look around the region today, king abdullah of jordan is one of the few leaders in the region who is focused on this, cares about this, has a relationship with maasen and also has a relationship with the israeli prime minister. so i think it make sense to continue to try for the political process. what i want to suggest is even as you try for the political process, i think from an israeli standpoint it's important for them to be thinking about what are the steps that they can take that will help to validate those palestinians who are engaged in a state-building process, who believe in nonviolence, who believe in coexistence? because if you're going to have elections, they're going to compete against those who reject coexistence and who believe in violence. ..

>> so you can show, i wrote a piece on this a couple weeks ago, so when it comes to area a., maybe they're being phased up if you come up with a set of criteria that allows you to do that. area b, you increase the palestinian police presence and some other responsibilities. area c, you've done a lot of work on, and one of the things you know, this is 60% of the west bank. palestinians have very limited

access, economically in area c. for them to be more effective economically having greater access, presents economically in area c would be important. but it's not just for the economic benefit. it's also because palestinians will see that something is changing. the nature of israeli control is changing. >> it would help solidify to growing its economy, which they deliver. europeans are helping in area c now, pushing? >> yes. and i believe by the way, i think there is a potential that the israelis will see value in this, because the end of the day, you know, for those who believe in the two state outcome, if those, if palestinians who believe violence are the ones, that i think the two state outcome itself becomes put at risk. i will give a shout out to jim who is working very hard in areas he was also doing the small business round and medium-sized.

when prime minister netanyahu comes in about a month, what do you think he will say to president obama and others about, especially president obama, on iran? >> well, when i was outlining the region that these rays are looking at, i did mean to leave out that this is -- >> we knew we would get to iran, don't worry. >> this cast a major shadow everything beatriz are thinking about and doing. there's no doubt this will be a prime topic of conversation. it's interesting the president, in the interview that he gave last night, he talked about the nature of the conversations we're having with is really spooky talked about the importance of us remain in lockstep with the israelis on this issue. i think from the israeli standpoint you here at last from the prime minister and more from, a preoccupation he refers to is his own image. what he means by his immunity is

the iranians reach a point in terms of a multiplicity of their facilities, the accumulation of the low-enriched uranium, the hardening of their sites, the overall infrastructure what i'm described as both the heart and soul part of the infrastructure where, even if the israelis were to strike, militarily, that would have much of an effect. so it means there comes a point where the israeli military option disappears. and for the israelis to come in a sense, give up the military option with the uncertainty about whether or not iran is going end up having nuclear weapons or not is a big decision. now, what the israelis have also said which i think is an important point to keep in mind, and this has been a constant theme of theirs, if they are crippling sanctions they believe that will work. think about what that means. when the israelis say that, it means they judge the iranians to have a cost-benefit calculus.

they judge you can affect the a ring behavior, and to give crippling sanctions you actually can affect the arena behavior. so it suggests that there is an alternative to the use of force. and if you take a look at what i think the administration has produced, it has created a contest. the president was saying this last night but the essence of the context that has been created is a, the iran's are more isolated than ever. the best indication of that, you have a vote in the general assembly. 106-9 calling on iran. you have in the region a clear shift in the balance of power. and the kind of concern that you once saw, particularly among many arab states about being very tough with those private about iran, very reticent in public is changing. saudi arabia immediately after the european union announced that they are going to boycott

the purchase of iranian oil, saudi arabia said -- iran said that's an act. so this suggests the balance of power for a lot of reasons, not the least of which what is happening in syria, which changes i think fundamentally the perception and attitude towards iran and the region. is contribute to a change, save iran isolated internationally. every change in the balance of power against iran in the region, and you have what is the emergence to of crippling sanctions. and we know the effect that is having on the iranians in terms of their economy. their currency has lost half its value in the last six weeks. when you start talking about boycotting their oil, you know, they export 18% of their oil to europe. so you're talking about almost one-fifth of their oil. this will be a loss of revenue. look at china.

china cuts in half their purchase of oil for january and february, which may not have been done because they are trying to sort of link up with the europeans from the standpoint of the world boycott. they're not saying that, but it's also smart business when they see that, in fact, there's going to be boycott of the oil and sadly they get their own purchasing now, what they're saying is he going to sell the was you'll have to heavily discount. which means a further loss of revenue. on top of this, the chinese premier goes to the region, spends six days in the region, doesn't go to iran. go to saudi arabia, uae, kuwait. were arguably, the hardest line member when it comes to iran. [inaudible] >> exactly. and even beyond that he makes a very blunt statement against iran having nuclear weapons when he was at the. >> and when he is in saudi arabia he gets guarantees the oil flow will go there, right?

which is a thing this administration does what which was orchestrate. are you saying that there's no need for a military strike? >> what i'm saying is that context has been created for the iranians are increasingly aware the prices they're paying, and the key to the strategy all along has been concentrate their mind that way but leave them a way out. you can debate the issue whether this is going to work or not but i would say if you are going to pursue a diplomatic approach that had any chance of success, the only way you will do it is by creating just such a context. you know, i will say the prospect of inducing the iranians to giving up their pursuit of nuclear weapons was never going to work because there is nothing that you can offer them that is worth as much to them as actually having that program. that if you look historically when they have made serious tactical a judgment, it's when they're under pressure and they saw a whale. i have read supreme leader speak. he's obviously adopting a very

tough line public. i would expect nothing else. i wouldn't expect them to adopt it publicly. but the fact is they're also not talking about beating five plus one. and when the foreign minister talks with meeting the five plus one, this was the permanent five members plus germany. when he talks of meeting five plus one, he's also talking about the step-by-step approach the russian proposal, which is explicitly about their nuclear program there last year when he met in geneva and istanbul, they refuse to talk about their nuclear program. so suddenly their foreign minister is saying they will meet with a five plus one, they will, they want to talk about their step-by-step approach, the russian proposal. step-by-step approach is basically something that was raised by the five plus one in these meetings last year. so it is interesting that where as last year they wouldn't talk about their nuclear program, now they are signaling they will talk about their nuclear program. i'm not suggesting that any negotiation would be simple.

their context has been created where you have a chance for diplomacy to work. you have the kind of pressure the israelis themselves call for so that this suggests to me that, in fact, there is time to try to make the diplomacy work. >> series year, what should the u.s. be doing in? >> -- syria, what should the u.s. be doing now? >> i saw the secretary of state called yesterday for the creation of friends at citigroup, which i think is the right thing to be doing. if i take a step back i think what the veto on saturday dramatically undercuts i think the effort right now to try to reduce transition answered but i think if you look within syria right now, aside is operating on the premise with at least the constituencies that so support him where he says we can outlast

this because basically we have an insurance policy. that insurance policy is provided by the russian. that insurance policy ensures there will be a kind of intervention. it ensures it's a limit as to what can be done to us, and so stick with me, will be able to outlast this. i think had the russians and the chinese gone along with this resolution, i think the message within syria would've been quite different. i also think they would've had an effect on us. i don't see assad as gadhafi. i don't see assad as hiding out. you know, and somehow, you know, with no electricity -- >> no water. >> i don't see assad that way. i think if assad so the real balance of power was changing, from the outside, it would have an impact further on the inside. i think that you could see a potential change there. so in answer to your question, one of the thought.

the more you create a sense of inevitability that the changes coming, the more i think that you'll be able to affect what's going on on the inside. so i think the idea of a friends of the syrian opposition approach is right. i think it does make sense for us to do more with the syrian opposition. i understand up until now the requiring that snc to do more to demonstrate their own effectiveness was important that but i think it's also important to great incentive inevitability that the essence he is the future because i think that will have some impact on the side. squeezing sanctions, making them more effective is important, doing all we can -- >> that's hard to do with russia not cooperate. >> it is. >> what is russia's -- some grand historical thing? is it, you come autonomy? >> i think it's several things. let's put it this way. i think that on saturday and was

focus on what was going on in the streets of moscow. >> correct. >> i think putin is focused on what's going to happen on march 4. and then afterwards he's thinking about what's the kind of government is going to put together. his preoccupation is much more on the inside. now, there may be a kind of anticipation of, putin is seen as wanting always international to demonstrate russian independence. the only naval base they have in the middle east is in syria, but you'd think if you take a step back on if your rush and you want to reserve a position in syria, the way to preserve a position in syria is being on the right side of history and where this is headed. the longer you're seen as helping to prop up assad and basically what is now a killing machine, and the way to assad treated as oath was a license to unleash, you look at how many

people look at the video over the weekend. >> you mean the phone's? >> looking at artillery, looking at antiaircraft shells they used to fire into buildings. you know, the fact is the russians have a stake right now in demonstrating that they are the ones who helped to produce the transition, not, they are the ones who were intimate to it. i think actually right now it's not just the friends of the syrian opposition that should be, we should be focused on, which is important. i think we should be working very closely with the arabs right now to build up pressure on the russians because i think i will be the russians in a position where they feel increasingly uncomfortable. and the more they begin to see that the on position in the region more generally could be put at risk, look, they can't take a step back. we're talking about the arab league that put together a transition plan for syria. here's the arab league we're talking about.

this is a body that historically was primarily governed by how it could protect longer regimes, not have it could be thinking about transition. there's a reason that they've adopted this position, because all of them are more tended to their own publics. and what's going on in syria is a magnet for the public's reoccupation into something that is completely unacceptable and it is also something that again further sharpens the attitude towards the iranian and the region as hell in a class question before i opened it up. egypt and especially what's happening with the detainees, the people, why is that happening? why should we be doing?

>> it's, i know that, you know, the stats in supreme council of the air force are saying, you know, these ngos were fomenting a lot of things underground. >> but these are congressional funded iri and the national democratic -- i know you know. pic i was just about to say, i know that's what they say. i happen to know these institutions. there is no way that's what they were doing. yet, they are talking about how you can register go, how you can participate in elections, how you can develop a political agenda, how you can create an identity, how you help foster civil society at a time when the staff themselves missing their presiding over a positive transition to civil rule. and then single us out, looks

like such a throwback. you know, it is, it is a real challenge because the fact of the matter is, you know, the idea of somehow not being able to provide assistance to egypt right now when it's important for egypt is a potential problem. on the other hand, to engage in these kinds of behaviors and think that there's no consequence for them is also a real problem. >> you don't think we should be cutting off militarily what, 1.6 billion? >> i think we should. i think it's an unbelievable dilemma. i think we have to do everything we can to persuade the egyptians to find a way out of this, and a way out of it is not to pursue these prosecutions, which is, you know, indefensible. and is inconsistent with what they themselves say they want in

terms of a transition to civilian leadership. although it is interesting the muslim brotherhood seems to be supporting the prosecutions. so it raises some questions about what kinds of conversations are going on between the muslim brotherhood and the staff. you know again, i will conclude with one general vaught. the one thing that i was getting at before is you're going to have together now, you can't go back out to deliver. you're going to have expectations that you have demands. the muslim brotherhood themselves i think don't have an interest in seeing assistance cut off because they'll find it much more difficult to deliver. to have an interest in demonstrating to the world to live up up to the international obligations. we have an interest. i was just in europe last week and i was speaking in a lot of different places there, the value of us creating a mantra that we repeat internationally. it should not just because, that

focuses on accountability standards. that conceives into the bloodstream throughout the region but certainly in egypt. you know, you have to have a space for continuing competition. you have to have elections that are repeatable project of freedom of speech and assembly project respect minority rights. you know, you don't criminalize the private sector. we need to be repeating these because in a sense you will find that the public will then hold, whoever is seeking to govern, to those standards. >> somewhat strange in this context. the countries to whom we give the most assistance, whether it be pakistan, egypt and even israel, we seem to have the toughest time having influence when we really need it. so i don't know what that since. yes, and ted, i will start with you but will you both introduce yourself, pushed the red buttons our friends at c-span --

>> ted. i wanted to ask, you indicated that it would probably be in israel's rational self-interest to bolster the palestinian authority at this time, but yet there was a major prisoner release that has given, as you know, hamas tremendous credibility. and i've never been particularly impressed by the measures that the israeli government has taken, have taken to bolster the palestinian authority when everybody agrees that the most nonviolent, most rational group of leaders ever. is it not possible that given the extreme right wing nature of the coalition government in israel that it is essentially a tacit understanding between tomas, hard lines, i don't mean nothing overt, sadly groups and the like, the time each side

leaving time is on their side, and would referring that the extremists be in the driver's seat, or at least be very influential? >> i don't think so, ted. i think the deal was not done to validate hamas. it had that effect. it was done, there was a fear that they might lose the opportunity to get it back. and the israeli government and the israeli military has a comeback with every other citizens, you know, everybody goes in middle to come you go in at the end if something happens they will do everything that it takes to get you back. so, i think that explains the deal but the fact is it had a validating effect on the hamas narrative which is one of the reasons i am suggesting if you're going to have a lesson this year and a step was taken, though not by design but having done by consequence, validate

that narrative come you need to take steps to validate the other narrative. i don't think that there's even a tacit passionate this government does not want to bolster hamas and they have done i think i mean, he got a representative of the israelis sitting here they would say they did a great deal to enhance. the reason the economy has done a lot better is because the israelis have done a lot to ease a lot of the restriction, ease the mobility to make that possible. what i'm suggesting is to take a step further. what i'm suggesting is when you look at people like find out, his critics say he makes occupation palpable. and i would say no, he is ask of someone who's going to make the occupation and. and so what i want to see our steps that show the occupation is actually shrink as what a validating, people like fayyad,

also -- because he has been the embodiment of nonviolence. i mean, israelis have their differences, i think part of the problems, what i didn't say before an interview question, water, we have a major psychological gap between the two sides, particularly the leaders. mahmoud abbas believes why even try to get into negotiations. but he also feels he interpreted the deal as something designed, prime minister or netanyahu looks at mahmoud abbas and says you impose conditions on the that you impose on under my predecessor predecessors prepared to talk a lot of israelis but not to me. so it looks like your costly trying to discredit me and delegitimize uzbek you embark internationally on an approach that is designed to isolate israel. and so each of them have sort of cemented psychologically their view of the other in a way that

they see as substance. and it's very hard to break through that and i was in before that the jordanians are making an effort with the support of the quartet to try to break through the. it's about ever that is worth applauding him and i think has some potential, but whether it succeeds or doesn't give you help to underpin about what i'm suggesting in terms of validating, or you want something that is parallel to it regardless because if you're going to face elections, there is going to be, those elections are going to shape the future identity of the palestinians and it's important to try to think the fact that any possibly. >> christopher? we will try to get back around there. we have like 19 people already on my list. you can grab them after. chris, cbs. >> thank you, walter. dennis, i wonder if you could elaborate us of you said earlier, one should never limit one's strategic choices. and yet, that's exactly what the administration has done on syria. they've essentially taking any

military intervention off the table. secretary clinton has said ousley there'll be a footnote aptly no military intervention. do you think that is why is? >> well, i think, you know, when you're in a situation where you are, you just ended one work on your winding down another war, it's not a simple thing to suddenly start talking about another military intervention, particularly when you don't see a lot of support for it internationally. having said that, i do think, you know, there is, there are options that one has to be thinking about right now. and, you know, there was discussion at one point by the french foreign minister about humanitarian corridors. there are some who have talked about maybe safe havens for those of us remember, bosnia safe havens don't exactly

conjure up wonderful memories, but i think that it is important to signal assad that he has more to worry about, that if i'm right that this guy is not a gadhafi, and we have to think about how to build pressure on them and how do you, how do you give him a reasons to think that he has more to worry about. right now, my focus would be more on the russians because i do think the russians could be a dramatic data. i don't think the russians are real is -- real countable with the position they're in a. when the vote is 13-2, the level of international instances is quite striking. the fact and with the syrians did over the weekend is actually embarrassed the russians more. because it made it look like what they did is, the russians are the one who gave them this license to engage in behaviors that went beyond what they were even doing before. so i would try to mobilize, as i said, the errors right now to do

more on the russians, and from my standpoint is probably a better way to go at this juncture. you know, when you talk about military options, it's not like have a lot of great military options by do think we have to think about how we can increase the pressure on assad, and he shouldn't think that there are ways to end to that. >> thank you, ambassador ross. the problem with hunkered down -- settlements go unabated. what should he do over the next 12 months in hunkered down, doing nothing, and maintain the two state viability? and you believe there ought to be a back channel between the president of the united states, barack obama, and both leaders, and maybe that you could perform that task as was suggested last week? >> you can't go back. it i think administered is fully

capable of managing its own communications. i would say in answer to your question so that, you know, what the jordanians are doing right now through the preparatory talks is, in fact, trying to get to a resumption of formal negotiations. and the truth of the talks that were held, there were five talks that were held. my oppression from the jordanians is that they think in fact they were actually promising. and that real issues were being put on the table. and that the aim is actually to get to what was called for in the quartet declaration that the quartet decoration of september 23 talked about preparatory talks, the idea was they would be direct. and that was in 90 days was the preparatory talks began, that both sides would put down on the table cover his proposal on territory and security. if you have confidence of proposal on territory and

security, that allows you to get at the issues of borders. if you can resolve issues of borders you resolve the issue of settlement. it's a whole lot better to resolve the issue than do with it by stopping or limit it to me, the fact that you want to resolve, and if you actually resolve borders then you have resolved it. so, my advice would be, take, build on what the jordanians are doing, don't give up on it yet if the jordanians clearly from what i understand, they have not given up on. they think it shows promise. i would try to build on it, and if there are steps that offer you some achievements, find ways to build on them. you know, there's no, there's not a lot to be gained by always devaluing what may be possible. and i think at this point, there is something that is possible there, and i wouldn't give up on it. been equilibrated away from this

program because the senate is about to gavel in for the day where members will be in a period of morning business. that is giving general speeches until about 11:00. then they turn to debate on a surface transportation bill. expect to take a procedural vote on the motion to proceed to the bill at 2:00 eastern. our live coverage begins now of the senate here 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. god of sea, land, and sky, we worship you. guide our lawmakers today in

your straight path. lord, inspire them with insight and courage that they may walk with integrity. search their hearts and lead them away from all indirection, equivocation, and pretense, that will keep them from arriving at your desired destination. open their eyes to see opportunities in adversities, as you empower them to carve tunnels of hope through mountains of despair. we pray in your holy 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., february 9, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall , a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. the majority will control the first half. republicans will control the final half. following that morning business the senate will resume

consideration of s. 1813. at 2:00 there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to tproed that legislation. -- proceed to that legislation. we've been in consultation with the republican leader and his staff and we may have another vote this afternoon. so we may have more than one vote this afternoon. s. 2079 is due for its second reading, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2079, a bill to extend the pay limitation for members of congress and federal employees. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'll have more to say about this later, but i just received a call from secretary

donovan, secretary of housing, indicating that nevada was part of the settlement that's in all the newspapers we're reading about today. it appears at this stage nevada will get about $1.5 billion to work on our beleagured foreclosure problems we have in nevada. we've led the nation for years in foreclosures. something we're not proud of, but that's a fact. all those many, many years that we are the economic driver of states, no state did better than economically than nevada for two decades. if you wanted a job,dom nevada. -- come to nevada. you want to invest in real estate, come to nevada. because of the collapse in the housing market, we have not recovered from it yet. i commend the attorney general

from nevada, attorney general cortese masters, the work she's done as a great general, she's the one who negotiated this. i'm very proud of her and confident that the work that she did will bring dividends to the beleagured -- i repeat -- beleagured housing industry in nevada. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i have the sad duty today to share with my colleagues the story of one brave kentuckian who sacrificed his life for his

country. first lieutenant ronnie educates was killed on -- yates was killed in september 2010 at kandahar province in afghanistan after insurgents attacked his patrol with an improvised ex-whroe seive device -- explosive device. he was 26 years old. lieutenant yates received many awards it, including the afghanistan campaign medal with bronze service star, the global war on terrorism service middle, the overseas service ribbon, nato medal, combat action badge and the overseas service bar. on veterans day last year, lieutenant yates -- on veterans day last year lieutenant yates' alma mater, western kentucky university, honored him by

inducting him into his rotc hall of fame. a likeness of lieutenant yates etched in granite was unveiled and placed on the university's landmark guthrie bell tower. the history department at western kentucky university working with the yates family also established the first lieutenant eric yates memorial scholarship. we have made it our mission to make it a scholarship that will be here forever to keep eric alive in our hearts says kathy yates, eric's mother. thanks to fund-raisers and general donations, that scholarship fund now has over $20,000 in it. eric was born july 1, 1984 to, kathy and david yates and grew up on a farm in rhinnieville. a typical kid, he liked to play with toy tractors and watch cartoons. batman and power rangers were his favorites. he went through a phase where he

wore a cape all the time so he could be ready for any impending danger. eric attended rhinnieville elementary school and played baseball. on the farm the yates family grew hay and tobacco and there was work to be done clearing weeds, topping plants, cutting the tobacco and stripping it to get it ready for market. i'm thankful for that time we spent together working and talking because that's when you really get to know your children and the work ethic they developed, kathy says. one spring when eric was about ten and his little brother nathan was about six, david told his two sons they could each pick a newborn calf after their hard work stripping tobacco all winter. nathan picked out the biggest bull he could find. he could not understand why his big brother eric chose a little heifer calf. i want the gift that's going to

keep on giving, eric said. and he went on to sell the calf from that cow every year for the next 13 years. in high school, eric got his first job for butternut bread, filling the shelves in wal-mart and was elected as treasurer of his school's chapter of f.a.a. during the summer of 2001, the yates family took a vacation to our nation's capital here in washington. eric was thrilled to visit the white house, the smithsonian, arlington cemetery, the korean memorial, the vietnam memorial, robert e. lee's house and the tomb of the unknown soldier. kathy recalls how he practically taught the family a history lesson at every stop along the way. he was amazed by all of it, she says. soon after that summer trip came the events of 9/11. a junior in high school, eric

read as much about the brutal terrorist attacks on this country as he could. i had not seen anything that grabbed his attention like that fateful day, kathy remembers. it was then that eric began to think about a career in the u.s. army. after graduating from john hardin high school in 2003, eric started at elizabeth town community college, then he transferred to western kentucky university and joined the rotc program with an eye toward a military career. he hoped to return to hardin county one day after retiring from the army to teach and share his stories of military adventure. eric graduateed graduateed fromn 2008. we were so proud of him that weekend as david and i put on his gold bars at his commissioning ceremony, kathy says. after graduation, he joined the 101st airborne division and was stationed at fort campbell,

kentucky, a point of pride for eric as that was the same division his grandfather, herbert l. crown, served in. in may of 2010, eric was deployed to afghanistan with b company first battalion 502nd infantry regiment 101st airborne division. it would be his first and only deployment. we are thinking of first lieutenant yates loved ones today. mr. president, as i recount his story for my colleagues in the senate, including his parents, david and kathy yates, his brother nathan yates, his grandfather herbert l. crab and many other beloved family members and friends. eric's family learned after the tragic death that he had left behind a letter he wanted read at his funeral. his parents have gracefully shared that letter with me, and i would like to read it for my

colleagues now. eric writes as follows: "hello to everyone in attendance. i'm sorry that you all had to gather here today for this event. i really am. but since you are here, i would like to take the chance to say a few things to try to impart some of my knowledge and wisdom that i've stored up over the last 26 years. i consider myself fairly cultured and worldly, so please pay attention. i have the following advice. number one, take a chance. get out there and do something you wouldn't normally do. you will see and do some really cool stuff and meet some really fine and interesting people. once an army buddy and myself ate breakfast with a homeless man in oklahoma city, and i must say he left an impression on me. number two, watch the original star wars trilogy.

it's an amazing story. number three, no matter how old you are, get off the couch and exercise. you will look and feel so much better and have more energy and be happier. number four, read a lot of books, both fiction and nonfiction, newspapers, magazines, blogs, online stories, movie reviews. all these things will help you understand the world around you. your role in it and why what happened to me happened where and when it did. number five, save your money. you don't own your own things. your things own you. number six, liquor is better than beer. number seven, don't reject new ideas immediately. that seems to be all that i wanted to say, so thank you for

coming. please have a safe trip home and have a good life. lover rick yates." -- love eric yates." it's a great loss that first lieutenant eric yates will not have a long life himself with the people that fill that life. but i'm honored to be able to share them now with my colleagues in the united states senate. and i'm honored to stand here today and recognize lieutenant yates' heroic service and the solemn sacrifice he has made on behalf of a loving family, a proud commonwealth, and a grateful nation. mr. president, i yield the floor. 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 until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with

the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent to speak for 15 minutes in morning business. i ask that the chair please notify me when i have three minutes remaining. the presiding officer: will do so. without objection. mr. alexander: i thank the chair. mr. president, president obama in his state of the union address, and vice president biden ever since have been talking about their efforts to help students afford to go to college, which is something we're all in favor of. the president's proposal is what he calls a higher education race to the top.

it has a familiar-sounding formula, though. and in this case it's new rules and mandates and price controls on colleges and universities and states. unfortunately, this race to the top, mr. president, is headed in the wrong direction. the president should turn around his higher education race to the top and head it toward washington, d.c., and help washington compete to look for ways to stop from adding costs on states and colleges that are soaking up dollars and driving college tuition through the roof. let me be specific and offer three examples of how a race to the top headed toward washington, d.c. could actually help students by saving them money on their tuition. number one, washington could stop overcharging students on their student loans. they're doing that now by borrowing money at 2.8% and

loaning it to students at 6.8%, and using the profit to help pay for the health care law and for other government programs. number two, it would help students with lower tuition if washington would repeal the new medicaid mandates on states that take effect in 2014, because these new medicaid mandates will further reduce state funding for higher education and raise tuition at public colleges and universities, which is where 70% of college students go. 75%. third, washington should stop prohibiting states from reducing spending on medicaid at a time when state revenues and expenditures are going down. that forces states to spend money on health care that otherwise would be available for higher education. let me talk about each of those three ideas. first, this business of

overcharging on student loans. i think it would come as a big surprise to most students to know that washington is borrowing money at 2.8% and lowering it to them at 6 -- loaning it to them at 6.8% and using the profit to pay for the health care law and other government programs. we have got roughly 25 million students attending 6,000 colleges and universities in america today. approximately 16 million of those have federal loans that allow them to spend that money at the school of their choice. approximately 70% of the federal funding made available for higher education last year. about $116 billion went for those student loans. now, under the new health care law, the department of education is going to be borrowing money at 2.8%, and they are loaning it to the students at 6.8%. so the government's actually overcharging 16 million students and taking that profit and spending it on new government

programs including the new health care law. now, this is according to the congressional budget office. over the next ten years, according to c.b.o., here is where the profit goes, approximately. $8.7 billion goes to pay for the new health care law. $10.3 billion goes to pay down the federal debt. $36 billion goes to support other pell grants. so if we really want to help students pay for tuition, why wouldn't we use this profit from overcharging on student loans to reduce the interest rate on student loans? c.b.o. says we could reduce it from 6.8% to 5.3%. let students have the savings instead of let the government have the savings by reducing the interest on student loans that much, students would save an average of $2,200 over ten years. that's a lot of money for the average student borrower who has approximately $25,000 in debt.

mr. president, i have proposed that we have legislation that puts a truth in lending label on every one of the 16 million student loans, and it says this -- beware. your government is overcharging you on your student loan to help pay for the health care law and other government programs. second, here's a second way that washington could lower -- help lower tuition rates. washington could repeal the medicaid mandates on states that take effect in 2014, and that inevitably will help drive up tuition rates. this is how that works. a new health care law requires states to expand and help pay for medicaid coverage. this in turn requires governors who are making up budgets to take money that otherwise would likely go for higher education and spend it sneddon medicaid. according to the congressional budget office, this new expansion of medicaid will cost states $20 billion over ten

years and add $16 million to the medicaid program. the c.m.s. actuary says it may be 25 million people to the medicaid program, costing states even more. now, we know this is what's going to happen because it's already happening. medicaid mandates for years have been forcing huge costs on states that in turn soaked up money for colleges which in turn causes tuition to go up to replace that money. according to the kaiser foundation, state funding this year for medicaid increased by 28.7% over the prior year. well, where did the money come from? well, in tennessee, which had a 15.8% increase in medicaid last year in state spending, at the same time there was a 15% decrease in state spending for higher education. that's a real cut, not a washington cut, that's 15% less money. and that did what? there was a 7.3% increase in

tuition at public universities and an 8.2% increase at community colleges to make up for the cuts. in california where they enroll 8.3 million medicaid beneficiaries, they are expected to gain 2 million more when the new health care law is implemented in 2014. just over the last year, there has been a 13.5% decrease in state support for higher education, along with a 21% increase at state colleges and a 37% increase in tuition at state universities. most of those students probably don't know the principal reason their tuition rates are going up is because of federal health care mandates on the states. from 2000 to 2006, spending by state governments on medicaid increased by 62.6%. so this has been going on long before president obama came into office. i battled it as governor in the 1980's. every year, i tried to keep education funding at 50% of the state budget. in those, the state -- in those

days, the state paid 70% of the cost of operating the university of tennessee or the community college, tuition paid 30%. we had an implicit deal with the students that if we raise tuition, we'll raise state funding by about the same amount. those days are long gone. medicaid costs on states are the most insoluble part of the budget dilemma that we have here in washington. i believe states' medicaid should either be run 100% by the federal government or 100% by the states. i came to washington and suggested that to president reagan in the 1980's when i was governor. he agreed but not many others did. so it's not new. we shouldn't blame president obama for the fact this has gone on for 30 years, but we ought to hold him responsible for making it worse. here's how he has made it worse in another way. by a so-called maintenance of effort requirement on states as a condition of continuing to receive federal payments under

medicaid. the 2009 stimulus bill prohibited states from imposing new eligibility standards, methodiologies or procedures as a condition of receiving federal medicaid payments. the new health care law extends the maintenance of effort requirements through 2014. so for five years, throughout this recession, while state revenues are going down, the federal government in its wisdom is -- has been imposing on states billions of new dollars in medicaid mandates requiring states to spend more on medicaid, and what happens, they must spend less on something else. in 2010, the new york lieutenant governor richard ravege, a democrat, eloquently talked about that. he said medicaid is the largest single driver of new york's expenditures, one-third of the state budget. new york spent twice as much on medicaid as california. he said the spending would grow

18% in the next four years, but that the federal stimulus and health care expansions made it harder for states like new york and california to cut expenditures because of the strings attached. he said -- quote -- "these strings prevent states from substituting federal money for state funds, require states to spend minimum amounts of their own funds and prevent states from tightening eligibility standards for benefits." so while the federal government -- that was the end of the quote -- is burdening the states with hundreds of billions of dollars in medicaid liabilities, the president has made it worse by forbidding states from tightening their eligibility requirements as their economies shrink. the administration and the congress has left governors with little choice but to cut in other areas, and that usually turns out to be public higher education where 75% of students go to school. so why is tuition going up? the biggest reason is us, the congress, washington, d.c. so instead of pointing the

finger at states and colleges, we ought to look in the mirror. there's another problem with the president's proposals. his proposals are not likely to affect many students, and if they do, they are more likely to hurt them than help them. here is why that's true. 90% of all federal money made available to students goes directly to the students. they spend it at the 6,000 institutions, one of their choice. the president's proposals would only affect three programs of student-based aid that go to about 2% of all students and 2% of all the money available is affected by those programs. what the president would propose doing is putting price controls on colleges offering those programs and saying students couldn't go there if tuition goes up too much at an institution. so if a low-income student wants to go to the university of tennessee, north carolina or michigan and tuition goes up

more than the federal government says it should, mostly because of federal policies, what happens? the student can't go to the university of michigan or the university of tennessee or the university of north carolina. now, those schools have plenty of applicants. they are going to get their students. so the effect is to make it harder for a low-income student to go to the college of his or her choice. what should we be doing? well, i think it's pretty obvious. the taxpayers already are generous with students going to college. the average tuition at a four-year institution that's public is $8,200. at a two-year community college, it's $3,000. while at private institutions, it may be closer to $28,000 or or $30,000 a year. there is $116 billion in money for new student loans this year. the presiding officer: the senator has three minutes remaining. mr. alexander: thank you very much, mr. president. nine million pell grants, $41 billion in taxpayer dollars.

so half our 25 million college students have a federal grant or a loan to help pay for college, and they spend it at one of 6,000 institutions. still, the rising cost of tuition is a real problem for american families. tuition and fees have soared over the past ten years above the rate of inflation by 5.6% a year at public four-year universities. this adds up to about 113% over the decade. colleges and universities need to do their part to cut costs. i have suggested well-prepared students ought to be offered three-year degrees instead of four. the president of george washington university has suggested ways that colleges could be more efficient. he said you could run two complete colleges with two complete faculties in the facilities now used half the year for one. that's without cutting the length of student vacations, increasing class size or requiring faculty to teach more.

and requiring one mandatory summer session for every student every four years, as dartmouth does, would improve so the g.w. president said, his institution's bottom line by 10 to 15 million a year. there is nothing wrong with president obama's proposal to encourage ideas like that, even to give grants and aid and put the spotlight on colleges that are trying those things. the malcolm baldridge award for quality years ago did a lot to improve the quality in business and in government without spending very much money, but mandates and price controls on 6,000 autonomous colleges and universities are not the right prescription. they are more likely to hurt students than help. they are more likely to drive up tuition than lower it and they are more likely to diminish the quality of the best system of higher education in the world. the reason we have the best system is, for one reason, because generally the federal government keeps its hands off

those autonomous colleges, and the second reason is students can choose among those 6,000 institutions with the money we make available to them for grants and loans. so, mr. president, rather than creating new price controls, new mandates and new regulations of the kind that have already made tuition higher, i suggest the president turn his race to the top around. instead of heading it towards the states and colleges, head it toward washington, d.c. stop overcharging students for their student loans. stop requiring states to spend state dollars on health care at the expense of public colleges and universities. repeal the new medicaid mandates that in 2014 will take already high tuition and drive it even higher. let the federal agencies compete to see how they can stop adding costs that are the main reason college tuition is rising. that would be the real race to

the top. that is the real way to help students afford college. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. mr. heller: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. when our nation's economy was driving, nevada was at the heart of the construction boom. buildings and homes were going up across the state. neighborhoods were growing. schools were being built at record rates. and the construction industry was flourishing. all of this activity drove investments in other areas of the economy, and for many life was good in nevada. but when the crisis hit, the highs that my state experienced were matched by the lows that followed. nevada now leads the nation in unemployment, with more than 160,000 nevadans looking for a

job. many can no longer afford their homes. nevadans are being forced into bankruptcy, facing foreclosure. and while nevada is home of some of the most resilient, hardworking people in the country, almost one-quarter of nevadans are so frustrated that they simply have given up hope for better employment. much of the difficulty nevadans are experiencing can be traced back to the foreclosure crisis in my state. the ill effects of depressed housing market is widespread. high rates of foreclosures are devastating to families, neighborhoods, and entire communities. families that have been foreclosed upon already are having a hard time paying their bill. add on to those difficulties the time spent finding a place and the cost of moving, and their problems are compounded. time spent fighting the bank to

avoid foreclosure and relocating would likely be better used to find a job or better-paying employment. one of the biggest problems distressed homeowners are facing is the programs that have been put into place to help keep people in their homes that have not lived up to expectations. my office spends a great deal of time with nevadans on the cusp of losing their homes, looking for help, trying to keep families in their homes. it is truly heart wrenching to hear some of these stories. these homeowners do not want to foreclose. obviously they do not want to lose their homes. i recently received this e-mail from a constituent in reno who is fighting to keep their home. i'd like to share that with you, mr. president. "we hoped for a win-win situation, but in the end all we got was a nightmare in which everyone loses. my sister and i obviously lose.

our neighborhood loses as another house sits vacant with a rusting metal sign in the tprofpblt our state loses -- our state loses as the housing flight increases again. the bank loses because they needed a customer who needed another chance. most importantly democracy loses as the plutocrats roll over another family. when family moves, their children often have to change school. so not only are children forced to move from their homes, they are also leaving behind their schools and their neighborhoods. this kind of destabilization is harmful for families that are already struggling. consider the effects of foreclosures on neighborhoods and communities. the widespread availability of housing is flooding the real estate inventory in nevada. this is forcing down home values, making it difficult for other people to sell their homes as well.

in february of 2006, the average home in nevada was valued at $309,000. today the home values have dropped to $120,000. homes left vacant and uncared for can quickly become an eye sore, pushing low home values even lower. this means that others in the neighborhood can have a difficult time selling their homes if they want to move. if they find a better job elsewhere, for example, they may not be able to take it because they can't sell their home for a reasonable price if they're able to sell it at all. today i'm introducing legislation to help reverse these destabilizing forces. the bill i'm introducing today to keep families in their home act will help address large unsold housing inventories and give families a chance to stay in their homes.

this bill would allow banks, fannie mae, freddie mac to enter into long-term leases including with an option to purchase for properties acquired through foreclosure with the prior homeowner or individual. by providing an opportunity for the home attorney -- home attorney -- home attorney stay in their home, they are giving a chance for sound financial footing. this much-needed stability is available for all families. while i believe this bill is a good step in the right direction, let me be clear, much more needs to be done to help the housing problems facing nevada. the program already in place simply -- the programs in place simply have not done enough and have not lived up to expectations. i was pleased to see reports of growth in our economy, but

people in my state continue to suffer. back home, nevadans still feel like there are no jobs. small businesses are trying to survive while gridlock in washington is making it harder for employers to know what is expected in the coming year. crushing regulations are bringing nevada's growth industries to a halt. in order for nevada to experience real long-term recovery, washington needs to fundamentally change the way it works. congress needs to stop overspending. republicans and democrats should come together to close unfair loopholes and make the tax code easier for businesses to understand and to follow. this bill is just one solution to help turn around this housing crisis. it is also an idea that both republicans and democrats can support. mr. president, i look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and others into law so that we can help families

dealing with foreclosures across the country. and as i've said before, moving forward, i welcome any and all ideas on how to fix the housing crisis in this country. nevadans can't afford to wait any longer. in the meantime i urge my colleagues to seriously consider supporting this bill. this legislation can go a long way towards helping families. stabilizing neighborhoods and stem any further reduction in home prices. i hope you'll join me in this endeavor so that the president can sign this bill into law and help families who badly need it. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that i be -- excuse me. that i be permitted to give my remarks in full. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, for some time now americans have

suspected that this administration has lost touch with the american people. john mekam, former editor much "newsweek" and fan of the president, said "the president particularly does not like people." unquote. that might be an overstatement but he is on to something. this administration seems to take its queues from the far left whether they represent the aparticipations and hope -- aspirations and hope of the american people or not. nowhere is this better displayed than with the hand-fisted decision by secretary kathleen sebelius and the department of health and human services to require that religious persons and institutions violate their most cherished beliefs or face the consequences. late last year h.h.s. ordered all employers, including religious institutions, to cover

in their employer insurance plans such things as sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs and devices. with very limited exceptions, various hospitals, universities and charitable institutions would face the choice of dropping coverage for their employees or violating their consciences. the nation's catholic bishops and many other religious institutions pleaded with this administration to grant broader waivers to avoid jeopardizing these institution's constitutional rights to freely exercise religion. but the administration, rather than side with millions of religious americans who just want to be left alone, to practice their own faith, decided to throw in with the most radical and pro-abortion advocates. they decideed to subordinate our central constitutional commitment to religious liberty, to* a radical agenda that is

overtly hostile to all of these people of faith. the response has been overwhelming. at church this weekend, millions of american catholics were read a letter from their bishops. the message was simple and powerful. this action is unjust and one with which they will not comply. they are right, and they shouldn't. the first amendment doubly protects religious liberty. it prohibits the government establishment of religion, and explicitly protects the free exercise of religion, the first individual right listed in the bill of rights. that's how important religious liberty is to america. and in our system of government, such fundamental rights and principles are supposed to trump statutes, regulations, and political agendas. the constitution and the

liberties it protects are supreme. not the fleeting and politically driven motivations of any particular administration. yet the obama administration, as it always does, has turned these priorities upside down. in this administration, politics trumps absolutely everything else, even the constitution and religious liberty. instead of conforming their political agendas to the constitution, they distort the constitution, and even liberty itself, to conform to their political agenda. the politicians driving this mandate underestimated the american people who have in succession rejected the sorry efforts by the administration to defend its actions. the administration first hid behind the opinion of a purportedly objective medical group that birth control should be included in health insurance plans. but the american people knew who

was ultimately responsible for this rule. not some board of so-called experts, but the president and his officers. they tried to minimize this mandate's impact by arguing that many states already have similar requirements. but this was incredibly misleading. since nearly all of those states have much broader religious protections. in fact, only three states have religious exemptions as narrow and limited as this new federal mandate. they tried to assuage the concerns of religious citizens by saying that the rule does not cover churches and houses of worship. but americans will not accept only the remnant of ourb constitutional rights that the president chooses to recognize. were we supposed to thank the obama administration for letting us retain a few scraps of

religious liberty? there are many religious institutions and organizations that do not fit into the obama administration's artificial narrow categories that just as fully exercise their faith and religious mission. religious liberty belongs to the catholic hospital or the university of notre dame no less than it belongs to the catholic church. and then when this simmering controversy broke wide open a few weeks ago, secretary sebelius thought she could make it all go away by agreeing not to impose this mapt for another year. like her boss, the president, she just plain doesn't get it. religious liberty is not a bargaining chip or a deal sweetener like premium floor mats or an upgraded appliance. did she think that americans would not mind losing this cherished liberty if they were

allowed to spend just a little extra time with it? the obama administration's attitude toward religious liberty has become enjoy it while it lasts. and to the administration's surprise, the american people have been less than enthusiastic about this cavalier attitude toward constitutional rights. the president of the united states takes an oath to support and defend the constitution, to stand up for the fundamental liberty of all americans. he and the officials responsible for this mandate have fallen far short of this oath. mr. president, the fight for religious liberty began before america was born, and it must be fought continually. we can all see that now. it is a part of our constitutional heritage. our founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred

honor to defend the principle that all people are created equal and endowed by god with certain unalienable rights. the right for persons and institutions to be free to practice their faith without undue interference by the government is among our most cherished rights and liberty. there was a day when liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, everyone joined together to defend liberty. i should know. i was the principal republican sponsor and wrote the religious freedom restoration act, which brought together unprecedented grassroots and congressional coalitions to defend this first freedom. they knew that rights such as religious liberty rise and fall together, that religious liberty cannot be packaged, sliced and

diced and doled out in little piece toss please certain interest groups. we need that same unity today because religious liberty is just as important and sadly just as threatened as it was in the past. in addition to violating the first amendment right to free the exercise of our religion, this mandate also appears to violate that landmark law, the religious freedom restoration act. it burdens the free exercise of religion and is clearly not as the law requires a narrow means of achieving a compelling purpose. mr. president, just last month, the supreme court unanimously held that the right of religious organizations to decide who may further their religious mission trumps nondiscrimination

statutes. the obama administration argued that religious organizations are really nothing special, that they should have no more freedom from federal control than, say, a labor union or a social club. in other words, religious liberty is simply no big deal to the obama administration. writing for the entire supreme court, chief justice roberts called this a remarkable view of religious liberty, one that is -- quote -- "hard to square with the text of the first amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations." soon the supreme court will have the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of obamacare. what the preventative services mandate confirms beyond all doubt is that the constitutional defects in obamacare only begin with the insurance mandate that will be before the supreme

court. there are some other issues there as well, and i hope the court examines every one of them and overturns this law that is so improperly formed. the very d.n.a. of obamacare is unconstitutional. at its core, the law and its expansion of government are a threat to personal liberty. the decision to implement this law in a way that forces religious institutions to violate their deepest principles is a vivid demonstration of what happens to personal liberty when the power of the state expands. as the state controls more and more of our lives to further a political agenda, our freedom is put in greater and greater jeopardy. mr. president, after three years of this administration, the

american people seem to be saying enough is enough. those responsible for this decision to force religious institutions to subsidize health coverage for abortifacient drugs need to be brought into account. the president needs to answer for this. secretary sebelius needs to answer for this. the attorney general needs to answer for this. how could he let this happen? but not -- let me just say, but getting answers is not enough. congress needs to assert its authority as a representative of the american people to stand up for the first amendment and restore religious liberty by overturning this health care law. for those who are on the front lines fighting this mandate, i applaud your courage, and please understand that you are not

alone, and you are democrats, independents, republicans and others. the obama administration may not care about religious liberty, but the constitution does, and i along with many of my colleagues will fight alongside you until we prevail over this unjust law. this new h.h.s. mandate cannot be allowed to stand, and i am confident that if the will of the american people prevails, it will not stand. i belong to a faith that has been persecuted and mischaracterized for many, many decades. we're the only church in the history of america that had a governor issue an extermination order against its members. that's how bad it got, in this greatest of all countries where religious liberty is one of our most -- is probably our most --

without question, our most valued right. we understand what it's like to be persecuted. i don't care whether you're liberal, conservative, independent or what, and i don't care what religious beliefs folks out there all have. i do care about their beliefs. there is no excuse for this type of heavy-handed, ham-handed, overgovernmentallization of our religious freedom. and we simply cannot allow this to stand. mr. president, i think you ought to talk to your people down there in the white house and say enough is enough. you guys have gotten me in enough trouble down here. mr. president, do you have the guts to stand up for religious liberty? if you don't, you should not be president of this united states under this beautiful, beloved constitution. if you do, i will be the first

to compliment you for it. the fact of the matter is this is one of the worst things i have seen in many, many years. and it goes beyond the issues that some are raising. it comes right down to the constitution itself, and in many respects i believe the most important provision in the constitution, something that our early leaders risked their lives to obtain because they were persecuted because of their religious beliefs. and it's unseemly to have this administration continue that time of persecution. mr. president, i call on you to change this, to acknowledge that this is a miss take and to understand that we're united,

democrats, republicans, independents and others are united in the protection of this great liberty, and it's time to tell the folks who are so dedicated to their personal political positions that enough is enough. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. morning business is closed. the senate will resume consideration of the motion to report or proceed to s. 1813 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to consideration of calendar number 311, sexes 1813 a bill to reauthorize federal-aid highway and highway construction programs and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: i ask six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's seg of the senate. they have approval of the majority and the minority leaders, and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these consents be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: thank you very much. mr. president, this is a big day for those of us who believe strongly that we need to focus here on job creation, a better business climate, a -- a bill

that will, in fact, not only protect jobs but create new jobs. and that is the bill that we're hoping will get the go-ahead at 2:00, what we call enact 21, moving ahead -- mack 21, s. 1813. this has been, if i could use an analogy that fits, a long road to get to this point, so that we can in fact make sure that we have an adequate road system, an adequate highway system, an adequate transit system. and that we make sure as a world leader that our infrastructure, our bridges, our roads, keep up with the demands put upon them. and there are many demands put upon them because we are a great nation with commerce, and

heavy-duty vehicles on our roadways, railroads that cross over roadways that create potential problems, and certainly a robust transit system that needs to keep up with the times. just last night i received a letter from the u.s. can chamber of commerce and i was very pleased to see it because they support the bill that senator inhofe and i on a bipartisan basis were able to get through our committee on a unanimous vote. now, you know, it is a rare moment in history, frankly, when the u.s. chamber of commerce and labor unions all come together, everyone on the same page to say let's move forward with -- with a bill. and, you know, in these days of controversy and debate and lord knows, i'm immersed in many of them, this is one area we've been able to carve out a real

important consensus not only in the environment and public works committee but in the banking committee where senators johnson and shelby worked together to get good -- to get a piece of this bill done. in the finance committee, where senators there led by senator baucus were able to hammer out a tough, important agreement to fund this bill because it has some shortfalls due to the fact that the highway trust fund, you know, has been going down because cars are getting better fuel economy and, you know, that's a good thing, but the bad, unintended problem is that the trust fund now has fewer dollars so we run short of what we need to keep up our bridges and highways and transit systems, keep them going. so what a moment it was to see not only our committee, but the

banking committee, the finance committee, and the commerce committee with a couple of exceptions on a couple of provisions, they did their job as well and we're trying to work with them to resolve whatever matters remain on that portion of the bill. but i want to quote from the letter from the chamber of commerce that i received just last night and to share a couple of lines with everyone. i'm quoting, "the chamber strongly supports this important legislation, investment in transportation has proven to grow jobs and the need for congress to act on transportation infrastructure is clear. more quotes, passing transportation reauthorization legislation is a specific action congress and the administration can take right now to support job growth and economic productivity without adding to the deficit."

and, you know, just those two quotes i think show that we've done our job well. this is a bill that is paid for, this is a bill that because of the way it was written is a reform bill, which i'll go into, but it also protects the jobs we currently have which is 1.8 million jobs in the transportation area, but also because of the way we have a new -- we have boosted up a program called tifia which i'll talk about which is a highly leveraged program, we have the capacity to add over a million new jobs. mostly these jobs are in the private sector. that's where they are. and that's where we are focused on in this legislation. i mentioned senator inhofe before, my ranking member on the environment and public works committee. i expect him to be here shortly. i can't tell you the trusted partnership that we were able to develop with him. that went not only for his relationship with me in working

on this bill but the staff-to-staff relationships which have blossomed into friendships and trust. and i think what we have shown is that each of us can be a tough but fair partner. our staffs understand where we're coming from, but we have a bigger goal in front of us than our differences. and that is our agreement that it is our responsibility to fix up our aging roads and highways and bridges, our infrastructure, to put people back to work, to boost our economy. and as senator inhofe has talked about very often with examples that are, you know, in many ways heartbreaking, we have problems with safety in our nation. we have bridges that are crumbling. we have seen them with our own eyes. we cannot turn away from this because we may have disagreements on lots of other things. it has been a long but a very worthwhile journey to get to this stage because the payoff here, if this bill eventually

becomes law, is, as i said, protecting a -- 1.8 million jobs and creating up to another million jobs. i have to thank, as i have thanked, and, again, i wanted to mention commerce committee, i didn't thank senators rockefeller and hutchison for their work on this as well. we have four committees that are involved in writing this bill. each committee has voted out their bills. and if all goes right today and we get a resounding go ahead, we can -- i hope we can begin with amendments on the e.p.w. portion and then move to add the different other bills to this bill until we have added all four -- all the committees together and then i hope we'll have a resounding vote and get to a conference committee. we have major differences with the other body, but i think we can work it out for the good of the people and the thousand

organizations that back us in this bill in this effort. i also have to thank senator harry reid, the majority leader. he brought this bill to the floor, he exerted the right kind of pressure on all of our committees. he encouraged us. he understands clearly that as we try to get out of this recession and we have seen -- we have seen beneficial results of our actions in a number of areas, but this is going to mean a big boost for jobs. a big boost for jobs, and he understands that. i -- i want to also say that within my committee we have what we call the big four. it's the chairman and the ranking member, myself and senator inhofe, and then it's the chairman of the highway subcommittee and the ranking member there, that's senator

baucus and senator vitter. i honestly think if you look at the big four and you look at our philosophies and you look at where we're from and the differences we bring to the table, we cover the whole senate in terms of a range of ideologies but tied together by a belief that this is something that needs to get done. and senator baucus and vitter were with senator inhofe and i every step of the way, for which we are very grateful. i mentioned -- i alluded to a thousand organizations that have been involved on the outside, just pushing us to get this done. and my hat is off to them. they are a broad coalition. i have spoken frequently with them, just to give them an update on how we're doing and i have to tell you, they really, truly represent america. and over the course of this debate, if i have the time and in many ways i hope i don't have the time because i hope we can

get this done and not spend a whole lot of time on it, because i think the committees have done such a good job. but if we have excess time on the floor, i intend to read as many of those organizations into the record as i possibly can. because that coalition is remarkable in -- in its reach. they were led by the u.s. chamber of commerce, unprecedented coalition. they came together regardless of ideology and differences, and every time i -- i look at this list, i'm reminded that essentially it is america. it's america. business, labor groups, state organizations, city organizations, and organizations from all 50 states. we got a letter from these thousand organizations recently, and i'm going to quote what they said. some of what they said.

they said "there are few federal efforts that rival the potential of critical transportation infrastructure investments for sustaining and creating jobs and economic activity. they wrote, in 2011, political leaders, republican and democrat, house, senate ashes, and the administration, stated a multi-year spht bill is important -- surface transportation bill is important for economic recovery. we urge you to follow words with action. this is what they asked us. make transportation job number one and move legislation immediately the house and senate to invest in the roads and the bridges and the transit systems that are the backbone of our economy, its businesses large and small in communities of all size. again, it's important to note, our surface transportation bill creates or saves millions of jobs, benefiting millions of families across the country. and what a great signal it will

send as we struggle to get out of the -- the slowdown, and we begin to see light at the end of the tunnel, this will be a very large light because there are very few things we can do here that have the reach of a transportation bill. let's talk about the construction industry. according to the most recent unemployment figures, there are 1.5 million construction workers out of work, with the industry facing an unemployment rate of 17.7%. construction workers are out of work, and let's show that chart. the national unemployment rate is 8.3%. we want to see that come down. but look at that construction industry unemployment rate, mr. president.

17.7%. these are real people with pride in what they do. and we know the housing industry has had a horrible time and it has stalled out and it's -- it's in a horrible trough. so if we can take those construction workers and offer them an opportunity to build the roads, the bridges, the highways, the transit systems, it will put them to work and we'll get that 17.7% rate down. i don't know if we have a picture of that stadium. and how many stadiums? 15? mr. president, this is a picture of a super bowl stadium, and from what i understand it seats about -- how many people? -- 100,000. 100,000. that's what we see here.

if we had 15 -- 15 -- of those pictures, 15 super bowl stadiums worth of people, that's how many people are unemployed in construction. and i use this not only because i watched the super bowl, although my niners didn't get in it and it was upsetting, but because it's a picture, it's a visual. imagine, every one of these people unemployed times 15. it's a vizzia visual and i thins important that we keep in mind that we're talking about real people who have lost real jobs because of this recession, and especially the housing downturn. and this is a chance to put them to work. there is an urgent need to get this legislation through the conference committee and on to the president's desk, because the current transportation authorization extension expires on march 31. so -- so i want to say to colleagues who may be watching

or staffs that may be watching, you may have a lot of amendments in your mind and in your heart, and everybody has a right and i support your right, but please think very hard before you start bringing down amendments here that will slow us up. a thousand organizations know that we need to keep our eye on the ball and these organizations are in all of our states and they represent millions and millions and millions of america's families. so let's not add extraneous matters, please. let's not have frivolous amendments, killer amendments. we all can offer those. i've got several i could offer in a heartbeat. but this isn't the place to have our ideological disputes. this is a bill that's a jobs bill. this is a bill that is good for our business. this is a bill that will save 1.8 million jobs and create up to a million more at a time when

we must have that kind of wind at our back. so we have another reason. not only does the bill -- authorization of the highway bill expire in march, but we also know that the trust fund is running out of money for projects already in the pipeli pipeline, so we have to find a reliable source and stable source of funding. senator baucus and his finance committee have come up with a way to responsibly fill this shortfall, and i cannot thank them enough, democrats and republicans on that he committee. thank you, thank you, thank you. because what you've done is come up with some very good ways to pay for this shortfall and those ways do no harm. we must push forward for another reason. i alluded to it before. america's aging infrastructure is crumbling. let me just tell america this.

70,000 of our nation's bridges are structurally deficient. 70,000 of our nation's bridges are structurally deficient. 50% of our roads are not up to standard. now, if you're in your home and you have little kids and someone who is an expert comes up to you, an engineer, and says "your house could easily crumble," we all know what you'd do. you'd get out of there, fix it and then move the family back in. well, this is no different. if somebody tells you your house is crumbling, you've got to fix it. if somebody says to you, "our nation's bridges are structurally deficient and over 50% of our roads are not up to standard" we have to act. my dear friend and colleague who is going to manage this bill with me has arrived and i will

tell him i'm about five minutes away from ending my opening statement and yielding him the floor. but he is more eloquent than anyone i've ever heard of on two issues. one, what is the role of government. and he makes the point, which i'm not going to take away from him, as to how infrastructure fits into that. and he also is eloquent on the point of safety because he's seen with his own eyes what happens when we don't keep our infrastructure sound and safe. we have a deteriorating part of our infrastructure and it needs to be fixed. and we can't be an economic leader if we can't move people and goods. we can't thrive as a nation if our people are trapped -- trapped in traffic and our businesses are trying to move goods and they're trapped in traffic. we lose 4.8 billion hours from work and we pay the price for that in, you know, loss of

productive time and in dirty a air. so our bill that was passed out of the environment and public works committee -- and i want to say to my ranking member that he wasn't here and his staff wasn't here at the time that i started, but i -- i praised you to the sky and your staff, because regardless of our differences on many issues, we've been able to, you know, put this country first in this. and i am so grateful and the kind of spirit of cooperation we've brought to our work really was captured in the banking committee, where senator johnson and shelby got together, and in the finance committee, where many republicans joined our democratic friends to figure out a way to fund this responsibly. and in the commerce committee, where we have one or two little hiccups but i believe we're going to resolve them, i really do. and i -- and i'm proud that we were out there first showing

that we could do this. and people said all over the senate, if boxer and inhofe can do this, you know, anything is possible. map 21 is a reform bill and i'm proud about that. it consolidates 90 programs into less than 30. it focuses us on key national goals. it gives greater flexibility to the states to invest in their top priorities. it eliminates earmarks. it establishes performance measures to improve accountability. it accelerates project delivery. and it provides resources for a new national freight program. this bill is responsible. it continues the current level of funding plus inflation, which, as i said, protects 1.8 million jobs. and the tifia program, which senator inhofe and i agreed to increase, which stands for

transportation infrastructure finance and innovation act, is also embraced by chairman mica over on the house side. so republicans and democrats agree that by making more funds available through tifia, we can mobilize up to $30 billion more from the billion dollars we've placed in that fund and create up to a million jobs. i want to thank the mayor of los angeles and the chamber there and the workers there who really have brought the idea of leveraging to my attention. i want to say that tom donahue of the u.s. chamber, he's the president there, richard trumpka, the president of the a.f.l., and many businesses and laborers throughout our nation support this tifia program to stretch taxpayer dollars in a safe way. again, they have done that in

the house bill as well, which is very good for us. so i'm proud of this bill and the reforms. i'm proud of the -- the working relationship that we've established cross party lines in our committee. and i could say very honestly, there's a lot of things that this bill does not have that i -- that i'm really sorry about, that i really wanted to see in there, and i know -- and i'm not going to detail those, but i know senator inhofe feels the same way. but there were certain things that we -- there were lines in the sand for each of us and it was give-and-take that resulted in this compromise, which is a good bill, a good, solid bill. we put those controversial issues aside i think for the good of the nation. and i'll close with this. ever since dwight eisenhower started us on a path to build the interstate highway system, transportation has been a bipartisan effort. i asked my staff to research

some of the comments made by president eisenhower in 1963, when he established the federal interstate highway system. actually, it was -- he wrote his autobiography in 1963. he established the system in 1956. and this is what he said. "more than any single action by the government since the end of the war, this one would change the face of america" -- this is his quote -- "with straightaways, clover leaf turns, bridges, and elongated parkways." he says, "its impact on the american economy, the jobs it would produce in manufacturing, construction, the rural areas it opens up, that's beyond calculation." and it's -- it's -- it's very important to note that how by bipartisan this is. ronald reagan in 1982, "more efficient roads mean lower transportation costs." and he says, "lately, driving isn't as much fun as it used to be. time and wear have taken their

toll on america's roads and highways." well, he said it well. and so we have democratic presidents, republican presidents, democratic senators, republican senators all working in a bipartisan way. votes on these bills have been overwhelming, 79-8, 372 in the house to 47. all of our presidents signing these -- these laws. and i'd ask unanimous consent to place the rest of my statement into the record. and i say that today is a good day, a tough time to get to this date. i've tried to thank everyone that i could think of that had anything to do with it. and it's my privilege now to yield the floor and look forward to the comments of my ranking member. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senior senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. thank you. i'm not sure, i say to my good friend, senator boxer, that you're going to be too excited

about some of the things i say because what i really want to do is establish that -- how -- what's unique about this bill. you know, there's a committee in the senate, it's not like any committee in the house -- in the house, they have two separate committees -- it's called environment and public works. so it's two almost unrelated committees but they have -- our committee has more jurisdiction than any other committee in the united states senate. but it handles things that are totally different. for example, i have -- let me just -- i'll sound a little partisan right now but i am very concerned about president obama and what he's done to this country in terms of the defici deficits. people -- a lot of people don't realize the deficits, the budget actually comes from the president. it's not the democrats, not the republicans, not the house or the senate, it's the budget. and those budgets that had deficits of around $4.5 trillion. i've been very upset about that. i'm upset about what the president is doing with the -- with the -- with the military right now.

if we have to go through the sequestration, as is planned, we're going to lose about a trillion dollars in defense spending over the next ten yea years. and the third area is in energy, we have the opportunity to be totally energy self-supporting just by developing our own resources, but the problem's a political problem. and -- and the fourth area is overregulation. i say this because my good friend, the chairman of the environment and public works committee, would disagree with me in all these areas because we don't agree. and i look at the regulations and the fact that in my opinion, they're driving our manufacturing base overseas. i see the -- the crown jewel of all regulations is cap and tra trade. they tried their best to do it. they the mccain-lieberman bill in 2002 -- 2003 and then again in 2005. they had the boxer bill, several boxer bills that senator boxer was involved in.

certainly waxman-markey." well, we defeated them all. now, what the president's trying to do is do through regulation what he couldn't do through -- through legislation. i only say that because i'm in -- i'm in agreement with the chairman of the committee, senator boxer, on most of what she just said because of the significance of this. and i i think most people, i'm going to repeat what i said yesterday, i guess it was or the day before. when rankings come out historically since i've been in the house and the senate and i came to the senate in 199 , i'm always ranked among the most conservative members. my good friend, senator boxer, is ranked among the most liberal members, progressive, liberal, and -- but what i appreciate about her is she is a sincere liberal. she understands in her feeling the government should be involved in more things than i think they should be involved in. but one area and i haven --

hasten to say this again and again and again, while i may have been historically been considered the most conservative member, i'm a big spender, i say to the president, in two areas. one area is national defense. i'm very, very much disturbed as i just said about what's happening in national defense and the other is infrastructure. now, infrastructure is something way back when i was in the house, i was on the transportation and infrastructure committee at that time, we worked very hard for a robust bill for reauthorizing the transportation system. and we were successful. and back then, that was back in the good old days i say to my friend senator boxer, that we always had surpluses in the highway trust fund. now, the highway trust fund probably goes down as the most popular tax in history because people know ever since, since 1953, that it has been a trust fund where you pay your 18 or so

cents per gallon and it goes to maintaining those roads that you're driving on. so it directly related to the gasoline that was purchased. but then some things happened. first of all, i can remember when we had surpluses and so everybody who had their own deal wanted to get in on the surpluses so they started expanding the highway trust fund expenditures beyond just maintaining and building roads. that was one of the problems. then along came a lot of the changes that took place whether you're for them or against them doesn't make any difference but when they talked about electric cars, they talked about mabt madam presidenting gas mileage and this type of thing, that reduced the -- the -- the proceeds dramatically. i think in the beginning they probably should have had a -- the highway trust fund geared to a percentage instead of a centage and we wouldn't be faced with the problems we have now. fast forward to the present time and we have a deteriorating system.

i was very proud for those aware of it the environment and public works committee that i've been talking about, back prior to the last election or election of 2006, i was the chairman because the republicans were a majority. and at that time we did the 2005 highway reauthorization bill, and it was -- as i recall, $286.4 billion. very robust bill. and yet we could pretty much document that we didn't really do anything new in that bill. we just main taped what we -- maintained what we had had. it expired in 2009 and what's happened since then? we've been operating on extensions. thissing is some i think that -- this is something that i think is very significant. before i get into the operating on extensions -- remind me to pick that up there -- what we're talking about here, senator boxer and i, our committee, the environment and public works committee, has the jurisdiction over the highway title of the bill.

some things are controversial and there's not many, i don't know i anything really controversial in the highway title. in the other committees, the commerce committee, senator rock until fell -- rockefeller is the chairman, kay bailey, the banking committee, they've done their work, i guess right now, and come up with an agreement, that's tim johnson and senator shelby from alabama. ours is really the highway title and that's -- that's areas where it really gets to the guts of it. in my state of oklahoma because of the condition of the bridges and the highways, and the last time i looked, i think that missouri and oklahoma tied to be dead last if the condition of our bridges. and we had a lady, a young lady, i know i've told this story many times, i could change it around but this is the one that is the most compel. the young lady, the mother of three small children in oklahoma

city, drove under one of our bridges, a chunk of concrete about that big dropped off and killed her. these are serious things. and we look at bridges that have dropped down, look at minnesota, we look what happened down in south texas. we've had so many times when the crumbling infrastructure has given away. i can remember when they considered oklahoma, since we became a state in -- in 1907, we're one of the newer states, people didn't think we had infrastructure problems. they thought that was confined to california, confined to new york, to the older parts of the country. that's not true anymore. because in many of those older parts the infrastructure has been rebuilt and while some of the newer states have been ignored. that's why we in my state of oklahoma, it's a critical thing. i deal -- people talk about we don't want things with earmarks in them. senator boxer said we don't have earmarks in this. it's fine, i'd like to discuss

that sometime, because i'm a strong believer that those people who don't want us to -- to do what we're supposed to be doing when we swear to uphold the constitution, article 1, section 9, says we should be the ones, the house and the senate, that do the appropriating and the authorization. and by saying that we're not going to do it and defining earmarks as appropriations and authorization, i can see why democrats lined up to do away with -- with earmarks in recent vote that took place because that turns it over to president obama. yeah, in fact, he's very supportive of that. but some of the republicans we're going to be talking about that again. this is not something that is a problem with this bill. in this bill, we have things that come from the needs of our state. we have a secretary of transportation in oklahoma who has been before our committee numerous times. because that secretary of transportation has been in that job now for many years, and

before that he was director of transportation for i think 30 years. and there's nobody who is more knowledgeable on that. and so we checked, and i do with the department of transportation in my state of oklahoma, on their prioritizing projects. and we have a system, i wish all states had this system, some do, some don't, but we have transportation districts, we have chairmen of those transportation districts, they use the same criteria throughout the state of oklahoma. they determine what should be fixed, what -- where the money should be spent, and so it's not a political decision. not a decision where we're doing what most people consider to be earmarks trying to help our friends and this type of thing. that's not the way we do it in oklahoma. and this is one of the few systems, frankly, that works very well. so we go back to the extensions i started talking about. here's the problem with extensions: our 2005 bill expired in 2009, we -- we have now gone through eight

extensions, is that right? eight extensions. the problem you have with extensions is that you can't do anything creative. you can't change, you can't reform the system, you just have to go ahead and take the money that's available and try to use it as best you can. but you can't reform a system that needs to be reformed. now, let me tell you i've said some things that were not all that complimentary about my partner in this case, senator boxer, but i have to say this: we've served together for years in trying to overcome these obstacles that are out there, and i tell you, on the highway title of the transportation bill that we're going to be talking about and that we're going to be voting on, we've done a good job. when i stop and think about the reforms, and i have to compliment senator boxer, i know that she's been in a real tough position with some of the more liberal members of the -- of her party, and some of the things that she's agreed to. we sat down, we worked out the differences in a lot of these

problems that we had. state flexibility. we have state flexibility in this bill that we've never had before and i've always been a believer that we're the guys that are in the best position to determine what the needs are of states. i've often said, i've served on the state level of government, i've been the mayor of a major city, and i believe that the closer you get to the people, the more responsible government is. i believe that to be true. and that's what we've done. we've done that in the flexibility that we have given the states in our prams. -- programs. senator boxer mentioned we've cut down the number of programs by two-thirds. we're down to one third of the number of programs we had before. and that's a major -- that's a major reform. nepa, we've done streamlining that is something we've been trying to do for a long time. but let me mention, the one area that -- of reform that i want everyone to listen to

because this is significant. we have had a friendly disagreement, senator boxer and i, on enhancements, transportation enhancements. these are things that it can argue -- you can argue do not affect transportation directly. i've always felt that these things that we spend money on whether it comes from the highway trust fund should go into transportation projects. but they haven't. there's 2% of the highway funding is required to go to enhancements. that equates to 10% of the surface transportation money. so you can use 10% or 2% depending on which one you're applying it to but it's a lot of money. if you take 2% of the total funding, that is a lot of money. that has to go to enhancements. now, enhancements are things that people criticize us for and i think that criticism is just. so how do you handle this situation? how do you get a highway bill in the highway title portion of it, senator boxer and i sat down and worked out something right here, where we're

standing right now on the floor of the senate. we said there's got goth to be an answer to this thing, states are not all the same. i said my state of oklahoma we don't even want enhancements. how can we handle this? we worked out an agreement that a state at its own decision level is able to use this 2% of the total highway funding that would go to enhancements in any way that they wanted to do it and primarily in taking care of some of the unfunded mandates, some of the requirements that are in there, the government is saying to my people in oklahoma, this is what you've got to do, some endangered species stuff and all these things. they can use it that way. so we can under this bill in my state we can have not any of the 2% going to enhancements. that's what i want to do. some other states feel differently. this isn't a one-size-fits-all thing. states are different. so we have the opportunity that they can do what they want. but these are reforms.

we've never had reforms like this before and i'm very proud and i compliment the chairman of the committee for being willing to do this, to take the time and to talk to her colleagues and say all right, the choice is not do we want a perfect bill for democrats or do i want a perfect bill for republicans. i think we've got a pretty near perfect bill for republicans on -- on the highway title and i'm very proud of what we've come up with. nonetheless it's been heavy lifting i know for the chairman of the committee and i applaud her for doing this. before i yield i want to go back to this extension thing. if we were to take -- to just continue to operate on extensions, the amount of money that we would be spending on our highways would reduce by about 34%, about a third. you talk to gary ridley in my state of oklahoma as to what they would do in terms of our program that we already have on line, we would have to default on some contracts, we would have to be in a situation where

we're not able to do the things that are in our five-year plan in the state of oklahoma. we think things out in oklahoma and we over -- go over the state and make determinations, and it's done outside the political system, done by people in charge of dilt transportation districts. that's about the way we do it. i can tell you right now, it's a life-threatening issue. if we are dropping down by 34%, it's going to be a serious problem. i would suggest that every member of the senate before they make final decisions on this bill, call their -- their state director of highways or whatever they call it in their particular state and talk to them. talk to the people. talk to your state legislators, democrats and republicans, conservatives, liberals alike. this is the one area where they'll agree. in my state of oklahoma they're in agreement. that want a highway bill. they say this is life threatening, we've got to do a

better job, it's a partnership thing, more flexibility for state programs, streamlining, we're not going to be encumbered by some of the mandatory enhancements. i don't know of one member of the oklahoma state legislature, the house or senate, who doesn't want this. what's wrong with doing what people at home want? i mentioned a minute ago i used to be at the mayor level, the mayor of the second largest city in oklahoma. my phone rings off the hook because of things that need to be done, programs that need to be completed in our highway and our bridge system in oklahoma. i sometime look at people who demagogue the issue and talk about, oh, no, we don't want to spend all this. there's one area where conservatives and liberals alike should be spending, two areas, one is national defense and one is in infrastructure. i remember when congressman bachmann was talking about the country about the spending and all that. actually during the earmark argument and got back to the state of minnesota and they

said, you know, they started talking about the needs of transportation. she said, -- quote -- "i'm not talking about transportation." well, that's the point we need to get across. transportation -- and of course i throw in national defense but that's not the discussion today. transportation, infrastructure, something we've got to do and i'm going to tell you in the state of oklahoma we're going to do -- do everything we can to get with a bill. it's not going to change anything except for the fact that -- that it's going to be -- it's going to be able to enhance that. i didn't see, but i am managing the time. by the way, i want to comment mr. president -- maybe i'm not. we're both doing it. all right. i'm saying that shouldn't really be a democratic-republican management here. because there are a lot of democrats who agree with me and a lot of republicans who agree with senator boxer. but we do have the junior senator from kentucky who'd like to -- mrs. boxer boxer: i have tom res i'd like to make.

the presiding officer: the senator from california will is recognized. mrs. boxer: i think senator inhofe and i will have to talk about how to yield back and forth. but at this point i had not finished my remarks and i wanted to respond to yours. we are here on partners on this bill. we are not partners in a lot of things. i didn't say, when i opened up my remarks, where we were not partners but my friend did so i'm going to respond to my opening comments in which, for some reason, he wanted to open up by saying one place we differ -- he's right on this -- is he said he blames president obama for the deficit. now, i want to just put this on the record. i do not. and let me tell you why. when bill clinton was the president of these united states, he turned over a booming surplus of $236 billion to george w. bush. and it didn't take him but a blink of an eye to turn those surpluses as far as the eye can see into raging deficits. and he left president obama a

$1.4 trillion, for which my colleagues on the other side blame obama. now, not only did george w. bush leave him this kind of a deficit but he left him the worst recession since the great depression. a total collapse of wall street. bleeding jobs, 800,000 a month. and we've turned it around, and the president's shown magnificent leadership, saved detroit. my friend further said, where another place we disagree, and i -- he's right -- that obama is driving manufacturing overseas. no. the tax code that the republic republicans support that rewards companies for moving overseas, that's very much responsible for it. so that proves the point. we get mad at each other. he's annoyed at me for now i'm saying these things. i was annoyed at him for saying what he said. but here's the great news. today we're here to pass a bill. now, my friend said i had a

problem with liberal members in my own party. i have to say. this there was concern for sure. he's right. but once i explained to them that you and i had to work together, they were terrific about it. and i -- i think some of your republicans, the same, said, okay, you know, we have to make this happen. so i congratulate all members on both sides of the aisle who put aside these really tough differences we have. you just saw a little bit of it. we could -- i mean, i'm not going to get into -- i'm not going to get into the climate change area because my friend believes it's the greatest hoax and i believe it's scientific fact. but we could go on on these arguments. and by the way, it would be interesting. it would be like "crossfire." remember that show? the two people get up there and argue. yes, we could do that, in every way. but in this bill we have decided to fight for what we believed in but at the end of the day get a

bill that we believe is fair. now, did my friend want me to yield? mr. inhofe: no, i just want to say that i agree -- this should be very visible to everyone, that how could you and i agree and feel so strongly about infrastructure in america when we have such diverse opinions sill fof cli. mrs. boxer boxer: right. mr. inhofe: my case rests. mrs. boxer: you made the point. i was so happy when you actually made the point because it gave me a chance to argue with you. and we both enjoy that. and we will continue, as our friendship is deep and we know, each of us, that when we talk to each other, it's from the heart. but when it comes to this particular issue, we both agree we've got to get a bill done. so much is dependent upon it. i just received a letter from the americans for transportation mobility. mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent to place it into the record. the presiding officer: without

objection. mrs. boxer: i want to tell you who signed this letter. and my friend may not have seen it. the american public transportation association, the american road and transportation builders association, the associated equipment distributors, the association of equipment manufacturers, the associated general contractors, the american society of civil engineers, the international union of operating engineers, the labor international union of north america, the national asphalt pavement association, the national stone, sand and gravel association, the united brotherhood of carpenters, the u.s. chamber of commerce. now, i've got to say -- mr. inhofe: madam president works the senator yield? mrs. boxer: yes, let me just make one statement. this list that i have just read here, this list represents america, republicans, democrats, independents. yes, i would yield to my friend. mr. inhofe: well, i would only

say that even though we haven't ironed out how to handle time here, we do have a senator who wanted to speak 20 minutes ago. if we could do that, i'd love to get back on the dialogue between each other. mrs. boxer: yes, i'll just finish this up and yield the floor and i'm happy to have him speak. i just felt this is opening time for the two -- for the chairman and the ranking member to lay down their case. and i'm not about to let an attack on the president of the united states of america go unanswered. i'm not going to do it. and so if we're going to go down that road, we're going to have a give-and-take. we're going to go down the road of what i hope we'll go down which is getting this bill done, it's going to be good. so let me finish my comments on this letter, then i'll yield the floor. and then we'll hammer out how, i say to my ranking member, we should divide the time, it's fine with me. but i want to read to you some of the things they said. "we commend the senate committees that helped craft s. 1813, a bipartisan bill for stabilizing federal transportation funding

mechanisms for the near term and avoiding draconian cuts amounting to one-third of total federal investment in highway, transit and safety programs." and they're talking about the fact that the highway trust fund is a third of where it should be. that's why we're so happy that finance committee, on a bipartisan vote, is replacing these funds. they talk about if we didn't do this bill. "cuts of this magnitude would accelerate the deteriorating performance of the nation's surface transportation network, greatly undermine u.s. economic growth and competitiveness, and result in the real loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country. this bill includes important policy reforms that would improve the delivery of transportation improvements by consolidating programs, reducing red tape, and leveraging private-sector resources." and here's what they say, this great coalition of the chamber of commerce, the unions, and

business, they say, "the a.t.m. coalition will strongly oppose any amendments to reduce the funding levels established in this legislation and remains committed to working with congress to find reliable revenue streams sufficient to support the long-term growth inn the fiscal sustainability of the highway trust fund." and this is what's so important. without the certainty of a multiyear bill, current problems become harder to solve as highway and transit conditions worsen, and land, labor and materials get more expensive. absent passage of a multiyear reauthorization, there would be continued uncertainty and erratic funding for critical infrastructure investments and the public and the private sectors would continue to respond by delaying projects, withdrawing investment and laying off employees. we encourage you to support the motion to proceed to 1813." mr. president, that's the motion we'll be voting on at 2:00. "the a.t.m. coalition stands ready to bring together" --

listen to who they'll bring together -- "business, labor, highways and transit stakeholders to provide congress the public support to pass an adequately funded multiyear surface transportation bill by march 31, 2012." now, on the issue of the enhancements, we already had a vote on enhancements before and we already turned back proposals to do away with enhancements. so what we did in this bill is we said to the states, guess what? you have much more flexibility. i will -- i have to tell you -- and i won't do it now, but perhaps senator paul's going to speak about these enhancements -- we know for sure that these enhancements -- that i think that's the wrong name because they're really safety projects -- have saved lives because they fund pedestrian paths, they fund safe passage for kids to get to school. so while my colleague and i may

differ on this, i strongly believe the congress stands behind, i would say the senate stands behind i continuing to fd these safety projects and that we have given the states far more flexibility and i hope that we will defeat any amendment t to -- to remove the ability of our states to determine which of these safety projects they want. we have the facts behind us. 13% of transportation fatalities involve pedestrians and bicyclists. so i feel, give our states the opportunity. if oklahoma doesn't have any of these problems because they're a much more rural state than california, i'm happy with that. but we have to understand that these are safety projects and i hope we'll defeat any amendment that tries to take the ability -- reduce the ability of the states to fund these projects. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: thank you. mr. president? i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the junior senator from kentucky be recognized for up to seven minutes. he has been trying to get on for quite some time and i think that's agreeable. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. paul: i'd like to commend the senator from oklahoma for being a leader on trying to restore and repair our infrastructure. i think the senator from oklahoma shows that this is a bipartisan issue. i rise today not only to support the bipartisan nature of rebuilding our infrastructure but also to address an important concern that is happening in egypt. i rise today to introduce an amendment to suspend foreign aid to egypt until they release our american citizens. the situation in egypt over the past year has been tumultuous and there are people in government stand at a moment where they will choose their future. will they stand for freedom? will they stand -- will they choose to stand with the united states? the choice is entirely theirs,

of course, but their recent actions are troubling and should give us reason to reconsider our significant aid to the government of egypt. what bothers critics of our foreign policy is the disconnect between hope and reality. well-intentioned people vote to give aid to countries in hopes that they will promote freedom, democracy, and united states interests abroad. too often, though, it does none of those things. instead, it enriches dictators and emboldens governments who act against our interests. right now, american citizens who work for pro-democracy organizations in egypt are being held hostage. there really is no other way to put it. these innocent american citizens are not being allowed to levy egypt and -- leave egypt and are facing trial by military government. this situation has been allowed to escalate by the obama administration over the past several months as authorities in egypt have accelerated a cynical war against these pro-democracy

forces, these individuals who are american citizens. this attempt to gain support from radicals who are convince convinced -- has allowed the situation to degenerate. these extremist elements seek to impose their own agenda in egypt and are determined to prevent egypt's democratic process as much as possible. the supreme council of the armed forces in eat egypt, the -- in egypt, the ones responsible for the transition, have demonstrated that they are not only willing but are in the process of using american citizens as scapegoats for the continual upheaval in egypt. their actions do not illustrate a significant democratic transition. in fact, they are encouraging and provoking distrust among the egyptian people by making false allegations about the nature of these american citizens. in the aftermath of the arab revolution, the toppling of the authoritarian mubarak government, egypt finds itself in critical need of support in

order to build a functioning democratic system. yet in late december, egyptian authorities abruptly raided the offices of several nongovernmental organizations working towards democratic development, seizing their computers and documents. this past weekend, egyptian prosecutors have filed criminal charges against these innocent american citizens. this must not be allowed to stand. the american people should be concerned. we are subsidizing the behavior through u.s. taxpayer foreign aid to o egypt, we are subsidizg behavior that is leading and allowing for the injustice detainment of american citizens in egypt. egypt is one of the largest recipients of foreign aid, totaling over $70 billion over the last half century. egypt's ruling military has itself received $1.3 billion in foreign aid every year since 1987 and they have the ga