bill. and, you know, you've got all this -- all this actuarial

data, all these statements, all this analysis that's been done that demonstrates the very point we were making at the initial consideration of this and that is that it just wasn't going to work. and so i would hope and i would invite my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle to join me in the effort to repeal this legislation. i introduced a bill along with senator graham back in april of this year that would repeal the class act, it has 32 cosponsors, i hope we get enough cosponsors in the senate to where we can put an end to this thing once and for all. so we're going to be looking for opportunities to do that in the weeks and the months ahead because as i said, madam president, this is something that clearly does not work, it has now not only has all the arguments being made at the time prior to its passage but subsequent to its passage all the analysis that's now been done comes to the same conclusion and that is the numbers just don't a add up. what does that mean for the future of long-term care?

i submit there are other things we should do. this isn't an issue that's going to go away. more people are living longer in this country, long-term care is a very serious issue. but going about it trying to fix it in a way that would burden future generations with more and more mountains of debt, pile on their backs the cost of this thing over time is the wrong way to go about it and that's can exactly precisely what this particular approach what would do. we've had many discussions about various remedies for the long-term care issue, we will continue to put our ideas forward in hopes that we capital address it as part of some bill that would take a look and examine these issues but do it in a way that is fiscally responsibility, that is fiscally sound, actuarially sound daunt create the -- doesn't create the massive amount of borrowing and massive amount of debt and put in place a flawed program we now at its inception was not going to work. so, madam president, i hope that we will put an end to this

thing, that we can get colleagues on both sides to agree to that, that we'll be able to add cosponsors to that piece of legislation and look for the first opportunity to repeal this legislation and make sure that we end it once and for all knowing full well that this was an ill-conceived and ultimately would be a failed program. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate for up to 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you. i'm here as we debate h.r. 2112, the, to address a particular provision that in my view is a provision that needs to be addressed within this bill. i also hope to have the opportunity to later today to offer an amendment regarding the watershed rehabilitation program and to allocate some additional funds for that program and hope

to have the chance to speak during the debate on this bill on the proposed school lunch regulations that the senator from maine has so appropriately addressed previously. but at this time i'd like to turn attention to a problem with the pending legislation and that is its failure to address the proposed rules titled implement aches of the title 11, the food conservation energy act of 2008, conduct in violation of the act commonly known as the gipsa rule. this proposed rule has the potential to adversely affect livestock producers in my state and around the country as well as consumers of meat products. the house included a funding limitation in -- on implementation of this rule in its appropriation bill. that is not included in the senate version of the bill. i am a member of the agricultural appropriation subcommittee and believe that in this case the house is correct.

initially this rule that the department of agriculture is proposing grew out of the 2008 farm bill as a member of the house of representatives back then i was a member of that conference fee committee that developed that farm bill, and it directed the department of agriculture to issue regulations in five very discrete areas. in june of 2010 the department of agriculture responded with the issuance of its proposed gmp ipsa regulations that clearly went way beyond the mandate of that 2008 farm bill and under -- and way beyond the department of agriculture's authority under the packers and stockyards act. the gipsa rule as written is can exactly the type of burdensome regulation that was the focus of our president's january 18 executive order. in addition to the executive order the president promised to have a transparent and open administration in regard to the development of rules.

unfortunately, the process surrounding the gipsa rule has been far from transparent. this rule was proposed with zero, zero economic analysis from the department despite the major impacts it could have on the agricultural economy. for months usda denied this to be an economically significant rule until multiple private studies showed and overwhelming coment from agriculture producers and others like those in my home state of kansas finally convinced this usda this rule would indeed have a significant impact and private analysis indicated that these gipsa regulations would cost the u.s. meat and poultry industry nearly a billion dollars. so under the pressure the department of agriculture is now conducting this economic analysis. while i certainly welcome that economic analysis i am very concerned about whether this

analysis will be made public before a final rule is announced and whether the public will be able to comment and able to analyze and comes on the data and the methodology of -- used by usda to complete that study. in fact, i've asked the secretary of agriculture in our hearing, in appropriation designee hearing if he would release that economic analysis before the comment period concluded or after the analysis is complete so people can make comments based upon what the economic analysis nonstraits and in my view the secretary failed on a number of occasions to answer that question and give me the commitment the process will be open and transparent and a comment period will occur. i sincerely believe it's incumbent on this congress to exercise its oversight discretion and direct the necessary transparency that the usda has not provided.

the public must be allowed time to study the method yolg and we need to make sure we get these rules right if we're going to get them implemented. it would be irresponsibility -- irresponsible to adjust not just negative economic impacts determined by their own economic analysis. the house, the usda should be delayed from going forward until it can limit itself to five areas set forth in the farm bill, its congressional authority, and until public comments can occur regarding that economic analysis. we ought not have a final rule without the benefit of the economic analysis, the department of agriculture should not just be going through the motions because there was insistence that economic analysis occurred. we need to be able to mitigate any negative impacts we learn from that economic analysis and so, madam president, i appreciate the opportunity at

this point in the day to address an issue that is appropriate as we discuss the agricultural are appropriation bill throughout today, and i look forward to being back on the floor later today to offer an amendment to that bill regarding watershed rehabilitation and also at that time to speak in regard to somewhat i view as some crazy ideas that are proposed, school lunch program regulations. and i thank the president of the senate for the opportunity to speak. a senator: ,madam president. is. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: today i rise to remember the tenth anniversary of the anthrax attacks on our country. during the weeks following the terrorist attacks of

september 11, 2011, our nation was exposed to chemical warfare for the first time. two anthrax attacks were delivered through our country's postal system. the first set of letters was mailed to media outlets, including abc, cbs, nbc, the ""national enquirer ""and the "new york post" in september. two weeks later, other anthrax letters were mailed to united states senators, senator daschle and senator patrick leahy. the letter to senator leahy never made it to capitol hill. the envelope addressed to senator daschle, however, was opened on october 15 in the hart senate office building in the mail room of the office i use today. emergency responders rushed to join capitol police to evacuate -- evaluate the situation and determine the extent of contamination. ten years ago this week, on october 17, 2001, the capitol

was evacuated. at that time, i was a member of the house of representatives. i remember the fear and trepidation all americans felt in the days and weeks following september 11 i -- september 11. i take this time to honor the courage of our nation's federal employees. two made the ultimate sacrifice, dying from the exposure of the deadly anthrax toxins at the postal facility that handled all the mail that came to the senate and the house offices. the united states postal workers thomas l. morris jr. and joseph p.corzine jr. gave the ultimate sacrifice after being exposed to the infected senate mail while they worked in the brentwood post office facility here in washington, d.c. mr. morris and mr. corzine were maryland residents. like so many other federal employees, they went to work every day, serving the american people and trying to earn a living for themselves and their

families. less than a week after being exposed to the deadly anthrax at the mail facility, both men died of their exposures. the brentwood postal facility which was shuttered for months while the building was disinfected now proudly bears their names, honoring two federal employees who died doing their jobs. literally thousands of other federal employees bravely went back to work, making sure our government continued to function in the most uncertain of times. while most federal workers crammed together in small make-shift office space, other brave federal employees put themselves in harm's way, trying to contain the spread of the weaponnized spores and to clean up the deadly bacteria. it has been fashionable of late to criticize the environmental protection agency, but i remind everyone that members of e.p.a.'s region three led the

emergency response efforts following the anthrax attacks. they were joined by a small army of other e.p.a. emergency responders from around the country who responded to the call for extra personnel to manage the massive deacon tam nation efforts. e.p.a.'s headquarter staffers were fully engaged as well. the e.p.a. national pesticide program worked quickly to develop new methods necessary to wipe out the anthrax. scientists worked primarily out of the annapolis' national pesticides lab which is located just 20 miles away in fort meade, maryland. it was not just e.p.a. employees who answered the call to duty. capitol police were the first ones to respond, and they continued to provide protection to legislative branch employees as well as the emergency responders and the public. the department of defense lent its expertise. as the cleanup progressed, thousands of tests were taken and then sent to fort dietrich in frederick, maryland, where

chemical weapons specialists analyzed samples and reported results to the emergency command center. defense department personnel were also engaged in the actual deacon tam -- decontamination efforts. the photos i brought to the floor today show some of these emergency responders wearing specialized protective gear, working on the decontamination of senator daschle's office. each desk, chair, filing cabinet, piece of paper in the office was removed. the last item to be removed from room 509 of the hart building was an american flag that hung in senator daschle's front office. emergency responders are seen here folding the flag before it was placed in a special sealed bag and then sent off to be decontaminated. countless employees at the sergeant of arms, the architect of the capitol, the senate and the house staffers continued to tending to the business of running our government and the

legislature. it was critical that congress continue to function, demonstrating to the nation and the world that terrorist attacks could not cripple the institution of democracy. other federal employees put themselves in harm's way during and after the anthrax attacks. these federal employees worked hard to do what many thought impossible, putting public buildings back into use after a chemical attack. at great risk to themselves, they bravely met the challenges to ensure our government continued to function. madam president, today i honor the memory of thomas l. morris jr. and joseph p. corzine jr. who gave their lives wheel engaged in public service. today i salute those federal employees who risked their own lives that the legislative branch of the greatest government on the earth could continue, and those who continue to work every day in the face of grave danger and uncertainty. and today, i simply want to give

a heartfelt thank you to all of america's federal work employees. you recognize that public service is an honorable calling, and your work every day to keep this nation the great nation it is. with that, madam president, let me once again thank our federal work force for what they do for our country, and i would yield the floor. before yielding the floor, madam president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: with that, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president.

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. udall: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. i come to the floor to talk about the most important issue facing our country and our people. that's job creation. overcoming obstacles of -- 18 months of obstacles, the senate passed by ski area recreation enhancement act that will expand opportunities in many of our mountain and and resort towns in colonel and create jobs in states like the presiding officer's new york which has a robust skiing industry like ours does as well. i want to acknowledge senators barrasso of wyoming and risch of idaho.

they've been tremendous partners both in this congress and the last one. i want to thank them up front for pushing for passage for this important piece of bipartisan legislation. our economy is showing some signs of recovery, but there is still a long way to go. and this is especially true in rural communities that are dotted all over my state of colorado. and i know that this question of job creation is on the forefront of the minds of all my colleagues. it's on the minds of coloradans wherever i am in the centennial state. and the action we took last night not only represents a major step forward in our efforts to create jobs, it's a reminder to the american people that we can work together on commonsense job-creating legislation. let me talk a little bit about the bill we passed last night. it's narrowly tailored, it's pragmatic, it's bipartisan, it doesn't cost one dime to the american taxpayers and it

reduces government regulation. while allowing businesses to create more jobs. that's i think the direction we need to head. it gives rt -- it gives greater flexibility to businesses to use public lands, facilitates outdoor recreation and ensures responsible use of our natural resources. often ski areas are located on national forest lands through the use of permits issued by the federal government have in their permits activities that are spelled out as to what is allowed. but under the law or the existing law because we're going to change the law given what we did last night, the national forest service limits key area permits primarily to nordic and alpine skiing. this is the phrase used in federal regulation. but the classification that i mentioned doesn't reflect the full spectrum of snow sports or the use of ski areas for non-winter activities. for example, madam president, the word snowboarding isn't use

in the law and we know that snowboarding now exists at every single ski area across the country. so the problem with that regulation is it's created uncertainty for both the forest service and the ski areas as to whether and how other activities, particularly those in the summer, can occur on permitted areas. so in effect ski areas on national forest lands are restricted to winter recreation as opposed to year round recreation. you only have to imagine what would happen when we open up ski areas to year round recreation. you're going to create opportunities for businesses to expand and opens for new businesses to explore previously restricted areas. colorado ski resort operators have told me they're prepared to create more jobs this year when they're given more flexibility, and colorado ski towns have said the same thing to me. it's just explain common sense. the ski area recreational

opportunity enhancement act clarifies how ski area permits can be used. it ensures that ski area permits can be used for additional snow sports such as snowboarding as well as specifically authorizing the forest service to allow additional recreational opportunities like summertime activities in these permitted areas. let me note that the authority, this expanded authority is limited. it doesn't give ski areas cart branch use of public lands. the primary activity must remain skiing or other snow sports. why? we want to preserve the unique characteristics of our world renowned mountain communities so therefore certain types of development -- water parks, amusement parks and other activities that require new and intrusive structures -- would be prohibited. rather, we envision opening up opportunities for zip lines, mountain bike terrain parks, frisbee golf courses and

activities that are similar. and as i mentioned, not only would the increased economic activities create new jobs, the skiers tell me it would help recruit more americans for jobs that currently going to foreign visaholders. many coloradans would love to work year round in and around our mountain communities, but they're forced to take other jobs that can assure -- ensure them year-round employment. scently our ski areas at any rate often recruit visaholdors run the lifts, and cover the winter months because they oftentimes can't recruit locals for such short-term employment. so in effect this bill that we passed last night will help create year-round demand in our mountain communities and provide the year-round employment that coloradans need. so this is a win-win situation. and for those who are in a job because of this bill, it will be a very welcome news from a

congress that they see as increasingly ineffective and disengaged. as i've implied and said already, madam president, i represent a state where the use and enunemployment of the out-of-doors is who we are. it's why we live in colorado. could you say it's in our blood, but it's also in our wallets. tourism and outdoor recreation is the number-one economic driver for our state. activities like hiking, skiing, shootings and angling contribute over $10 billion a year to our economy, supporting over 100,000 jobs. and generating $500 million in state tax revenues. it's not limited to colorado. the outdoor industry foundation found that outdoor recreation activities at over 7 -- add over $730 billion to the national economy every year. in fact, during this time of the economic uncertainty, outdoor recreation and tourism

are two very bright spots in our economy. and perhaps most importantly, this is an area of our economy that continues to grow. it's grown by more than 6% in just 2011. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. udall: if i might i would ask an additional minute and ask the remainder of my remarks be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: madam president, this is what's most important to note, that the outdoor recreation industry is 35 -- a part of our economy across our country and there is very significant growth occurring. and i want to end on this note: this is an important achievement because we've been tied up here in partisan knots. we showed last night we could actually do something on behalf of the american people that will help create jobs and i want to particularly acknowledge the staff who worked so hard on this piece of legislation. scott miller, a long-time

staffer on the energy and natural resources committee, worked tirelessly on that, as did a former staff member of mine, doug young, who now works for the governor of colorado. we began this work in the united states house of representatives where the presiding officer and i both served competitive want to thank also in a special fashion wendy adams and stan slaws who have persevered time and time again as bee fought through procedural holds and other setbacks. the economic challenge still faces our country, but this is a positive step forward. i thank all my colleagues for supporting me in this effort. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2112 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 155, h.r. 2112, an act making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and

related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until noon will be equally divided between the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, and the senator from california, mrs. boxer, or their designees. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent the final 10 minutes of debate prior to noon on the mccain amendment number 739 be equally divided between senator mccain and myself or our designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: to lead us off on this very important amendment and to explain why it's important to not support the mccain amendment is a -- is a senior member of the environmental public works committee, and a great member of that committee and a great supporter of the environment and transportation, senator cardin of maryland. i yield him six minutes. mr. cardin: madam president. the presiding officer: the

senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me thank mrs. boxer for her works on the environment and public works committee. she has stood up for legislation to allow to us rebuild our infrastructure in this country, to create jobs and make america competitive. i rise today to oppose the mccain amendment and let me give you three reasons why. first, jobs. second, the transportation enhancement programs help our traveling public, it's what they want and what they need. and third, there's a safety issue. first on jobs let me point out the transportation enhancement program represents 1.5% of the annual federal service transportation funds, 1.5%. a relatively small amount of money on the total bye. but it's -- pie. but it's interesting the programs yield more jobs per dollar spent than do funds that are used for the traditional transportation programs.

so on a jobs basis we actually get more jobs from a lot of the projects that are in the transportation enhancement program. secondly, let me just talk about the type of programs we're talking about. we're talking about bicycle paths, we're talking about when we, be when you're traveling on a road an you have a pull-off that you can safely view the scenery. it's these types of projects that we're talking about that could be jeopardized by the mccain amendment. i know my colleague from alaska talked yesterday about the safety issue but let me yunt underscore that. today more accidents are caused from our pedestrians and our bicyclists are on the rise. they're -- there are an increased number of fatalities related to bicyclists and pedestrians. 14% of the roadway fatalities involved pedestrians or cyclists and two-thirds occur on federal highways. accidents with pedestrians

result in far more serious injuries. while motorists fatalities are on the decline, pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are on the rise. when you have a pull-off where someone can pull their car off to look at the vista, that's the way it should be. in my home state of maryland we are constructing the harriet tubman scenic byway so people can see first hand where harriet tubman operated the underground railroad. these are roads which are narrow and we have a lot of commercial traffic as well as people who just want to look at the scenes. the state of maryland should have the flexibility of using these transportation enhancement funds in order to do what the traveling public wants them to do, and that is to provide a safe experience for the motorists to be able to enjoy our transportation highways. that's what the transportation enhancement program allows our states to be able to do.

the mccain amendment would jeopardize those funds. so, madam president, the transportation enhancement program offers flexibilities to our states to be able to provide the whole array of transportation options. it's a very small part of the overall transportation budget. it provides those enhancements that the traveling public wants and needs. it creates jobs and it allows for greater public safety. so for all those reasons i would urge my colleagues to reject the mccain amendment. and with that, madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland.

mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that during this debate that all time alapse during a quorum call be equally charged to both sides of the debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: with that i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i yield myself such time as we might consume. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mrs. boxer: i ask that be dispensed with. madam president, the transportation enhancement program that the mccain amendment would essentially cripple was established in 1991 in a bipartisan transportation bill signed by president george h.w. bush, and it has been continued in subsequent bipartisan transportation bills which passed in 1998 and 2005, and this program benefits all americans by making significant investments in safety, helping

to reduce congestion, expanding transportation choices and it strengthens local economy, provides jobs, protects the environment, and this amendment eliminates seven of the activities eligible under the transportation enhancements program, and it prevents any funds from being spent on those activities. now, here's the thing about the t.e. program, transportation enhancements program. there are things in it we need to reform. and senator inhofe and i, along with senators vitter and baucus, are working very hard, and we have a bill, a bipartisan bill that, madam president, you're a proud member of our committee, we're going to mark up that bill very soon. so yes, it needs reform, but this took a meat ax to a program that is a very important program, and it would have far-reaching and unintended consequences.

by prohibiting any funds to be used on these activities that senator mccain singled out, this amendment actually eliminates the flexibility of our states and preeivets them from spending funds on activities which are necessary to construct and maintain our highway system. so even setting aside the loss of jobs that would occur as a result of the mccain amendment, let me tell you the other unintended consequences. but maybe senator mccain intended that there be fewer jobs, but i'm assuming he didn't intend, for example, this kind of a situation. in the case of historic bridges, a bridge could be deficient, but under this amendment, we couldn't fund a rehabilitation project because the bridge is historic, because he says you

can't spend any money on historic sites, a regular fix to a bridge that happens to be historic would not take place. now, i just happened to finish a book that, madam president, i strongly recommend -- "the great bridge." the building of the brooklyn bridge. what a story david mccullough tells. under the mccain amendment, they could no longer get funds. that's the unintended consequence, because it is historic. so even though it is probably one of the heaviest traveled bridges -- and you could attest to that -- in our nation, imagine this amendment which would not allow bridges such as this to get funded. it is a poorly drafted amendment. i don't know. maybe this was intended. i can't imagine it was intended, but this is the truth.

this is what would happen. you also have in this amendment a prohibition on the use of funds for landscaping, which is necessary to complete any federal aid highway project in order to prevent erosion along a highway. so i happen to be a person that believes when you do a project, it ought to look good, it ought to make people feel good, and landscaping is important, and it creates jobs and it cleans the air, okay, but setting all of that aside, it's a safety question because a lot of times those plants will hold the soil in place and stop erosion when we have strong and heavy rains. now, yesterday, our friend from alaska, senator begich, mentioned the seward highway outside of anchorage and how scenic overlooks were added to provide a safe place for tourists to pull over. under the mccain amendment, as i understand it, you couldn't spend money on scenic outlooks. but let me tell you, in the case

of this particular scenic outlook, it was necessary for safety because people were so inspired before the scenic outlook, they would just pull over in a dangerous way, have no place to go, and it was not good for safety. now, i want to talk about the transportation enhancements program in senator mccain's state of arizona. the demand is so strong from arizona for these funds that arizona submitted three times what they were actually able to get under the transportation enhancement programs. for example, in 2006, 72 applications requested $31 million in local projects, in local project t.e. funding, but only $11 million was awarded to 24 projects. in safford, arizona, t.e. funds are being used to improve five intersections and the

surrounding streetscapes along main street to provide safer means of travel for pedestrians. according to the city of safford, in arizona, this project provides a viable transportation component dedicated to pedestrian safety within the increased vehicle on main street. this downtown project to improve safety, mobility and commerce was supported by the town of thatcher, the safford downtown association and the graham county chamber of commerce. so again, we have a situation here where i believe this amendment has very adverse consequences to our local people, to our states. right now, the way t.e. is in our bill, the old bill, it's really up to the states whether they want to do this. no one can force them to spend the money on this. they have the flexibility.

so now seven ways of using these funds would be taken away from the states. so let's not -- let's be clear on it. this is a state decision how they spend this money. they don't have to take this money. they make the decision themselves. and this amendment would take away that ability. now, there's also a prohibition on controlling outdoor advertising in the mccain amendment, so that means if a state wanted to remove outdoor advertising, they couldn't use any federal funds to do it, and they couldn't effectively control their advertising, which is required under current law. so again, they are supposed to control outdoor advertising, but the funds would not get to them to do that. and i think if you ask the average person, they want their local people to have control over these things. and so we need to defeat the

mccain amendment or table the mccain amendment. my friend from arizona also is telling you that 10% of surface transportation funding goes to transportation enhancements. that is not correct. the transportation enhancement program represents a tiny fraction of the federal highway program, about 2%, not 10%, as my colleague john mccain said. furthermore, the seven activities prohibited by the amendment have represented less than 1% of the entire federal highway program. this amendment is making a dramatic and a sweeping policy change in what should otherwise be a clean appropriations bill. it represents an issue that we have been discussing at the -- in the e.p.w. committee for quite some time in the context of a multiyear surface transportation reauthorization bill, which as i said at the outset is the proper vehicle for such a policy change. i thought we had decided as a

united states senate, republicans and democrats, that we shouldn't legislate on these bills. you know, senator mccain doesn't like seven things in the compassion enhancement program. maybe i don't like two things, or senator gillibrand may not like four things. well, it's not up to one colleague to stand here and decide without any hearings or any discussion, you know, what they don't like in a particular bill. i just -- i -- i don't think that's the way we should legislate, especially since the t.e. program is run by the states. we make the funds available, they decide whether they want the funds for those activities. they don't have to do it, they don't have to take the funds, they don't have to do any of the eligible projects.

so it really at the moment has a lot of flexibility built in, and as we reform in the next bill, we'll look at some of the areas where we think we can make this a better program. and believe me when i tell you that senator inhofe and i have been working very closely on this, along with senator vitter and baucus, so we think we're going to have a very good reform t.e. program. this is not the place to -- to change a program that our states really like. they like it because it's flexible. they like it because it has a number of ways they can use the funding. so we're going to have a bill that's called map 21. stands for moving ahead for progress in the 21st century. it's going to have a lot of reforms in it. it's going to consolidate a lot of programs. it's going to be, i think, a bill that most of us can really embrace and be happy with.

and it's going to have a reform t.e. program. and that's the way to do this. there will be significant reforms. but it isn't right, in my view, and we'll see how the vote goes, for one senator to say i don't like seven things that are in this potpourri of things that you can use t.e. for, so i'm saying you can't do it, you can't use the funds. it's just -- it's just not right. and i pointed out how this is worded in such a fashion that bridges like the brooklyn bridge and other historic bridges could lose all their funding as a result of the way this is drafted. so let's turn away from this mccain amendment. you know, we know what works around here, and what works around here is bipartisan cooperation, coordination.

i see the senator from texas, senator hutchison here. she works so closely with senator rockefeller. i'll tell you what that means. that means that we have wonderful progress in the commerce committee, which we would never have. senator inhofe and i work very closely in e.p.w., and everyone kind of smiles about it because they know on the environment side, we don't work closely. that's true. we know that. he thinks global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the american people. i think it's happening, it's real. so we know we don't see eo eye on that and we've decided that that's just a fact. so we don't engage in long arguments about it. we just pursue our agendas and we try to get the votes. but on infrastructure, you know he's one of the most conservative, i'm one of the most liberal members here and

the fact is there's really no daylight between us on infrastructure because he believes that's one of the major functions of our government, and i do, too. and it makes a lot of sense. i want to note the mccain amendment is opposed by the national association of counties, the american association of state highway transportation officials, the national league of cities, the national trust for historic preservation and the u.s. travel association. ladies and gentlemen, america does not support this amendment. this is a group of bipartisan organizations here, i mean when you look at the national association of counties, i started as a county supervisor, you have republicans, democrats, independents, everything in between. highway transportation officials, completely nonpartisan. national league of cities, we have republicans and democratic mayors and councils. national trust for historic

preservation, again, a mixture of different views and the u.s. travel association. i mean i don't know how that breaks down but it certainly is a bipartisan. please, i hope people will turn away from the mccain amendment. it's really -- it's not good for jobs, it's going to hurt jobs, it's going to have the unintended consequences of not allowing to us fix some of our most deficient bridges, and it goes against really the people we're supposed to represent here. the people out there on the ground, county officials, state highway transportation officials, our city officials, and those who work so hard to preserve the history of this greatest nation in the world. we can't turn our backs on historic preservation. otherwise we don't know, you know, what our past was. you know, i can't tell you how many mistakes were made in california where in the early

years we didn't realize what we were losing, what people would give back to get back some of those old courthouses that were torn down. i can't tell you. from the 1800's. and they could have been, you know, fixed up but people didn't have the foresight. this mccain amendment would do real -- real damage, and the u.s. travel association, you know, we're talking here about our small businesses, we're talking here about people who work in recreation, in airline travel. they don't want to see this happen, this mccain amendment. so i -- i'm april tsunamiing senator mccain will be here, we've reserved the last ten minutes before noon and at this point i think i've said all i can say to persuade my colleagues who i hope are listening in their offices that they should turn -- turn away from the mccain amendment. with that, i would yield the floor and i would note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i presume we're in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. coburn: i ask for the suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i'd like to speak in regards to senate amendment number 739, that is senator mccain's amendment. senator mccain has been very careful with this amendment to make sure in terms of enhancements that he excluded those things that were most important to a lot of people in this country in terms of alternate transportation. this amendment, which limits the expenditures, mandatory expenditures on enhancements of the highway trust fund money, does not include -- in other words, it would not prohibit funding for bicycle paths or

pedestrian and bicycle facilities, pedestrian and bicycle safety and education activities, the conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails for either trails or bicycle paths, it would not prohibit funding for environmental mitigation of highway run-off pollution, reduced vehicle-caused wildlife mortality, maintain habitat connectivity and it would not prevent funding for the action six -- acquisition of scenic easements or historic sites. i think senator cardin might have related something other than that and i wanted to claire thai phi that for my colleague who cannot be -- clarify that for my colleague who cannot be here. what a lot of americans don't realize is we have several hundred thousand bridges in our country that are subdisarnd -- substandard, in disrepair or at great risk for those who travel over them every year. and by manning that 10% of

highway funds have to be spent on nonhighway needs at a time when our country is running massive deficits, has almost $15 trillion worth of debt, as a matter of fact we're in excess of $15 trillion worth of debt right now, that we should make sure that we only apply those enhancements to the things that are most specifically needed. we do have a commitment in the future from senator boxer and senator inhofe that we will have some flexibility with enhancements in the future on the next highway bill. what senator mccain is trying to do here i think will legitimize that and certainly does not harm the purpose of that. so basically what senator mccain's amendment would do, funding this bill for seven of the 12 transportation enhancement activities, it would prohibit funding for scenic and historic programs,

including tourist and welcome centers. we shouldn't be building a welcome center when there is one bridge in any state that's a danger for the american people going across it. landscape and scenic beautification. those are nice things but, you know, when you're down to making hard choices about the things that are most important, that is not one of them. historic preservation, we can't -- we cannot have that as a priority now. rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities. we should not in fact spend that money on archaeological planning and research when in fact we have dangerous bridges that people are coming across every day. finally, although transportation museums are great, that can't be a priority today when we're borrowing $13 trillion every year just to

keep the transportation trust fund at a level that will not allow us to increase the level at which we resolve these difficult bridges, we can't continue to borrow that $13 trillion. so so this is a commonsense amendment. it is a modification of what i have a offered in the past. it is a smarter amendment of it is a better amendment. it still allows the bicycle community and the enhancement associated with that to continue. i would remind my colleagues, the federal highway administration obligated $3.7 billion in enhancement funds for 10,857 projects between 2004 and 2008. that included $850 billion -- $1 billion -- for scenic beautification and landscaping.

that $1 billion could have fixed well over 5,000 bridges that are dangerous today. 2 $$224 million on projects to rehabilitate and operate transportation buildings. another 2,500 bridges could have been fixed for that. and $28 million to establish 55 separate transportatioaccept to5 transportation museums. it is about ordering our priorities, and if there's anything we've not done a good job at in congress over the last 10 or 15 years is making hard choices about what is a priority and what isn't. and i would just tell you, i think the vast majority of americans would think the safety of the bridges they drive across is more important than any of these things that senator mccain is saying we're going

to limit in this bill. there's 604,000 bridges in the united states in 2010. 24% of them are deficient. this includes 69,000 that are structurally deficient. in other words, they have significant deterioration and they have had to have load-reduction carrying capacity limitations placed upon them. 77,410 bridges are functionally 0 obsolete. they don't meet the criteria of design standards. these figures expose misplaced priorities of congress. we need to fix it and i am in support of the mccain amendment and would yield back my time at this time and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ion.

mr. mccain: you know, this amendment is about white squirrel sanctuaries museums, roadside landscaping, lincoln highway roadside museum, antique bike collections -- my favorite, national corvette simulator theater. i'm going to try to go to that one, since my first purchase as a young naval officer was a wonderful corvette that i remember with great affection. so i'd like to go back into their simulator theater. and then, of course, wildlife

ecopackages -- passages. we've got some great pictures here of some of the things. i think the squirrel sank washery is good -- i think the squirrel sanctuary is good, but one of my favorite is the roadside museum featuring a giant coffee pot. and you know we've got some fun stuff really. 60 antique bikes for a a bicycle museum. they paid $440,000 for that -- for 60 antique bikes for a bicycle museum. now, again, i think bicycle museums are really nice, but, you know, it's also a fact that more people travel over deficient bridges every day -- that's 210 million people --

than go to mcdonald's. so we have these projects here, and obviously, full disclosure, we picked some of the more interesting and exciting ones to get our colleagues' attention. but the fact is that we have deficient brinls, we have highways that need -- we have deficient bridges, we have highways that need repair. so what i'm trying to say is, let the states decide their priorities. do not force the states to set aside 10% of their funding for these so-called transportation enhancement activities. if they want to have enhancement activities -- and we do -- and we do; i'm so pleased driving through phoenix and tucson to see the bouganvilla and the cactus that have been put in which have been very helpful.

but those decisions on those state highways were made by the state of arizona and the cities and the counties. instead, we have forced every state in america to use 10% of their taxpayers' dollars, which are in the form of gasoline taxes, which were originally put in to build a national highway system in america under the eisenhower administration, that they pay -- they pay. and so, at the same time, we have a situation such as the deputy director in southern nevada of the nevada department of transportation. he was quoted as saying -- quote -- "it's really getting out of

hand to where these pots of money have those constraints associated with them, and you can't spend money where you want to." that's what this is all about. this is a fundamental philosophical difference that we have about where taxpayers' dollars should go and who decides. that's what this amendment is about. i want the mayor of phoenix to decide where the money goes. i want the department of transportation in arizona to decide where the money is best spent. and so we shouldn't be forcing people to spend money on things that are not necessary anymore. i think a squirrel -- i think that the squirrel -- white

squirrel sanctuary is probably an important thing, and squirrel lovers all over america are overjoyed, but who loves this boulder? really. $498,750 to beautify an interchange with decorative rocks? well -- and, it's not as if this money is spent in a hav vacuum. it really is that we have to set priorities. and i'd like for the states to set those priorities rather than it be mandated by some provision enacted here in the united states senate, which really does not have a good handle on what those states' priorities are. i note the presence of the senator from washington who would like to use a few minutes in opposition to the amendment, and i look forward to hearing her eloquent opposition.

maybe she'll change my mind. i yield to the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. m.f.n. madam president, i would very much like to thank the -- mrs. murray: madam president, i would very much like to thank the senator for yielding me some time and will take a couple minutes to speak in opposition in the mccain amendment number 739. now, i pwhraoeft intent to my colleague is to use the communities across the nation use for path pedestrian improvements that separate vehicles from wildlife. i believe communities should determine that for themselves, as they have done for decades. how to use those funds and that the proper place for updating these laws would be in the reauthorization process. so i oppose the amendment on those grounds alone. however, the amendment goes much further than that. it actually prohibits the use of funds in the entire division c. that is the transportation, housing and urban development

act for any landscaping anding preservation. this impacts not only the department of transportation but also h.u.d. in particular, it would prohibit cities and towns from aougs their c.d. -- using their cdbg dollars for historic preservation, basic landscaping or streetskaeupg activities. prohibits the use of funds for restoration of historic transportation facilities. madam president, that would cripple amtrak. there are over 126 stations that amtrak services in 41 states that are on a national register of historic places. under this amendment, amtrak would not be able to operate or rehabilitate any of them. amtrak could not make any improvements to stations to comply with access requirements or persons with disabilities

under the americans with disabilities act. and amtrak could not even operate in union station. the amendment would also prohibit the structural preservation or rehabilitation of historic bridges such as the brooklyn bridges or other covered bridges in the northeast. so, madam president, this amendment goes too far, and it is not appropriate for the transportation, housing and appropriations bill that we are currently considering. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the mccain amendment. again, i thank my colleague for yielding me time. cane -- mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i believe i heard the senator from washington say it would prohibit activities by amtrak. i know of nothing in this page and a quarter amendment that would in any way affect amtrak

or the brooklyn bridge. in fact, i would like the money to be used to prepare -- repair bridges because there are so many thousands of bridges in the country -- there 146,643 deficient bridges in this country. i would hope the senator from washington would agree with me that this money, deficient bridges arrest threat and a danger -- bridges are a threat and a danger. i believe it was the state of washington where one collapsed, as i call. you can distort this amendment if you want to. you can say that it would be the end of western civilization as we know it. you can say that this will cause irreparable harm and damage. it doesn't, my friends. it doesn't. it just says none of the amounts

would be for scenic or historic highways and welcome centers. we're not prohibiting these things from being built. if the states want to build them, counties want to build them, cities want to build them, let them do it. let them do t. but right now we're mandating 10% of the money they get go to certain purposes which results in this outcome. so, i say with respect to my colleagues in -- that are opposing this amendment, if you'd like to amend the amendment so that it doesn't have the draconian effects that are predicted here, i'd be more than happy to amend the amendment to make sure that doesn't happen. what i'm trying to say here and what this amendment clearly says in its ten lines on the front and four lines on the back, that we just think that these things

are unnecessary in light of the fact that we have so much infrastructure in need of repair. so, again, i had no contemplation that the, that civilization would be affected so terribly by such an amendment which would try to give the director of transportation in southern nevada be able to say -- quote -- "it's really getting out of hand to where these spots of money have these constraints associated with them, and you can't spend money where you want to." that's what this amendment is all about, my friends. i have been engaged in many debates on the floor of the senate on various amendments. but to construe this very short amendment as somehow inhibiting

or harmful to the work that needs to be done is obviously, in my view, fairly transparent and certainly not applicable to this amendment. so how much toeupl do i have remaining -- how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: 3 minutes, 23 seconds. mr. mccain: senator inhofe would like to use that time, i'd be happy to use. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: it's my understanding the last ten minutes would be equally divided. but perhaps the senator from arizona has already used maybe two of those minutes. is that correct? i just want to be recognized -- the presiding officer: correct. mr. inhofe: -- say for six minutes, is that all right? in opposition. the presiding officer: is this in addition to your existing three minutes. mr. inhofe: say that again. the presiding officer: in addition to your five minutes that were allocated. a total of 11 minutes of debate?

mr. inhofe: i don't know. well, let me just clarify this t. doesn't make a difference to the senator from arizona or to me how much time i have. i need to have five minutes to clarify a couple of things. the presiding officer:. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. boxer: madam president, i'm happy to yield my five minutes to senator inhofe at the appropriate point. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i think the appropriate time is here. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: thank you very much. first of all, i disagree with the senator from washington for a different reason than the senator from arizona disagrees with her. she says it doesn't go far enough. i think his amendment goes too far. not just not far enough, but too far. and i think it's very important that people understand. let me talk to the conservatives. let me talk to the republicans because this thing is certainly misunderstood.

it wasn't drafted the way to carry out the intent of the senator from arizona, i'm quite sure. this amendment doesn't eliminate the mandate that states have to spend 10% of their surface transportation funds on transportation enhancements. for clarification purposes, the 10% really is not represented properly. it really should be 2%. it's 2% of the state's total highway program. that happens to equal 10% of the surface transportation program. let's use 10%. there are currently 11 written into law, 11 eligible transportation enhancement activities. these 11 -- there's not room to put them all up but sit that chart up. what the senator from arizona is saying is you still have to spend the 10% of the money, of your surface transportation money on transportation enhancements. but he's saying the states have to use it on his, his transportation enhancements. those are the bike and pedestrian facilities.

the bike and pedestrian safety. rails to trails -- that's another bike -- the pwaoeurbgs are going to be -- bikers are going to be very happy with this. they are the only ones coming out ahead should this thing be passed. then environmental mitigation. environmental mitigation, in our law is restricted specifically to wildlife, bridges and tunnels and storm water runoff enhancements. storm water runoff is taken care of anyway. these are the enhancements. wh we're saying is -- what we're saying is or what this amendment is saying, we're going to have to spend this 10% on bicycles and on various types of wildlife, bridges and tunnels so that the turtles can get under the highways and not get run over. and that is not what i know that the senator from arizona wants. in other words, we are taking the flexibility away from the

cities, away from the states and saying to them you've got to spend your 10%, and you've got to spend it on these four things. i just would suggest to you that in my state of oklahoma, this is not the four things that we would want to spend it on. i come down here all the time, and this mentality that we have in washington, no idea is a good idea unless it comes from washington. well, in my state of oklahoma, we have a great highway program. i want them to have the latitude to decide what is really best. now, as the chairman of the environment and public works committee, senator boxer, she and i have disagreed on environmental issues tooth and nail. we fought with each other more than any two people on the floor of the senate. and she knows that i've done everything within my power to do away with all transportation enhancement requirements. i've done this. if this amendment had eliminated the mandate that states spend 10% of their surface

transportation program funds on all transportation enhancements, i philosophically would have supported it. if the mccain amendment had said that we want to do away with all transportation enhancement, sreuld philosophic -- i would have philosophically supported it. the problem with that is we would not be able to get a highway bill done. i often say i have been ranked as the most conservative member of the united states senate for probably than anyone else. but i also said i'm a big spender in two areas. number one is national defense. number two is infrastructure. that's what i think we're supposed to be doing here: roads and bridges. i'm sure my colleagues will recall during the debate on the extension of the highway bill last month senators boxer, coburn, reid and i worked out an agreement that reforms the t-pgs enhancement -- reforms the transportation enhancement program which would be included in the next highway bill that the e.p.w. committee will be marking up next month. and i hope we are marking these

up next month. these reforms would allow the states to make a determination how they want to spend their funds. if you go back to this 10%, this would increase -- the idea behind this, it would increase what we are able to do and let the states make the discretion so they can totally eliminate all enments. the states can do that. would it be allowed to use the 10% of the surface transportation funds on the various programs that are out there having to do with endangered species and the burying beetle and all that? that's where the problems really are. i don't think we should mistakenly vote for the mccain amendment and say to the people of this country that you've got to spend 10% much your surface transportation funds on these four things. again, the bikers would love it, bike trails and all that, but i don't believe that is what we should be doing here. i'll retain the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the

senator's time is expired. the senator from arizona has 2 minutes 55 seconds. mr. mccain: i see my colleague from texas on the floor. did she have -- madam president, again, the question is, what do we do with the money? obviously when taxpayers are told that with 146,633 deficient bridges in this country that we don't need to be spending them on the examples that i have provided. i hope that it is well understood that it's time we -- if those projects are felt needed by the staeupts and the county and the hrebgted officials in the states, they should be able to go ahead with them. if they don't choose to, they

should also have the right not to. it's time some of this kind of stuff stopped. i hope that people will vote and my colleagues will vote in favor of the amendment. madam president, i yield the balance of my time. mr. inhofe: i'd ask the chair how much time i have remaining. the presiding officer: no time is remaining. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that i have 30 seconds remaining. is that okay? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i only want to say i agree with everything that the senator from arizona is saying in terms of bridges. i have fought for the bridges and highways. i've tried my best to get rid of all the enhancements. all of them. but to have an amendment that says to my state of oklahoma you've still got to spend 10% of your surface transportation funds but you've got to spend it on bike trails and turtle bridges, i think it's wrong. with that, i will -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive