-- alone. rob portman reports in ohio federal and environmental permitting alone increases project costs on average by 20%. the reasons that these delays are so expensive is, you know, all of these delays, all of these permitting requirements, they all require consultants to carry it out. all kinds of engineering and consulting fees that get paid, often on retainer over time. it also means that while waiting for a road or bridge to be rebuilt or restored, there is longer commutes, there is a big detour, there is more consumption of gas. that's all a waste of time and money. the bottom line is that projects cost more the longer they take. that's the reality. the fact is recovering communities don't need to have to incur these extra costs. i'll give you an example. again in pennsylvania. since 2010, federal environmental permitting has

delayed nine projects by over a year. the cherry creek bridge in monroe county, pennsylvania. this is an area that's flood prone, that was struck by tropical storm lee and hurricane irene in 2011, and the reconstruction for the damaged transportation infrastructure should have started pretty much right away, but fish and wildlife review delays alone cost us two years before construction could even begin. so senator ben nelson recognized this problem, a democrat from nebraska who served in this body recognized the problem and offered a bipartisan amendment for the last highway bill, map 21. what his amendment would have done, it would exempt roads and bridge repair projects from federal environmental permitting if the road and bridges were destroyed by a declared emergency such as superstorm sandy, for instance, and provided that the reconstruction would occur entirely within the footprint of the existing

structure, the original footprint. unfortunately, senator nelson never got his vote. he was denied a vote. instead, he got a watered down provision put into the final bill that allows the department of transportation under certain circumstances to exclude certain repair projects from this whole process. but they can't make that exclusion if the project is deemed to be controversial. undefined. i don't know what that means. and the exclusions don't apply to the army corps of engineers or the fish and wildlife services. the reviews of which constituents tell me these are the most time-consuming, cumbersome and costly to comply with. the result is that recovering communities today after they have been hit hard by a natural disaster, after they have incurred damage to their roads, their bridges, their infrastructure, they don't know what environmental standards are going to apply to them except

that some certainly will and others may or may not be exempted. it still leaves them subject to a lengthy, costly and unnecessary procedure because once again, mr. president, i want to emphasize we're talking about roads and bridges that are already there. we're not talking about new infrastructure, new capacity. we're talking about rebuilding what was already there and what was damaged. and so, mr. president, this amendment that i'm offering, it's almost identical to the nelson amendment. the difference is at the request of septa, which is the southeast pennsylvania transit authority, it's been expanded to include not just roads and bridges but also rail and transit repair projects. that's it. so it simply says these existing transportation infrastructure facilities, if they are damaged or destroyed by a declared natural disaster, the rebuilding, the identical rebuilding in that very same footprint shouldn't be subject to going through the whole

environmental 1993 mitting process all over again -- whole environmental permitting process all over again. i'm happy to have the endorsement of a number of groups -- the national association of counties, americans for prosperity, americans for tax reform, citizens against government waste. mr. president, i would argue this is just common sense. this is a modest, narrow amendment. as i say, it doesn't in any way, shape, form or fashion change any regulations or permitting requirements for any new construction, and it says nothing whatsoever about the extensive state requirements. it's silent about all of that. it simply says with respect to federal environmental permitting, if you're rebuilding an existing road or bridge because it's been damaged in this way that you don't have to go through this costly, lengthy process that is costing us time, money, jobs and infrastructure. so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support my

amendment, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. let me first thank my colleague from pennsylvania for his comments on the matter in which we are proceeding. i rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from pennsylvania, and for many reasons. first, let me compliment senator boxer and the leadership on the environment and public works committee because when we approved map 21, we took this issue up and we dealt with it and it was not without controversy. we had strong views on both sides of this issue because what the senator from pennsylvania's doing, he is removing completely replacement facilities from any -- not just the nepa protesters but also from the endangered species act, from the

clean water act, basically putting a dome over the process so anything goes, basically, anything. we debated that issue in the environment and ploarks committee and there were different -- environment and public works committee, and there were different views, and quite frankly, senator boxer was extremely accommodating to the legitimate concerns raised that the gentleman from pennsylvania has raised. that's why there is an expedited procedure already in law, passed in map 21, that deals with this issue. the senator talks about using the proper legislative process. we did that. the committee of jurisdiction debated it, and we had difficult compromises, but we reached those compromises. let the process work because the process is working. let me just point out. i was one of those that wasn't excited about giving up any of our environmental protections on

replacement facilities because i pointed out to the fact that when we had a bridge collapse in minnesota, that bridge was replaced within a matter of a very short period of time before we did our compromise that expedites the process. my point is in emergencies, we seem to work things out, but in order to deal with the concerns that the senator has raised, we have put into the law this expedited procedure for replacement facilities. it's in map 21. it's the law. what this amendment what do, it would open it up to significant abuse. it is very conceivable that when you give this type of an exemption, that you basically are exempting a geographical spot that anything goes. it could be a total end to any of the protections we have in the federal clean water act. it could be eliminated. so i would just urge my colleagues to reject this

amendment. it's unnecessary, and it certainly opens it up to a tremendous abuse. we have a process in place. it was negotiated, and i would urge my colleagues accept -- mr. president, let me just -- before i yield the floor, i want to thank senator wyden, i want to thank senator boxer, senator hatch, i see them on the floor, and senator carper for their incredible work on this bill. i agree with senator wyden and senator boxer, it is very important we pass a bill before we leave this week so there is no delay in making sure the federal government pays its bills to our state and local governments on transportation projects. i strongly support senator wyden and senator hatch's effort in our committee to get a better funding flow for the batch so we deal with collecting the taxes that should be paid rather than causing a disruption in some of the revenue sources that are in the house bill. so i strongly support senator wyden's efforts and senator hatch's efforts in our committee, and i certainly

support senator carper's bill, amendment, that would say it is our responsibility to act in this congress. mr. president, let me point out we still have five months left before this congress goes out of business. it would be wrong for us to pass just a patch and not do the six-year reauthorization. the environment of public works committee by unanimous vote recognized the -- that we could get a six-year bill done. we have already talked about where revenues can come from. there is bills that we could take up dealing with supplemental ways to fund infrastructure, infrastructure banks or using the tax code. i'm sure we could get bipartisan agreement on some of these issues. the carper amendment says that we're going to get our job done in this congress and we're not going to subject our states to the uncertainty of just a patch. in my state of maryland, we have many long-term commitments that we're trying to get funded, and a short term patch will put us on hold. we're okay to the end of the

year, but let's make sure we enact a six-year bill before this congress adjourns. mrs. boxer: will the senator yield for a question? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i thank the chair. i want to ask a question. i think the way he responded to the toomey amendment was right on point. it was almost a deja vu as i listened to my friend from pennsylvania because he's not on the committee of jurisdiction, but we had this same debate as my friend pointed out. as a matter of fact, i started to get a little stressed as he related what we went through to get to the point where we have an expedited procedure that takes care of the problems my friend from pennsylvania talks about. but we don't throw out every landmark environmental law. that would be a disaster. and i could give you an example and ask my friend if he agrees with this example, and i also want to point out the american public health association strongly opposes senator

toomey's amendment because they know the health of the people are at stake. but let's say you had a situation where you brought in a contractor to clean up after there was a disastrous collapse, let's say, of a highway, and there was a body of water nearby, and the contractor came in and instead of having a good, clean operation, he started dumping his fuel and chemicals and everything else into this waterway. now, mind you, under our law, he's already got an expedited permit, he is ready to roll, but he or she, they have to be good citizens and not make matters worse. does my friend not agree that these landmark laws such as the clean water act, the safe drinking water act, that they should be respected and the toomey amendment throws them out the window and we could endanger the health of the people.

mr. cardin: senator boxer, through the chair, you are absolutely right. it's even worse than that because the contractor could be using a subcontractor whose principal work may not even be directly related to the replacement but it would be virtually impossible to detect what they're doing on the replacement site as they are doing on other sites. so it could be absolutely used as a shield in order to avoid the environmental -- and the laws that we have that protect against public health, protect our clean waters, our drinking waters, et cetera. it opens up a huge potential for abuse. it is throwing out the law rather than making the laws work, and that's exactly what our committee did after a very lengthy debate in which, quite frankly, we did certain things that make it a lot easier for a replacement facility to be done in an expedited process. mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i'd like to address another issue

connected to this debate. before i do so, i'd like to yield a moment of my time to my distinguished colleague, the junior senator from pennsylvania. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: i thank the senator from utah. let me just respond to my colleagues from maryland and california. briefly, first of all, i'm -- i'm perfectly glad that the committee of jurisdiction addressed this. one of the great things about the senate is when it's actually functioning, members who are not on a particular committee still have the opportunity to weigh in on an issue and have that debate on the senate floor, and that's exactly what we're doing today. i'm glad we're doing that. i would also observe that my colleagues seem to have very, very little faith in the ability and willingness of states to protect their own environments. they should spend some more time in pennsylvania. we care a lot about our environment in pennsylvania, and we have a department of environmental protection that takes that responsibility very seriously. finally, i would point out that the so-called fix in map-21 is

extremely incomplete, and it's incomplete because, first, it occurs at the discretion of the department of transportation. they can simply choose not to have an expedited process if they deem the project to be controversial. undefined, who knows what that means? and secondly, the department of transportation is not permitted to exclude from this process compliance with the army corps of engineers or the fish and wildlife service reviews which altogether are extremely time consuming and expensive and costly. so, again, mr. president, we're just talking about repairing existing infrastructure. we're not talking about waiving these requirements for new capacity, for new infrastructure. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and i thank the gentleman from utah. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that i can call up my amendment, number 3584, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from

utah, mr. lee, proposes an amendment numbered 3584 -- mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, we're here today because our federal highway policy status quo is not working. and it hasn't been working for a long time. this is the sixth time american taxpayers have been asked to bail out the highway trust fund since 2008. the sixth time since 2008. none of those patches, $52 billion worth of bailouts in seven years fixed the problem and neither will the $10.8 billion authorized by the bill that is before us today. it will buy us only a few months before we're right back in the same place once again, the same place where we are right now. indeed, this debate is itself

the dysfunction of washington, d.c. here as in health care, higher education, assistance for the poor, energy and so many other areas, the federal government has created a permanent structural problem and it responds with duck tape. worse, this bill solves only washington problems, only the problems of washington, d.c. not those of the american people. under the broken status quo that this bill not only protects but also extends, in six months and in six years our roads will still remain congested. too many single moms will still live on a nice edge trying to make it to their second jobs all the way across town. too many dads will have to leave for work before breakfast just to make it home -- just to make

it to their job, and then do the same thing again as they try to make it home for dinner. children will still look in vain into the empty seats at their piano recitals and little league games. commuters will still squeeze into overcrowded subway cars, hold their breath and hope it doesn't break down again. young families will still be unfairly priced out of neighborhoods, near the best jobs and the best schools. and diverse communities will still be subject to the mon not news inefficiency of an outmoded federal federal bureaucracy. but it doesn't have to be this way. there is a better way. mr. president, the interstate highway system is one of the greatest achievements not only in the history of the federal government, but in all of american history. it unified a sprawling continental nation by investing in our common destiny. it simultaneously met the economic, social, cultural and

security needs of an emerging super power. it was and it remains a wonder of american innovation and self-government. more than that, the interstate highway system was the daring, audacious work of a young nation literally on the move, brings -- bristling with confidence in its future and people. with the federal aid highway act of 1956, congress threw off the yoke of the status quo and it met the emerging needs of a new generation. yet today some 58 years later, in a new century with new needs and new technologies and a new economy, congress anxiously clings to that exact same policy like some kind of a tattered security blanket. six decades ago federal highway policy represented a triumph of

imagination. today our refusal to modernize that same policy represents a failure of imagination. so we're here with the duct tape and wd-40 trying to keep this 20th century bureaucracy in place rather than embracing the worthy challenge of building a new mobility policy, one that's well suited for the 21st century. that's exactly what my amendment, the transportation empowerment act, would do. you see, in 1956 it made sense for the federal government to collect the majority of gas taxes from around the country and then coordinate the construction of a national system. we needed it. but with the interstate system now largely complete, the most of the transportation issues that we see today exist at the local level and there is no longer the same need for washington to serve as the

central coordinator. we've become an intrusive middle man. we need to refocus the federal government solely on interstate priorities and to empower a diverse, flexible, open source transportation network controlled by the states. my amendment would empower states and communities to customize their own infrastructure according to their own needs and their own values and their own imagination. it would over five years gradually transfer funding and spending authority over local transportation infrastructure projects to the states. today the federal gasoline tax stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. my amendment would lower it by 2019 to 3.7 cents per gallon. in the interim, we would gradually send states more of their allotment without strings

to prepare them for the eventual transfer of this differential. after this gradual transition, congress would retain enough revenue to continue to maintain the interstate highway system, which rightfully, properly remains a federal priority and a core competence of our government at the national level. but states and communities would be newly empowered to launch a new era of local investment and local innovation. the idea behind this plan is not only that there is a better way to improve america's infrastructure. there are 50 better ways and even thousands of better ways. in our increasingly decentralized world, there are as many ideal transportation policies as there are communities across this great country. washington is standing in the way, imposing obsolete

conformity on a vibrant, diverse society. for if we truly love local transportation infrastructure -- and who doesn't -- we should set it free. under the transportation empowerment act, americans could finally enjoy the local infrastructure they want. more environmentally conscious states and towns could finally have the flexibility to invest in green transit projects and bike lanes. businesses reaping the benefits of the energy renaissance could accelerate their own infrastructure and their own buildouts to keep up with their explosive growth. dense cities could invest in more sustainable public transit networks. meanwhile surrounding counties could reopen the frontiers of the suburbs to a new generation of far more livable communities. state and local governments will also be free to experiment with innovative funding mechanisms

not necessarily tied to the unreliable, unpredictable gasoline tax. and by cutting out the washington middle men all of those states and communities and taxpayers will be able to get more for less. my amendment would not reduce america's investment in infrastructure. and many more van uber reduces america's investment in car service. in the real world value is not a cost. rather, my plan would empower a nation hungry for greater mobility, to spend their infrastructure dollars on steel and on concrete instead of on bureaucracy and special interests. some of my colleagues oppose this plan. some will offer washington's eternal promise. the status quo will work.

it just needs more money. that's all it needs, and it will work. the federal gasoline tax has not changed since 1994, they will say. we're starving the trust fund, they will add. but it's not true. at least it's an inaccurate or incomplete picture. for the 12 years prior to 1994, the gasoline tax skyrocketed by an alarming 460% from just 4 cents per gallon to 18.4 cents per gallon. put another way, since 1982, the federal gasoline tax has grown by an equivalent of 6.1% per year. chasing evermore money will not solve this problem. that's what we've been doing, and the bill before us today is incontrovertible proof that it just hasn't worked. others argue that reducing

washington's role in local transportation would invite economic and infrastructural catastrophe. this makes two very peculiar assumptions, mr. president. first, it assumes that washington is uniquely competent in the area of local transportation. even has a long train of abusive boondoogles and bridges to nowhere tell us exactly the opposite. even more bizarrely, this argument assumes that the 50 states of our exceptional republic, many of which would rank among the wealthiest nations in the world on their own, are unstable banana republics nursing the development of primitive hunter-gatherer societies whose only transportation services involve the clearing of wood land paths for their pig-drawn carts. mr. president, state and local governments already pay for 75% of all surface transportation

infrastructure projects in this country. in my home state of utah, one of the best run in the country, only 20% of our transportation money comes from washington. the other 80% we raise ourselves. of course we raise most of that 20% too. it's just that under the broken status quo, washington middle men take their cut before sending it back to us. why not just leave that extra 25% to the states and communities who need and use it in the first place? the states already own and maintain the highways, and local transit projects are inherently local. so why not let the federal government focus on interstates and let oregonians plan finance and build their bike paths and san franciscoans their green energy transit experiments and texans their eight-lane express

ways in their own way tailored to their own needs and their own local values. all we add to the process here in washington, d.c. is unnecessary overhead and self-congratulating press releases trying to take credit for it all. finally, many who admit that the status quo is unsustainable nonetheless support it because they believe their particular state benefits by receiving more money back from the highway trust fund than it puts in. washington perpetuates the myth that transportation money is free, especially for these so-called net donee states. but as in every other middle man arrangement, the status quo policy ensures that states actually get less value back than they should. federal regulatory strings not only make infrastructure projects unnecessarily

expensive, they specifically divert resources away from actual infrastructure and waste it on special interests and bureaucratic red tape. the federal davis-bacon act, for instance, cost states an additional 10 cents for every single $1 they spend on infrastructure construction projects. numerous regulations under the national environmental policy act, or nepa as it's frequently called, collectively cost state governments an additional 9 cents on the dollar. no wonder the trust fund needs to be bailed out every year. washington is charging taxpayers a 20% processing fee right off the top. i encourage all of my colleagues to work out the math for their own states. but for utah, that means that of the $335 million we receive annually from the highway trust fund, nearly $64 million goes to

political overhead instead of steel and concrete. mr. president, everything in our economy and our society today is moving away from rigid centralized bureaucratic control and toward flexible, open-sourced community and individual empowerment. this is a simple question of old versus new, of bolt versus unimaginable. the international highway system met a crucial need at its time and represented wonderful innovation but so did border's bookstores at one time. so did blockbuster video at one time. so did record stores. so did rotary telephones. americans still need books and movies and music and communication, and they still get those things. today those goods are just delivered more efficiently, more

affordably, through flexible models customized to the needs of individual customers. in the very same way americans still need highways and bridges and subways and bike paths. indeed, we need them now more than ever, but federal policy hasn't kept up with the times. that's why, even without my amendment, more than 30 states have begun or are considering their own transportation modernization programs. this is just one more piece of evidence that the transportation renaissance america needs is one that our centralized bureaucratic status quo cannot deliver, not with another $10.8 billion or ten times as much. after six decades and historic successes, the time has come for a new federal transportation

policy, one that taps the creativity of our diverse nation. today americans are unnecessarily stuck in traffic, stuffed into overcrowded sub-way karks missing their -- sub-way cars, missing their kids recitals, and they spend almost a full 40-hour workweek per year stuck in gridlock. they zev bette deserve better tt washington is offering, which is just the status quo, plus a little more money. a new era demands a new approach, mr. president. the interstate highway system is a success, and the people who created it deserve our great admiration and gratitude. but the way to honor their legacy is to stop imitating them and start emulating them by investing in an innovative transportation network for our own era, just as they did for

theirs. just as it was in 1956, the status quo is once again no longer good enough. we need to transcend it. the future of american mobility is not our rigid monolithic centralized. it is a flexible, organic, open-source net, of empowered individuals and communities as diverse as the nation itself. my amendment would empower americans to start to build that future together, and i respectfully ask my colleagues to support it. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, it is really almost hard to know where to start in my opposition to this amendment, but let me say, some people call it devolution, meaning you devolve all responsibility for the

highway -- highways and transits of the states. i call it not devolution but complete and utter destruction of a system that's been in place that the states have grown to count on. that's why the states that my friend speaks from the states' point of view, they oppose this amendment strongly. ashtow, they represent not one state but every single state. there's so many things my friend said that you can't refute. a state should have a right to spend whatever they want. sure they can. they could spend anything they wanted right now. but they count on the basic bread and butter of these grants. now, if you look at history, it's been republican presidents who have stepped up to the plate on this, all through history. that's why i think this is so radical. it's shocking to me. it's shocking to me because some

of the biggest proponents of the interstate highway system and aid to the states have been republican presidents. and let's be clear. if, god forbid, this would become the law, immediately the states would see a cut in their transportation funding of 80% -- 80%. and that's my friend's answer to gridlock, cutting funding to the states by 80%? the last time i heard and listened, we were one nation under god, indivisible. and that's why the visionary -- the visionary dwight eisenhower saw this. he knew you had to be able to move equipment. he knew logistics because he was a general. he knew we were one nation.

sea to shining sea. and my friend would have us lose that. i really wish my colleague, senator inhofe, would come to the floor because, as he -- i think he has a voting record that is as conservative as any, and he feels transportation is a basic function along with defense. now, i think it's important to know that counties and cities and states depend on this program, and they have for yea years. and, again, this is a national interest to have this one nati nation. and i want to tell you who opposes the lee amendment. if you really want to see republicans and democrats uniting around the country, look

at who is opposing the lee amendment. the american trucking association, the american road and transportation builders association, the american society of civil engineers, the american users alliance, the highway users alliance, the national stone, stand sand, anl association, the general contractors, the associated equipment distributors and the association of equipment manufacturers. and if they agreed with senator lee, set us free, set us free, we're going to build so much,ing i don't know what he's talking about, set us free. set us free with 80% less money? oh, that's really great. what are you going to build? nothing? you're going to have to raise taxes. i was a county supervisor. that doesn't work. ploantsproponents of this amendt

claim that with the completion of the interstate system, we don't need a federal role in transportation. well, guess what? you have to maintain our federal highways, even though they've been built. you have to maintain our bridges, even though they have been built. i said on a tv show the other day, i know i got a little older. i need more maintenance. that's just the way it is. i'm not happy about it. stop laughing up there. but that's a fact of life. so don't tell me, free at last, free at last, do away with this and then think the states are going to be happy when the -- when the very states my friend says he speaks for are totally against his amendment. we would be cutting massively transportation infrastructure spending. now, let's talk about that impact on thousands of businesses and millions of

workers. i don't know if we have the picture of the stat stadium. do we have that? i want to show my friend. when he comes here and makes an ideological speech, i like to talk about the real world. here is the real world. this is a super bowl game. this is a stadium. it holds 100,000 people. we have seven stadiums full of unemployed construction workers. you want to cut the federal involvement by 80%? just don't see some of these workers. it started out we filled up 20 of these stadiums in the height of the recession, 20 of these stadiums. now we've got it down to seven. and we still don't have enough work. and this isn't make-work. this is work that our american

businesspeople want. this is work that our american workers want. this is work that can't be outsourced. this is work that pays a good wage. what a time to cut back. -- what a time to cut back our investment by 80% and sock it to the workers, the same people who vote for this amendment won't raise the minimum wage. support this pension smoothing that is taking away dollars from our employees' pensions. so i am at my wit's end to understand. my friend is a nice man, and i know he believes this, but don't come on the floor and say, let's start -- let's forget about eisenhower's vision and have a new vision, twhais there's no more -- which is that there's no more federal role. now, some will get up and say, you know, maybe it's better to do this than do nothing. you know, maybe this is better.

no, we have to do our job around here, and that's a multiyear bill. we're faced with a short-term extension because we haven't done our work. senators carper and corker and i are going to put forward an amendment that's going to force us to do our work in december, if we're lucky enough to have it passed. we hope it will pass. because if you vote for that amendment, you're cutting back the short-term money you have to pay, you are cutting back the time, and that's good. but you're not walking away from the responsibility that we have as nation -- one nation under gorksgod, indivisible, from seao shining sea, that my friend's amendment would destroy. i hope we will vote no and i

thank my colleagues and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i respectfully but strongly disagree with the characterization that my distinguished colleague from california has made suggesting that this somehow represents an 80% cut in transportation funding. that simply is not true. the idea here is to transfer both the revenue collection authority and the spending authority back to where most of this belongs, which is at the state and at the local level. now, there isn't state in the union want this to do away with transportation infrastructure spending. quite to the contrary, our states and our localities and those who assist them, the contractors who provide the services, who provide the gravel and other materials that go into these roads and bridges an transit projects, they want to get to work. but they want, mr. president, to put this money into steel and concrete in the ground rather than spending so much of it on lobbying, rather than spending so much of it on things that

have nothing to do with steel and concrete in the ground. i'd also like to refer back to something that my colleague said with regard to the fact that it costs money to maintain the interstate highway system. i absolutely agree. i could not agree more, which is exactly why i wrote this amendment, so as to retain a $3.07 gasoline tax to make sure we would maintain the interstate highway system. that is exactly what we do here. a reference was made to my distinguished colleague from oklahoma, mr. inhofe, expressing the re-morse over the effect that -- the re-morse over the enact a nofact that he's not he. senator inhofe has voted for this provision in the past. in fact, in the past, senator inhofe himself has introduced a version of this very piece of legislation.

my colleague also referred to the groups that happen to oppose this legislation. i would encourage those groups to learn more about it and also point out there are lots of groups that support my legislation, including americans for prosperity, americans for tax reform, heritage action, club for growth, national taxpayers freedom, freedom works and the list goes on and on. it's also important to remember that our federal gasoline tax did increase substantially between the years 1982 and 1994, increasing from just 4 cents per gallon to 18.4 cents per gallon. we were told that as this gasoline tax was increased at the federal level that we would be back up the highway trust fund, that we would make sure that it was secure. did that happen? no. what instead happened was the federal government overreached. the federal government started getting more and more involved in surface stree streets, thingt have nothing to do with our interstate highway system. that's why we're here today. i therefore yield back the floor. i thank you, mr. president. mrs. boxer: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i'll be very brief. i know my colleagues want to present the carper-corker-boxer amendment, so i willious say this. -- so i will just say this. you cut the gas tax to such a degree that the states would get an 80% cut. you can do the math yourself. but i'm happy to work with you on it. and, you know, it is notvening t is not convenient to speak about another member when they're not here. but mind something that senator inhofe does not currently support this. we'll find out in a couple of hours. one of us can apologize. but i will apologize if i misstated his objection to this. i yield the floor. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that our amendment, the carper-corker-box he havcarper-corker-boxer amende midpending and that it be reported by number at this time. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from

delaware, mr. carper, proposes an amendment numbered 3583. strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: mr. carper: i would make some comments and then yield to senator corker and back to senator boxer. we have others on the floor that would like to speak on behalf of this amendment. i want to start off by saying to the senator from tennessee, who's here with us as our lead rope the amendment, how grateful i am to have the opportunity to work with you on a very, very important issue. thank you for your courage to stand up. one of the definitions of leadership is the courage to stay out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. in this case, not everyone else is marching to the wrong tune but a few people are, and i just want to thank you for showing that courage and standing up to do what we believe is the right thing to do. i want to give a big shout out to senator boxer. she chairs the environment and public works committee, on which i serve as the subcommittee chair for transportation and

infrastructure. she, senator vitter and i worked to fashion a six-year transportation plan for our country that is very well thought out, excellent road man for the future for transportation in america. and what we now need to do is to fund it. it's great to have a plan. how about some money to make it happen. and that's what this is all about and how do we best ensure -- this is the question. at the end of the day, how do we best ensure that we'll actually fund the six-year plan that senator boxer and others have helped us to -- to develop. i want to thank not just senators corker and boxer for their great, great support and for their leadership, i want to thank the democrats and republicans and even an independent or two for their support of our -- of our amendment. and with that, i think i'll just yield time now to senator corker and then to senator boxer and i'll take some time after that, and senator king is here and we welcome his participation. i yield back not my time but i yield the floor.

mr. wyden: mr. president, just to make a unanimous consent request? mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the order with respect to h.r. 5021 be modified to allow for two minutes equally divided in the usual form between the votes and that after the -- and that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i want to thank the senator from delaware and the senator from california for joining in in this amendment. i want to thank senator corpser for his leadership not -- senator carper for his leadership not just on this issue but on other fiscal issues. i know we're working on other long-term issues that need to be resolved and i want to thank him for the way he goes about doing that. let me if i could lay out what's happening here today. a house bill is coming over here today that is a short-term extension. mr. president, i don't know if you know this or not but this will be the 11th short-term

extension since 2008. let me say that one more time. this is the 11th short-term extension that has occurred since 2008. this is the fifth time, mr. president, that we've taken money out of the general fund -- taken money out of the general fund to fund the highway trust fund, which is supposed to be funded through user fees. so for what i'd like to say to my friends on this side of the aisle, this is the fifth time for the highway trust fund that builds the highways and bridges around our country that we're engaging in generational theft -- generational theft -- where we take money out of the general fund -- everyone knows it's not paid for -- we use gimmicks to pay for something that the constitution says we're actually supposed to deal with. so the house has sent over a bill -- and there's been a lot of consternation on the floor about that -- they use

$6.4 billion worth of pension smoothing. everybody in this body knows it's not a real pay-for. all it does is move revenues up a dec decade. and because it uses $6.4 billion worth of pension smoothing, it has a $5 billion budget point of order against it. let me say that one more time. a $5 billion budget point of order against the house bill that's coming over. and so there's been some consternation, people have said, well, if we don't take up the house bill, then the road program's going to fall apart and we're going to go home for august recess and everybody's going to be blamed. well, fortunately -- fortunately speaker boehner today said, no, if the senate sends something over, we're going to send something right back. so everybody ought to be relieved. so it doesn't matter today that many of our finance committee members that serve with chairman wyden, they've made commitments to him that we're going to get on the senate finance committee and they should all know that that's not a problem now. the house today said they're

going to send something right back. so the first vote that's going to take place today is a vote to go -- to strip out the house bill, which has $6.4 billion worth of pension smoothing, a total gimmick -- everyone knows it's not a pay-for. it loses money. loses money. and the senate finance committee bill is going to be -- the first vote is to replace the house bill with the senate finance committee bill. by the way, which was done under regular order, done the way bills are supposed to be done. now, unfortunately it also is a short-term fix. i've never voted for a short-term fix for the highway trust fund because i -- i can't believe -- it's so simple for us to resolve. onlthe only issue is we haven't been willing to address itment there'it.so i'm going to vote ae

short-term extension but we have an amendment to improve it. what it does is take owl all the pension smoothing that is unfortunately in the finance committee bill -- i thank them for doing their work -- but it has $2.9 billion worth of pension smoothing, which again is a gimmick. in other words, it moves revenues up. it weakens, by the way, our pension system in our country. you-all know all that. it weakens our pension system. it moves money into this decade but from then on it loses even more money. it's absolute -- no offense to those who put it in place -- it's generational theft. so what this amendment does is to take pension smoothing out of the senate finance bill and leave everything else in placement now, the secondary benefit to that is that it means that the highway trust fund will lose -- will not have funding except to make it through this year. and what that means is that this body in 2014 will have the

opportunity to actually deal with this issue. i have to tell you seriously, i'm embarrassed. i've been here 7 1/2 years in the united states senate, 7 1/2 years and we have yet -- yet -- to deal with one of our long-term issues. i can't remember a single issue that this body has come together on to deal with one of our long-term structural issues. it's an embarrassment. there really aren't new ideas around here. there's just been a lack of willingness to deal with it. so i want to thank the senator from california, the senator from delaware and others who will join in on this amendment. and all we're doing is one thing -- we're taking a gimmick out of the senate finance bill and forcing this body to act responsibly before year end. that's all. so i would just urge my colleagues to come to the floor and say, look, it's been a long time, 11 reauthorizations short

term. by the way, think about the economic issues that come with this. we do these reauthorizations and d.o.t.'s around the country have no idea -- departments of transportation -- whether there's going to be funding in place. what do the contractors do? they don't hire people long term, they don't buy equipment. and yet we come do this 11 times since 2008. five times, again, transferring money out of our general fund. the greatest generational theft that can occur -- taking money out of the general fund, spending it over a five- or six-month months, paying for it for 10 years -- my republican friends who railed over the president because of the health care bill because he was using six years' worth of costs -- by the way, i was one of those railers -- six years worth of costs, 10 years worth of revenues. we don't get off of it because

it was so irresponsible. and yet in this bill -- in this bill we're going to spend the money over six or seven months and pay for it over 10 years. it's an order of magnitude worse. and so i know that a lot of people have worked and they've said, no, we -- there's no way we can come up with a solution by year end. you have got to be kidding me? how could we not come up with a solution to such a simple issue, a trust fund, that's been funded by user fees, how could we not figure out some way in five days -- the senate finance committee has some of the smartest people in the senate on it. they know there are no new real options. the chairman's floated some ideas as to how to get there and i applaud him for it. and, by the way, i know that the senate finance committee is only doing its job today. in other words, you've got to come up with a short-term solution. i got it. i can't support it. i can't support it. i can't support another kicking

the can down the road on one of the simplest issues we have to deal with in the united states senate because elections are coming up. let's face it. and every time -- it's the election, we can't deal with this issue. so what we've said is, okay, we got it. we realize that during an election, people don't really to want show their cards, apparently. so we're saying hey, let's strip out the gimmick that's in this bill, the pension smoothing that we all know is not a pay-for, it's a gimmick, let's strip that out and let's force the congress this year before, the end of this year, to actually deal with an issue that's very important to our nation. so i hope that people will support it. i hope -- i've heard people say, well, i'm just -- i just don't see how we can figure out a solution to this. you've got to be kidding me? i mean, how many new ideas are there relative to this?

so, look, i -- i thank my colleagues for joining in this amendment. i hope that we'll have support. again, we're going to be putting in place a short -- this amendment puts -- lessens the kicking the can down the road, it takes out a gimmick, it forces us to deal with a long-term solution, which we should have done a long time a ago. and i thank all of those senators who support this amendment. i hope others will consider before they come down to the floor. and i hope that this senate will have the opportunity, and the house, before year end to actually deal with this issue. again, let me say this. the kick-it-can-down-the-road that's occurring takes us into next may and june. think about it. so we're going to have a presidential race underway. so then people are going to say, oh, we can't deal with this issue. we don't want our nominees to have to deal with this issue. remember the primaries this year are early so our republicans will say, well, we don't want to deal with this issue in may or june because the presidential

race is coming up. and the democrats will say the same thing, we don't want our candidate to have to talk about this issue. and so again and again and again we'll can the can down the road -- kick the can down the road, we'll engage in generational theft, we'll weaken our economy, we won't do the things we should be doing with on our infrastructure. it's the wrong thing to do. please support this amendment. with that, i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i want to thank senator corker before he leaves the floor, because i'll tell you, i've been here awhile and i haven't her a more honest speech in my life on the senate floor, frankly. i haven't heard a more passionate speech and a speech in which you just spoke from the heart and from your brain, which is quite confiden competent. i just thank you for it. because, you know, there are some times when you do feel like shouting. i guess there was a movie "i can't take it any more and i

want everyone to know." it is ridiculous that we are where we are. we knew this for two years, that the highway trust fund was going to run out of money. we knew it for two years. that's why in may senator vitter and i, senator carper, senator barrasso and others, both sides of the aisle, passed the six-year bill. we knew it was coming. we wanted to wake up our colleagues. and we did wake them up. but, sadly, to a short-term fix instead of a multiyear fix, do a long-term bill. and my friend i, so agree with you. it is the political will that is lacking. there's always an excuse followed by an excuse followed by -- the next thing we know, they'll say, "the dog ate my homework." we've heard every excuse in the word." and you're so right, we're going to be in presidential races, then we'll start with more senate races and more congressional races and people won't want to take a tough vote

again. you know, this is the greatest nation on earth but we have to reflect the greatness in our work here and we're not. and i would just say the one thing i disagree with my friend on, he said we're only doing one thing in this amendment. we're actually doing two things in this amendment. one is we're getting rid of that gimmick called pension smoothi smoothing, which i've kind of studied it over the last few weeks to really understand what we are doing, which is when you use this pension smoothing, you're saying to companies, don't put any money into your pension obligations. and through some smoke-and-mirrors, because then it means they get to pay a little more income taxes, by thy the way, some don't pay more income taxes -- it comes out a plus. the fact is, it's in essence telling companies they don't have to set aside money for their workers' pensions. that's not something that's go

good, especially since the pension guaranty corporation is short $34 billion. i don't know if my friend knows this. the last time we used pension smoothing for a short-term fix, at least we had in the committee a comparable measure that ensured companies gave more to the pension guaranty corp. so although they had a chance not to give the money into the pensions, they did have to pay more into the pension guaranty corp. if the pension guaranty corporation is broke, the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. i'm looking at my friend in the chair, that great senator, elizabeth warren, who knows what happens when everybody is broke and the federal government says, oh, my god, that's too big to fail. so this attack that you make on the smoothing as a gimmick, it's worse an a gimmick.

it is a gimmick, but it's worse because it has real-life impacts and those real-life impacts are that the companies aren't putting aside enough money. so we're saying let's think about what we're saying here. we're saying that the highway trust fund is going broke, so to fix it, we're going to endanger another fund, the pension funds of our workers. it's terrible. that's why i love the carper-corker-boxer amendment and i thank my friends for their leadership on the pay-for. it does two things, this good amendment. it says we're not going to use the smoothing, we're going to protect our pensions, and secondly, we are going to attack the long-term issues of the highway trust fund in december in the lame duck after the elections and everybody knows that's the best time to do it. so i stand proudly with my friends. i hope we pass this.

i don't know what happens, what the house will do but you know what my dad used to say, you can only control what you can control. we can't control them, but we can control us. so i hope anyone listening to this debate, i'm going to support the wyden amendment because it does strip some of the pension smoothing out, i'm going to oppose the toomey amendment in the nature of a substitute, the lee amendment, i think they're dangerous, and i'm going to strongly support the carper amendment, the carper-corker-boxer amendment. i thank my colleagues for this and i know there is very important business to come to the floor so i will yield the floor at this time. the presiding officer: the senior senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: we've just listened to a very lively debate on the highway trust fund, certainly a great issue confronting our nation because our infrastructure is crumbling. but we also know another great infrastructure has been under really -- also been crumbling and that's our v.a. infrastructure. the ability to deliver health

care to our veterans as promised and also to meet their claims when they file for their benefits, particularly those poignant, compelling claims around disability benefits. madam president, i come to the floor today to see if we can't do a trifecta this week on passing a serious reform bill advocated by senators sanders and mccain, a -- excuse me me -- a sanders-mccain bill. the presiding officer: senators will take their conversations out of the chamber. ms. mikulski: these are excellent senators whose voices are heard and heard and heard. as is mine. but in addition to the sanders-mccain bill that comes with the conference, really what that bill does is focus primarily on the health care issues facing us.

what concerns me is also the fact that we need to eliminate the v.a. disability claims backlog for which there's also a compelling need. now,, what i am advocating is that we do a trifecta this week, we pass the conference report that has been advocated by senators sanders and mccain, that will deal with the important reforms and adding new personnel to it. we have given the v.a. a new chief executive officer to bring about the reforms and know how business, but, madam president, i also want to bring to the floor the v.a. milcon bill and the appropriations. this is a fantastic bill that moves from the subcommittee led by my two -- my very able subcommittee chairmen, senator tim johnson, with the help of

ranking member senator mark kirk of illinois. they have done such incredible diligence on how we could use the taxpayers' dollar wisely to really provide the services that we promised the veterans. yes, health care, but also that you don't -- you shouldn't stand in line for your health care, but you also shouldn't stand in line and wait in line and then hope the line gets smaller for your disability benefits. what the v.a. milcon bill does this year under the very able leadership of senator johnson and the cooperation of senator kirk was to do these very important reforms. and the committee responded. i wish you could have been in the full committee that day. we passed it on a bipartisan basis of 30-0. now i want to be able to bring this bill to the floor so this

week we could do all three of these and make sure that the sanders-mccain conference report bill is not on a weak foundation. we need to modernize our v.a. infrastructure. there's over $10 billion of backlog in crumbling physical infrastructure at the v.a. it's technology -- its technology is dated. we want them to have great technology, and most of all, we finally want to crack this veterans' backlog. so i'm going to ask shortly a unanimous consent request. i talked about it earlier, but before i make this request -- i've spoken about this bill, but i really would like to yield to my colleague and my very able subcommittee chairman, senator tim johnson, who has spent more than a decade working on these issues, and now in a bipartisan basis we have such a splendid

bill, so wise, so prudent, so effective that i wish we could do it and i would like to yield the floor and then reclaim the floor for my u.c. request. mr. johnson: madam president? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: i thank the chairwoman for her strong leadership on the appropriations committee and her unfailing dedication to our nation's vets. she is absolutely right in pointing out that passage of the fy 2015 milcon v.a. bill is crucial to implementing the sanders bill. the sanders bill provides funding and expanded access to medical care for vets, but the mill connecticut -- the milcon bill provides a far greater range that covers every aspect of v.a. operations.

by unanimous vote we just confirmed robert mcdonald to be secretary of v.a. he was assuming the leadership of an agency in crisis, and he will need every resource available to him if he is to succeed in turning the v.a. around. the senate has given him the job, and the senate should now give him the resources to accomplish that. this is no time to delay or shortchange v.a. funding. for the sake of the nation's vets, we must keep our focus on the full scope of v.a. operations, including but not limited to access to medical care. the disability claims backlog is a perfect example. in the past year, with the

resources and oversight provided in the fy fine milcon v.a. bill, v.a. has done a great progress in reducing the backlog. the fy fine bill provides resources to claims processing. the removal of frivolous claims was key to expediting claims processing and it was made possible by improvements to v.a. information technology systems, improvements which were funded in the milcon v.a. bill. it is the backbone of virtually every program the v.a. administers. an inadequate scheduling system was a key factor in the patient scheduling scandal. the v.a. is in the midst of an

entirely overall of -- overhaul of its health records system to make it more accessible to patients and to change information with d.o.d. this effort is crucial to the v.a.'s ability to deliver timely benefits to vets. the milcon v.a. bill also provides the funding to implement a wide array of programs that are crucial to the health and well-being of vets. many of these are the kinds of programs or initiatives -- aren't the kinds of programs or initiatives that make headlines. but they are essential in delivering timely care and benefits. for example, the fy 2009 -- 2015 bill provides money for the

v.a., the spits is implemented, it will take us as many as 10 to 15 days off the time it takes to process a disability claim. the bill also provides increased funding to expand the access received closure to home program for vets in rural areas. these are just two of many examples i could cite. madam president, the sanders bill and the milcon v.a. bill are carat spratt components of a single requirement, and they should move forward at the same time. i would hope that we could pass these bipartisan bills before we adjourn for recess. i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i am really eager to bring at least one appropriations bill to the floor there are only 72 hours left before we break for august. i therefore ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 400, h.r. 4486, the military construction v.a. appropriations bill, that the committee- committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, and that there be no other amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive that there be up to one hour of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, that upon the use of or yielding back of time, the

bill as amended be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on the passage of the bill as amended, that if the bill as amended is passed, the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house and authorize the chair to appoint conferees. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: our side is eager to schedule floor consideration of appropriations bills with a full and open amendment process, and the milcon v.a. bill would be at the top of our list. what the senator from maryland agree to modify this consent request as follows -- that following disposition of the highway bill this evening, the motion to proceed to s. 2648, the senate border supplemental bill be withdrawn and the senate proceed to the immediate

consideration of h.r. 4486, the milcon v.a. bill. i further ask that the first amendment in order be offered by the republican leader or his designee and that the two sides then offer amendments in alternating fashion, that following the disposition of all amendments, the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage. the presiding officer: does the senator from maryland so modify her request? ms. mikulski: the answer is no, i will not modify my request, but my response should not meant -- interred as a pug ass interpreted as a pugnacious rejection. i appreciate the civil and courteous way the senator from alabama has responded but in a nutshell madam chair what the senator from alabama is requesting is that we don't bring up the supplemental, we bring up the v.a.-milcon

instead. i would like to bring up both bills which is why i'm asking there be no amendments on v.a. milcon. they're practically identical, there were no amendments except a few perfecting ones in the senate. we could get this done in an hour so therefore i will not modify my request. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: i have objected to our distinguished chair's motion to consider and pass the milcon v.a. appropriation bill. this is not because i oppose the underlying bill, as i've said. this is a bill that has wide bipartisan support. its support is predicated on the premise that we will engage in what we call regular order here. regular order by its very nature includes the ability to offer, consider and to vote on amendments. if we were to agree to this

unanimous consent agreement by the senator from maryland, we would be trading away every member's prerogative on both sides of the aisle to offer and to vote upon amendments. i would therefore encourage the chair and the majority leader to revise their unanimous consent agreement to allow for an open amendment process. until then, we would be compelled to object. thank you. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i know that my friend, senator mikulski and senator shelby are doing everything they can to work the will of the senate, and i just -- i know how they both want to get something done on these appropriation bills. i just simply want to say that i looked at the modification that my republican friend -- and he is my friend -- that he offered, and i think for the good of america who could be watching, i want to make a couple of points.

it will take me 30 seconds. first of all, there is no limit on the number of amendments. we don't know if it will be five, ten, 20, 1,000, 2,000 or a million. we have no idea. they wouldn't even have to be related to the bill at hand, and they won't tell us what this list of amendments is. and i looked back at some recent requests, and i want to just be very honest with my friend. the recent requests i have seen before have been attacks on the clean air act, attacks on the clean water act, attacks on the safe drinking water act, attacks on women's health care. and frankly, that is not something that i can agree to. so i just want to say i'm so, you know, saddened that we can't seem to take up the most popular bill. i know how hard everybody has worked on milcon v.a., and my friend, senator shelby, said our side is eager to schedule floor consideration of appropriation bills. well, if they are really eager,

they should work together with senator mikulski. you couldn't find anyone more fair. get a finite list of amendments. if they are controversial, we have a 60-vote threshold. we know how to do our work around here. so i am sorry it's come to this and i appreciate the leadership of both senators. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: first of all, i want to thank all of those advocating the highway bill for their courtesy in letting us bring this to the floor. senator johnson and i are deeply appreciative. madam president, i think we've just had a very good discussion. we've stated what we would like to do to move v.a. milcon in the most time-efficient way possible in the least controversial bill. i'm now not going to have anything more to say about this tonight, but now that we have kind of put a lot of ideas out there, we have heard what the vice chairman of the appropriation expression was, and i would hope that over the

next 36 hours perhaps we could find a way forward to do the trifecta that i'm hoping to serve america's veterans. pass the conference report that helps improve veterans' health care. we've done one part of that now with approving mr. mcdonald, and all we would have to do before thursday night is to finish the v.a. milcon. so i intend to reach out across the aisle, and i appreciate them for their courtesy and the cooperation of the highway senators that are moving this bill forward. madam president, i now yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, madam president. i know we have a number of colleagues that still want to speak and we want to get to votes tonight, so i want to be very brief speaking in opposition to the lee amendment and in support of the amendment from my friend, senator carper, senator boxer and senator corker.

i want to quickly tell you about the norwalk river bridge, which is a bridge in the state of connecticut which is pretty important to the transit of people and goods throughout the northeast because it spans the norwalk bridge and allows for trains, amtrak trains, metro north trains to be able to transit millions of people, millions of trips up and down the northeast corridor. without the norwalk river bridge, you can't get from new haven to new york, but you also can't get from washington, d.c., to boston. it is 118 years old, that bridge is, and it is a miracle that it opens at all. it needs to open in order to allow maritime traffic to go up and down the norwalk river. it's a mirk that will it opens at all, but in fact on 16 of its 271 openings last year, it didn't open, and it interrupted metro north service 175 times.

the result for not just connecticut but the entire region is hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost productivity, and our inability to pass a long-term transportation bill means that big projects like the replacement of the norwalk river bridge can't get done. why? because when you only budget for 12 months or 24 months at a time or in this instance only six months or four months at a time, there's no way for a state to be able to plan to do that kind of massive work. and so i'm here on the floor to beg my colleagues to support the amendment from senator boxer and senator carper because it's time that we start to get some political courage and admit that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to federal transportation policy. yes, it is politically difficult to make the choices necessary to come up with the funding to fill that gap. senator corker and i have one particular idea, but we would love to hear others, but it's time for us to sit down and have that honest conversation because you can't do projects like this

if you don't. but to senator lee's amendment, this is exactly why you need a federal commitment to transportation funding. the idea that you are just going to devolve all of these projects down to the local level is preposterous. why? because this is a regional asset. the norwalk river bridge happens to be located in the state of connecticut. but if all federal -- all transportation funding came from the states and connecticut for one reason or another decided not to spend money on replacing the norwalk river bridge, it's not just connecticut that's affected by that. transit stops, in massachusetts, in new york, in new jersey, in delaware, all the way down to washington, d.c. and so the reason that we have made a robust commitment to federal funding for both highways and mass transit is because the benefits accrue to all of us. senator lee said that this is

just an innovation in the way that we fund transportation, like, as he said, the innovation in the way in which people buy books. that analogy speaks to our imperative for federal funding because the way that books have been sold is different. it used to be that you just used the local roads to drive down and buy your book from the local bookstore. today you buy it on amazon.com and it's the interstate highway system, the interstate rail system that is used to get your book from a warehouse somewhere out in the midwest and get it to you after you ordered it online in connecticut. if you want to talk about the great innovations of the last 20 or 30 years, they all buttress the idea that we live in an interconnected, interstate world in which we need a federal commitment to highway funding, one that doesn't just parse out funding one month at a time. my state is particularly dependent on this kind of funding. connecticut only survives if we are able to unlock the congested highways and byways and rail

lines that connect my state to new york and boston in particular. but this nation as a whole will not succeed, will not survive economically if we don't grapple with the fact that as china spends 12% of its g.d.p. on infrastructure, europe spends 6% of its g.d.p. on infrastructure, even if we just held the line, we would still be only spending 3% of our g.d.p. on the most important asset to the future of america's economy. so i hope that we reject the lee amendment. i hope that we pass the carper-boxer-corker amendment. i'm glad to join them in support of it this evening. i yield back. a senator: madam president? mr. wyden: for purposes of making unanimous consent. -- unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the only remaining time be five minutes for each of the following senators. the senate then proceed to vote on the amendments and the bill as provided for under the

previous order -- senator carper, senator flake, senator wyden, unanimous consent requests for five minutes each and then the votes. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from delaware. yes, we will. mr. carper: i understand that under the unanimous consent request, i have five minutes? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. carper: i would like to yield one minute of that to senator king. great. i'd like to have four of his minutes. i want to start off by saying my thanks to senator wyden for his leadership as well. i'm pleased to be able to support his amendment. i'm grateful that he is supporting ours. to our republican colleagues, some of our republican colleagues, i have talked to most of you in the last several weeks about this -- this that senator boxer and senator corker and i are proposing and that is to lower from $11 billion to $8 billion the amount of money that would go into the transportation trust fund. that would force us to come back

and make a decision by the end of this calendar year. that would force us to do something real, do our jobs during the lame-duck session. one of the reasons republicans say we can't do that is because then that would force the bill to go back to the house from which it has emanated. well, let me just say the bill is going back to the house. the wyden amendment, the wyden amendment is going to pass, so get over it. the bill's going to go back to the house, it's not going to die there. they will do something with it. they may send it back to us in that same form or some different form. republicans who have said i understand the importance of doing something in lame duck, and we know we need to be compelled to do that, but i just can't do it. well, you can. for the folks and our republican friends who say i don't like that pension smoothing at all. the idea of mucking with people's pensions in order to fund something highway unrelated, and that's building roads, highways and brinls. you don't have to do that. you can do an honest setaside

and feel good about doing that. we're going to be here maybe friday night. it will be december 19. and if we have provided $11 billion to carriers to fund programs through the end of next may, i promise you if we haven't worked out a six-year transportation funding plan by december 19, that friday night, we're going to be gathered right here and people will say what are we doing here? it's almost christmas. i want to go home or go somewhere, be with my family. and we've got money to run these programs through the end of may. let's just kick the can down the road and come back before may. we'll do it then. one problem with that, we did something like that five years ago, and we did it again and again and again and again. 12 times, 11 times. why are my constituents going to do it again? what did albert einstein say about the definition of insanity? he said it is the notion that

we -- we're going to do things the same way we have always done it and get a better result or a different result. we won't. we'll do it again. all over this country, state and local governments, mayors, governors, people who build roads, people who run contracting companies, the truckers, all kinds of people are saying to us one message -- do your job. our job is to provide transportation infrastructure, to do it in a time-responsible way so that states and local governments that have these problems, that have them on the drawing boards, they want to build them. for the ones that are under way, they want to complete them. we can help them do that. we can help them do that. we can do that by voting for the carper-boxer amendment. let me quote from another great guy who used to criticize this place, mark twain. he was always saying bad things about the congress, even then when he was around. one of the things he said is relevant today. here's what he said -- when in doubt, do what's right. you will confound your enemies

and amaze your friends. and i would just say to my republican colleagues especially, we love you. we want you to join us in doing what's right. and you will confound your enemies. you will amaze your friends. not only that, you'll do the right thing for our country, strengthen our economic recovery, do what we're supposed to do and provide strong infrastructure, transportation infrastructure for this nation. the people of this country are counting on us. let's not let them down. i yield back my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: in just a short time, we're going to have some votes, five. we have been very lackadaisical. we have waited for people to come here to vote for up to 25, sometimes 30 minutes. we're not going to do it. we have first there is a 15-minute vote and then we have four 10-minute votes, and we're going to cut off the time. we'll give the five-minute period we always do at the end of these votes. but everyone, there is no excuses. it's not fair to everybody to wait around here while you are doing whatever you're doing.

it's impolite, it's not courteous, and we need to move things along. people have things to do tonight, so let's -- i want to finish these speeches. we're going to move to voting, and we're going to stick to the time, so everybody, there is no excuse. everybody should understand that. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i'll be brief. i want to chect something that was said earlier. it was said all money would be devolved to the states and it would be up to the states to maintain the interstate highway system. that's not the case. this amendment is similar to many that have been introduced over the years. myself included, i've introduced some in the house to do this very thing. i think we can all agree that highway trust fund is in need of a major overhaul. since 2008, we have taken, i think, $53 billion from the general fund to replenish the highway trust fund because cars

have better gas mileage when we have recessions, less driving is done. less money goes into the trust fund, and we're trying to make that up now. in the future it simply isn't going to meet the needs out there. so we've got to do something to make sure that we get more bang for the buck for highway spending. one way to do that is to allow states greater flexibility to use these moneys and give the states those responsibilities as well. when you do that, you can increase the bang for the buck. and when you look at what a lot of money now is spent on, the federal money, instead of putting it toward highways, it's diverted to mass transit and bike paths, ferry boats, secret scaipg and countless -- street scaping and other projects that are at best local in nature and at worst, wasteful. the states generally have a better idea of what their needs are and are better stewards of

taxpayer money in that respect. i've been told that if you build two bridges, if a state has two bridges to build, they're next to each other, across the same river and about the same location, if you build one with federal funds and one with state funds, the one with federal funds will cost you about 20% more when you take into account the davis-bacon requirements and other mandates and lengthy approval processes. so states simply get a lot more bang for the buck. and if we want highway dollars to go further, we ought to do this. in an issue briefed by common good it states the environmental review process has grown onerous and expensive adding years to the length of infrastructure projects without improving environmental outcomes. another thing the federal law requires oftentimes is lengthy environmental reviews. we can correct a lot of this by devolving some of these

responsibilities to the states. i think that the lee amendment goes a long way toward doing that, and i just want to say that i appreciate some of the amendments that are being brought forward today. some of them are a lot less gimmicky than we're used to dealing with with the highway trust fund. but the lee amendment is one that actually deals with the highway trust fund long term and offers ago long-term solution to the problem of not enough money in the fund and misplaced priorities with some of the spending. so with that, madam president, i urge my colleagues to support the lee amendment and yield back my time. mr. king:four or five years ago tom brokaw wrote a book called the greatest generation and he was talking about the generation that sacrificed -- i repeat -- sacrificed on our behalf. they struggled through the

depression. they fought world war ii. and then when it was over, they paid the debt from world war ii and built the interstate highway system. i hate to think what tom brokaw would call the book about our generation which rebuilt the world war ii debt which we're passing on to our children and we can't even keep the interstate highway system fixed. this is shameful. and i'm here to support the carper-boxer and corker amendment because it forces us to deal with did in this congress. it is not going to be any easier to deal with next may. let's get it done. we have the answers. we know what we have to do. the highway system is a pay-as-you-go system and the problem is now we're going more than we're paying. the highway -- the gasoline tax hasn't been raised since 1993, 21 years ago. but the cost of maintaining the

highways, of course, has been raised precipitously. not fixing infrastructure is debt. a lot of people around here talk about debt and we're worried about the debt that we're passing on to our children. and i'm worried about it too. but i want to make the point that if you don't fix a bridge or don't fix a highway or don't fix an airport that,'s debt too because our children are going to have to fix it. and when they get around to it, they're going to have to pay more for it. bob corker -- senator corker used the term generational theft. that's what it is. our generation is giving ourselves tax cuts, borrowing the money to pay for those tax cuts and our kids are going to have to pay it. that is not a tax cut. that is a shift of a tax from us to our children and our grandchildren. it's wrong. and to think that the generation that went through the depression, fought world war ii, paid for world war ii and then built the interstate highway system in the 1950's and 1960's and then we can't even keep it

paved, and we have rebuilt the debt from world war ii with nothing much to show for it, it's just unconscionable. there are a lot of problems that we deal with here that are hard and complicated. and i deal with, on armed services and intelligence, some very complicated problems that are really troubling and difficult to figure out what the right thing to do is. this one is simple. pay your bills. it couldn't be more straightforward. pay your bills. if you want to drive on the highways, have the potholes filled, we've got to pay for it. and to delay this into next may, it's just that much easier and then we're going to be talking about presidential campaigns and other campaigns and 2016 is going to be coming up, and there's always reasons not to do it. this is the 11th time we've punted on this issue. this is what the american public is sick and tired of. they're sick and tired of us not doing our basic job, and there

couldn't be a more basic job than fixing and paying for and maintaining your infrastructure. so i hope that we can pass this amendment. and, yes, it's going to go back to the house and the house has said we're not going to accept it. but let's see. let's put something good over there, shorten the time, get to it this year in november, november or december and let's solve it. it is not going to be any easier to solve in may. i would argue it would probably be harder but i think it is time for us to start talking straight to the american people and say we've got to pay our bills. and that's what this amendment, and that's what this bill is all about. i want that book to talk about another greatest generation, not the worst generation that just passed all the bills on to our kids. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, this debate has shown the urgency of moving on both a short-term patch for funding transportation and a long-term

solution. senator hatch and i, with the first amendment, offer a bipartisan path forward. we take ideas from the other chamber. we take ideas from both parties. we take ideas that both sides can build on for the long term, as chair boxer has recommended. there are important differences between the other body and the senate. the other chamber overuses pension smoothing. madam president, that creates two problems rather than solving one. they ignore the issue of tax compliance. that's always been bipartisan. paying taxes on taxes owed, not tax hikes, not increases, not jacking revenue through the stratosphere. paying taxes on what's owed. and the other body abandons important bipartisan

initiatives, initiatives from senator burr and senator bennet to promote natural gas vehicles. from senator isakson and senator nelson to protect earned pension rights. and senators bennet and crapo to make sure that we can deliver water to farmers across the nation. madam president, the american farm bureau has endorsed this amendment. the other body is saying it's our way or no highway. and i would ask colleagues, is that what we're sent here to the senate to do,? that we accept every dotted i and crossed t from the other body and is that i's fine. colleagues, we talk about regular order. how is it regular order to be a rubber stamp for the other body? this is going to be done this week, madam president. that is nonnegotiable. this bill will be finished this week. what should be ne -- go ti ab le

is the senate and the other body should have a chance to work out differences and working that out is as important as regular order on voting on amendments. let's vote to be the united states senate and not have the other body dictate that it's either their way or no highway. i urge my colleagues strongly to support the first amendment. it is a bipartisan amendment from senator hatch and i with virtual unanimity in the finance committee. and with that, madam president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mrs. boxer: parliamentary inquiry. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: have the votes been set for a certain time? the presiding officer: all time is expired except for the two minutes before the vote on this next amendment. mrs. boxer: excellent. thank you. the presiding officer: who

yields time? the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, if senator wyden would like this time, i think that would be really appropriate to just sum it up in the one minute that we have. and if there's an opposition person, they can speak. but i think, senator wyden, i think you should sum it up in this one minute. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, senator hatch and i very briefly offer a bipartisan amendment. it's a bipartisan amendment based on the ideas from both bodies. it reflects the fact that we have tried to come up with an approach that we can finish this week, that doesn't overuse pension smoothing, that ensures that we comply with our tax laws and includes bipartisan initiatives that promote natural gas vehicles and help our farmers and ensure that earned pension rights are protected. the other body offers what

amounts to our way or no highway. we offer a bipartisan alternative. i hope all my colleagues will support it. it is the first vote at hand. i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: they have already been ordered. no further debate? the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: