[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 22 (Thursday, February 9, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S400-S413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1813, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 311, 
     S. 1813, a bill to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and 
     highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, Mr. President, this is a big day for those of us 
who believe strongly that we need to focus on job creation, a better 
business climate, a bill that will, in fact, not only protect jobs but 
create new jobs. That is the bill we are hoping will get the go-ahead 
at 2 o'clock, what we call MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 
21st Century Act, S. 1813.
  This has been--if I could use an analogy that fits--a long road to 
get to this point so we can, in fact, make sure we have an adequate 
road system, an adequate highway system, an adequate transit system, 
and that we make sure, as a world leader, our infrastructure--our 
bridges, our roads--keep up with the demands put upon them. There are 
many demands put upon them because we are a great nation with commerce 
and heavy-duty vehicles on our roadways and railroads that cross over 
roadways that create potential problems, and, certainly, we have a 
robust transit system that needs to keep up with the times.
  Last night, I received a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
and I was very pleased to see it because they support the bill Senator 
Inhofe and I, on a bipartisan basis, were able to get through our 
committee on a unanimous vote.
  It is a rare moment in history, frankly, when the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and labor unions all come together, with everyone on the same 
page, to say: Let's move forward with a bill. In these days of 
controversy and debate--and, Lord knows, I am immersed in many of 
them--this is one where we have been able to carve out a very important 
consensus, not only in the Environment and Public Works Committee but 
in the Banking Committee--where Senators Johnson and Shelby work 
together--to get a piece of this bill done.
  In the Finance Committee--where Senators there are led by Senator 
Baucus--they were able to hammer out a tough and important agreement to 
fund this bill because it has some shortfalls due to the fact that the 
highway trust fund has been going down because cars are getting better 
fuel economy--and that is a good thing--but the bad, unintended problem 
is the trust fund now has fewer dollars, so we run short of what we 
need to keep our bridges and highways and transit systems 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 are trying to work with them to resolve whatever matters 
remain in that portion of the bill.
  But I want to quote from the letter from the Chamber of Commerce that 
I received last night. I want to share a couple lines with everyone. I 
am 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.

  Another quote:

       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.

  Those two quotes I think show we have 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 will go into. But it also 
protects the jobs we currently have, which is 1.8 million jobs in the 
transportation area, and also, because of the way we have boosted a 
program called TIFIA--which I will 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 is where they are, 
and that is what 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 in the 
Chamber shortly. I cannot tell you of the trusted partnership 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. I think what we have shown 
is that each of us can be a tough but fair partner. Our staffs 
understand where we are coming from. But we have a bigger goal in front 
of us than our differences; that is, our agreement that it is our 
responsibility to fix 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 
in many ways heart breaking, 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 1.8 million jobs and creating up to another million 
jobs.
  Again, I want to mention the Commerce Committee. I did not thank 
Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison for their work on this as well. So 
we have four committees that are involved in writing this bill. Each 
committee has voted out their bills. If all goes right today, and we 
get a resounding go-ahead, I hope we begin with amendments on the EPW 
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 will have a resounding vote and get to a conference committee. 
We have major differences with the other body, but I think we can work 
them 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 
beneficial results from our actions in a number of areas--this is going 
to mean a big boost for jobs.
  I want to also say that within my committee we have what we call the 
big four: it is the chairman and the ranking member--myself and Senator 
Inhofe--and then it is the chairman of the Highway Subcommittee and the 
ranking member there; and that is Senator Baucus and Senator Vitter. So 
I honestly think if you look at the big four, and you look at our 
philosophies, and you look at where we are from and the differences we 
bring to the table, we cover the whole Senate in terms of

[[Page S401]]

the range of ideologies but are tied together by a belief that this is 
something that needs to get done. And Senators Baucus and Vitter were 
with Senator Inhofe and me 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 pushing us to get this done. My hat is off to 
them. They make up a broad coalition. I have spoken frequently with 
them to give them an update on how we are doing, and I have to tell you 
they truly represent America. Over the course of this debate, if I have 
the time--and in many ways I hope I do not 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 
its reach.
  They were led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is an unprecedented 
coalition. They came together regardless of ideology and differences. 
Every time I look at this list, I am reminded that essentially it is 
America. It is America: business, labor groups, State organizations, 
city organizations, and organizations from all 50 States.
  We received a letter from these thousand organizations recently, and 
I am going to quote 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 and the Administration--stated a multi-year surface 
     transportation bill is important for job creation and 
     economic recovery. We urge you to follow words with action:

  And this is what they asked us:

       Make Transportation Job #1 and move legislation immediately 
     in the House and Senate to invest in the roads, bridges, 
     [and] transit systems that are the backbone of [our] economy, 
     its businesses large and small, and communities of all sizes.

  Again, it is important to note, our surface transportation bill 
creates or saves millions of jobs, benefiting millions of American 
families across the country. What a great signal it will send, as we 
struggle to get out of the slowdown and we begin to see the light at 
the end of the tunnel. This will be a very large light because there 
are very few other 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 
percent. Construction workers are out of work.
  I show you a chart I have in the Chamber. The national unemployment 
rate is 8.3 percent. We want to see that come down. But look at that 
construction industry unemployment rate: 17.7 percent. These are real 
people with pride in what they do. And we know the housing industry has 
had a horrible time. It has stalled out, and it is 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 will get that 17.7-percent 
rate down.
  I do not know if we have a picture of that stadium. This is a picture 
of the Super Bowl stadium. From what I understand, it seats about 
100,000. That is what we see here. If we had 15, 15 of these pictures, 
15 Super Bowl stadiums' worth of people, that is how many people are 
unemployed in construction.
  I use this not only because I watch the Super Bowl, although my 
Niners did not get in and it was upsetting, but because this is a 
picture, a visual. Imagine every one of those people unemployed times 
15. It is a visual. I think it is important that we keep in mind we are 
talking about real people who have lost real jobs because of this 
recession and especially the housing downturn.
  This is a chance to put them to work. There is an urgent need to get 
this legislation through the conference committee and onto the 
President's desk because the current transportation authorization 
extension expires on March 31. I wish to say to colleagues who may be 
watching or staff who may be watching: You may have a lot of amendments 
in your mind, in your heart, and everybody has a right, and I support 
your right. But please think very hard before you start bringing down 
amendments that will slow us up. Those thousand organizations know we 
need to keep our eye on the ball, and these organizations are in all 
our States. They represent millions and millions and millions of 
American families. So let's not add extraneous matters, please. Let's 
not have frivolous amendments, killer amendments. We all can offer 
these. I have several I could offer in a heartbeat. But this is not the 
place to have our ideological disputes. This is a bill that is a jobs 
bill. This is a bill that is good for our businesses. This is a bill 
that will save 1.8 million jobs and create up to 1 million more at a 
time when we must have that kind of wind at our back.
  There is another reason. Not only does the highway bill expire in 
March, but we also know the trust fund is running out of money for 
projects already in the pipeline. So we have to find a reliable and 
stable source of funding. Senator Baucus and his Finance Committee have 
come up with a way to responsibly fill this shortfall. I cannot thank 
them enough, the Democrats and Republicans on that committee. Thank 
you. Because what you have done is to have come up with some very good 
ways to pay for the shortfall, and those ways do no harm.
  We must push forward for another reason which I alluded to before. 
America's aging infrastructure is crumbling. Let me just tell America 
this: Some 70,000 of our Nation's bridge are structurally deficient--
70,000 of our Nation's bridges are structurally deficient, 50 percent 
of our roads are not up to standard.
  If you are 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 would do. You would get out of 
there, fix it, and then move the family back in. This is no different. 
If somebody tells you your house is crumbling, you have to fix it. If 
somebody says to us, our Nation's bridges are structurally deficient 
and over 50 percent 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. I will tell him, I am about 5 minutes away from finishing 
my opening statement and yielding to him. But he is more eloquent than 
anyone I have ever heard on two issues; one, what is the role of 
government. He makes the point, which I am not going to take away from 
him, as to how infrastructure fits into that.
  He also is eloquent on the point of safety. Because he has seen with 
his own eyes what happens if we do not get our infrastructure sound and 
safe. We have a deteriorating part of our infrastructure, and it needs 
to be fixed.
  We cannot be an economic leader if we cannot move people and goods. 
We cannot thrive as a nation if our people are trapped in traffic and 
our businesses are trying to move goods and they are trapped in 
traffic. We lose 4.8 billion hours from work and we pay the price for 
that in loss of productive time and in dirty air.
  As to our bill that was passed out of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, I wish to say to my ranking member who was not here 
and his staff was not here at the time that I started, I praised him to 
the sky--and staff--because regardless of our differences on many 
issues, we have been able to put this country first in this bill.
  I am so grateful for the spirit of cooperation we have brought to our 
work, which was captured in the Banking Committee where Senators 
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 do believe we are going to resolve them. I 
am proud we were out there first showing we could do this.
  People said all over the Senate: If Boxer and Inhofe can do this, 
anything is possible.
  MAP-21 is a reform bill, and I am proud about that. It consolidates 
90 programs into less than 30. It focuses

[[Page S402]]

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. 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 $1 billion we have placed in that fund and create up to 1 million 
jobs.
  I wish to thank the mayor of Los Angeles and the Chamber there and 
the workers there who brought the idea of leveraging to my attention. I 
wish to say that Tom Donahue, of the U.S. Chamber, president there, 
Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL and many business and labor 
groups throughout our Nation supported 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.

  I am proud of this bill and the reforms in it. I am proud of working 
relationships we have established across party lines in our committee. 
I could say, very honestly, there are a lot of things this bill does 
not have that I am sorry about, that I wanted to see in there. I am not 
going to detail those. But I know Senator Inhofe feels the same way. 
But there were certain things that were lines in the sand for each of 
us, and it was a give and take that resulted in this compromise which 
is a good bill--a good solid bill.
  We put those controversial issues aside for the good of the Nation. I 
will 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, he wrote his autobiography in 1963. He established the 
System in 1956.
  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 with 
     straightaways, cloverleaf turns, bridges, and elongated 
     parkways. Its impact on the American economy--the jobs it 
     would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural 
     areas it would open up--was beyond calculation.

  It is very important to note how bipartisan this is. Ronald Reagan in 
1982, ``More efficient roads mean lower transportation costs.''
  He said:

       Lately driving is not as much fun as it used to be. Time 
     and wear have taken their toll on America's roads and 
     highways.

  He said it well. 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 to 8; 
372 in the House to 47--all of our President's signing these 
laws. Historically, major surface transportation legislation has 
received overwhelming bipartisan support.

  In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Equity Act, ISTEA, 
with a Senate Democratic majority, passed by a vote of 79 to 8. The 
House, with a Democratic majority, passed it by a vote of 372 to 47. 
President George H.W. Bush signed it into law. At the December 18, 
1991, signing ceremony, President Bush said:

       ISTEA is ``the most important transportation bill since 
     President Eisenhower started the Interstate System 35 years 
     ago . . . this bill also means investment in America's 
     economic future, for an efficient transportation system is 
     absolutely essential for a productive and efficient 
     economy.''

  In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, 
with a Senate Republican majority, passed by a vote of 88 to 5. The 
House with a Republican majority, passed it by a vote of 297 to 86. 
President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
  In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU, passed the Senate, with a 
Republican majority, by a vote of 91 to 4. The House, with a Republican 
majority, passed it by a vote of 412 to 8. President George W. Bush 
signed it into law.
  Elected officials are not the only people who recognize the 
importance of maintaining our transportation systems. The American 
public also supports rebuilding the Nation through infrastructure 
investment.
  According to a poll released last October by CNN, 72 percent of 
Americans--and 54 percent of Republicans--support ``increasing federal 
spending to build and repair roads, bridges and schools.''
  Roads and bridges are neither Democratic nor Republican, and all 
elected officials need to leave partisanship on this issue at the door. 
Bipartisanship is the only way to get the job done, and Senator 
Inhofe's and my partnership in this effort is proof positive that it 
can be done.
  Senator Inhofe and I do not agree on many issues, but we found common 
ground on this one. We agree that we must invest in our aging 
transportation systems, we must boost the economy, we must put people 
back to work, and we must pay for it in a way that is not divisive or 
partisan. Neither Senator Inhofe nor I got our wish list in this bill, 
but we do have a bill that both of us can support. At the end of the 
day, that is what matters.
  The American people deserve to have their elected officials work 
together to solve our pressing problems, and that is what we did. The 
bill before us is thoroughly bipartisan, and therefore nobody will 
think it is perfect, but it is a very strong commitment to our 
transportation systems and to the health of our businesses, workers, 
and communities that depend on it.
  I say today is a good day. I have tried to thank everyone I can think 
of who had anything to do with it. It is my privilege now to yield the 
floor and look forward to the comments of my ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am not sure, I say to my good friend 
Senator Boxer, she is going to be too excited about some of the things 
because what I wish to do is establish what is unique about this bill.
  There is a committee in the Senate. It is not like any committee in 
the House. In the House, they have two separate committees. It is 
called Environment and Public Works. So it is two almost unrelated 
committees. Our committee has more jurisdiction than any other 
committee in the Senate, but it handles things that are totally 
different.
  I will sound a little partisan right now, but I am very concerned 
about President Obama and what he has done to this country in terms of 
the deficit. A lot of people do not realize that the budgets actually 
come from the President--not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not 
the House and the Senate. Those budgets have had deficits of around 
$4\1/2\ trillion. I have been very upset about that.
  I am upset about what the President is doing with the military right 
now. If we have to go through the sequestration as is planned, we are 
going to lose about $1 trillion in defense spending over the next 10 
years. 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 is a political problem. The fourth area is over 
regulation.
  I say this because my good friend, the chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, would disagree with me in all those areas 
because we do not agree. I look at the regulations and the fact that, 
in my opinion, they are driving our manufacturing base overseas. I see 
the crown jewel of all regulations is cap and trade. They tried their 
best to do it. They had the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003 and again in 
2005. We had the Boxer bill--several Boxer bills that Senator Boxer was 
involved in--certainly Waxman-Markey.
  We defeated them all, and now what the President is trying to do is 
do through regulation what he could not do through legislation. I only 
say that because I am in agreement with the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Boxer, on most of what she just said

[[Page S403]]

because of the significance of this. I am going to repeat what I said 
yesterday, I guess it was, or the day before. When rankings come out, 
historically since I have been in the House and the Senate--I came to 
the Senate in 1994--I am always ranked among the most conservative 
Members.
  My good friend Senator Boxer is ranked among the most liberal 
Members--progressive, liberal. But what I appreciate about her is that 
she is a sincere liberal.
  She understands that. In her feelings, she believes government should 
be involved in more things than I do. I hasten to say this again, that 
while I have been historically considered the most conservative Member, 
I am a big spender in two areas. One area is national defense--I am 
very concerned about what is happening in national defense--the other 
area is infrastructure.
  Way back when I was in the House and on the Transportation 
Infrastructure Committee, at that time we worked very hard for a robust 
bill, for reauthorizing the transportation system. We were successful. 
That was back in the good-old days, I say to Senator Boxer, when we 
always had surpluses in the highway trust fund.
  The highway trust fund probably goes down as the most popular tax in 
history because people know, since 1953, it has been a trust fund where 
people pay their 18 or so cents per gallon, and it goes to maintaining 
those roads they are driving on. So it is directly related to the 
gasoline purchased.
  Then some things happened. First of all, I can remember when we had 
surpluses. So everybody who had their own deal wanted to get in on 
surpluses, and 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. When they talk 
about electric cars, whether one is for them or against them, and 
mandating gas mileage, that reduces the proceeds dramatically. In the 
beginning, I think they probably should have had the highway trust fund 
geared to a percentage instead of cents.
  Now fast-forward to recent times and we have a deteriorating system. 
I was proud of the Environment and Public Works Committee I have been 
talking about. In 2006, prior to the last election, I was chairman 
because the Republicans were in the majority. At that time, we did the 
2005 highway reauthorization bill, and it was $286.4 billion--a very 
robust bill. Yet we could pretty much document that we didn't do 
anything new in that bill. We just maintained what we had. It expired 
in 2009. Since then, we have been operating on extensions.
  This is significant. Before I get on to operating on an extension, I 
will mention what we are talking about, Senator Boxer and I. Our 
Environment and Public Works Committee has the jurisdiction over the 
highway title of the bill. Some things are controversial. Not many. I 
don't know of anything controversial in the highway title. The Commerce 
Committee with Senator Rockefeller as chairman and Senator Hutchison as 
ranking member, the Finance Committee with Senators Baucus and Hatch, 
and the Banking Committee--that is Tim Johnson and Richard Shelby from 
Alabama--have done their work now.
  Ours is the highway title. In my State of Oklahoma, because of the 
condition of the bridges and highways--the last time I looked, I think 
Missouri and Oklahoma tied at dead last in the condition of our 
bridges--we had a young lady--and I have told this story many times; 
this is most compelling. This young lady--a mother of three small 
children in Oklahoma City--drove under one of our bridges and a chunk 
of concrete dropped off and killed them. These are serious matters. So 
bridges have dropped, just as one did in Minnesota and down in south 
Texas.
  We have had so many times when crumbling infrastructure has given 
way. I remember when they considered Oklahoma--since we became a State 
in 1907, we are one of the newer States--people didn't think we had 
infrastructure problems. They thought that was just confined to 
California, New York, and the older parts of the country. That is not 
true anymore because in many of those older parts the infrastructure 
has been rebuilt while some of the newer States have been ignored. That 
is why in Oklahoma it is critical.
  People say they don't want earmarks. Senator Boxer said: We don't 
have earmarks.
  I would like to discuss that because I am a strong believer as 
opposed to the people who don't want us to do what we are supposed to 
be doing when we were sworn to uphold the Constitution, article I, 
section 9--we should be the ones, the House and Senate, to do the 
appropriating and the authorization. By saying we are not going to do 
it and defining earmarks as appropriations and authorization, I can see 
why Democrats lined up to do away with earmarks in a recent vote 
because that turns it over to President Obama, and he was very 
supportive of that.
  Some Republicans are going to talk 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 States. 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 for 
many years now. Before that, he was director of transportation for, I 
think, 30 years. There is nobody who is more knowledgeable on that 
issue.
  So we checked--and I do--with the department of transportation in 
Oklahoma on their prioritizing of projects. We have a system--and I 
wish all States had this system. We have transportation districts and 
chairmen of the districts. They can use the same criteria throughout 
Oklahoma, and they determine what should be fixed and where the money 
should be spent. So it is not a political decision, a decision where we 
are doing what most people consider to be earmarks and trying to help 
our friends. That is not what we do in Oklahoma. This system, frankly, 
works very well.
  So now we go back to the extensions. Here is the problem with 
extensions. Our 2005 bill expired in 2009. We have now gone through 
eight extensions. The problem we have with extensions is that we cannot 
do anything creative. We cannot change, reform the system. We just have 
to take the money that is available and try to use it as best we can. 
But we cannot not reform a system that needs to be reformed.
  I have said some things that were not all that complimentary about my 
partner--in this case, Senator Boxer. We have served together for years 
in trying to overcome these obstacles. On the highway title of the 
transportation bill that we are going to be voting on, we have done a 
good job. When I think about the reforms--and I compliment Senator 
Boxer. She has been in a real tough position with some of the more 
liberal members of her party and in some of the things to which she has 
agreed. We sat down and worked out the differences in a lot of these 
problems.
  State flexibility, we have that in this bill, which we have never had 
before. I have always been a believer that we are the guys who are in 
the best position to determine the needs of the States.

  I have often said I have served on the State level of government; I 
have been mayor of a major city. I believe the closer you get to the 
people, the more responsible government is. I believe that to be true. 
That is what we have done. We have done that in the flexibility that we 
have given the States in our program.
  Senator Boxer mentioned that we cut down the number of programs by 
two-thirds. We are down to one-third in the number of programs we had 
before. That is major reform.
  NEPA: We have done streamlining, which is something we have tried to 
do for a long time. Let me mention the one area of reform that I want 
everybody to listen to because this is significant. We have had a 
friendly disagreement, Senator Boxer and I, on transportation 
enhancement. These are things we could argue do not affect 
transportation directly. I have always believed these things we spend 
money on that comes from the highway trust fund should go into 
transportation projects. But they have not. Two percent of the highway 
funding is required to go to enhancements. That equates to 10 percent 
of the surface transportation money.
  So we can use 10 percent or 2 percent, depending on which one we are 
applying it to. If we take 2 percent of the total funding, that is a 
lot of money. Enhancements are things people criticize us for. I think 
that criticism is just.
  How did we handle this situation and get a highway bill in the 
highway title

[[Page S404]]

portion? We sat down and worked out something right here on the floor 
of the Senate and said there has to be an answer. In 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 percent of the total highway funding that would go to enhancements in 
any way they want to do it, and primarily in taking care of some of the 
unfunded mandates, the requirements there, where the government is 
saying to people in Oklahoma that this is what they have to do--some 
endangered species stuff and those things, they can use it this way.
  In my State, we cannot have any of the 2 percent going to 
enhancements. Other States feel differently. This is not one size fits 
all.
  So we have the opportunity that they can do what they want. These are 
reforms. We never had reforms like those before. I am proud we are able 
to do it. I compliment the chairman of the committee for being willing 
to do this, for taking the time 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 one for Republicans. I think we have a pretty near perfect bill 
for Republicans on the highway title. I am very proud of what we have 
come up with. Nonetheless, it has been heavy lifting. I applaud the 
chairman of the committee.
  I want to go back to this extension. If we were to continue to 
operate on extensions, the amount of money we would be spending on 
highways would reduce by about 34 percent, about one-third. If we talk 
to Gary Ridley in Oklahoma as to what that would do in terms of our 
program that we already have online, we would have to default on some 
contracts. We would have to be in a situation where we are not able to 
do the things that are in our 5-year plan in Oklahoma. We think things 
out in Oklahoma. We go over the State and make determinations. It is 
done outside of the political system by people charged with different 
transportation districts. I can tell you now that it will be--it is a 
life-threatening issue. If we are dropping down by 34 percent, it will 
be a serious problem.
  I suggest to every Member of the Senate, before they make final 
decisions on the bill, call their director of highways in their States 
and talk to them. Talk to your State legislators, Democrats and 
Republicans, conservatives and liberals alike. This is the one area 
where they will agree. In Oklahoma, they are in agreement. They want to 
have a highway bill. They look to constituents and say this is life 
threatening and we have to do a better job. This is a partnership 
thing. We are going to have more flexibility for State programs, 
streamlining, and are not going to be encumbered by mandatory 
enhancements. I don't know of one member of the Oklahoma House or 
Senate who doesn't want this.
  What is wrong with doing what the people at home want? I used to work 
as mayor of the second largest city in Oklahoma. My phone rings off the 
hook about programs that need to be completed in our highway system in 
Oklahoma. I sometimes look at people who demagog the issue and talk 
about: Oh, no, we don't want to spend all this. There is one area where 
conservatives and liberals alike should be spending--two areas--
national defense and infrastructure.
  I remember when Congresswoman Bachmann was talking around the country 
about the spending during the earmark argument. They got back to 
Minnesota and talked about the needs for transportation. She said, ``I 
am not talking about transportation.''
  That is the point we need to get across. Of course, I throw in 
national defense, but that is not in this discussion. Transportation 
infrastructure is something we have to do. In Oklahoma, we are going to 
do our part, do everything we can to get with the bill. It is not going 
to change anything except for the fact that it is going to be able to 
handle that.
  Oh, I didn't see--but I am managing the time.
  By the way, I want to comment, Mr. President----
  Mrs. BOXER. Wait a minute, the Senator is not managing.
  Mr. INHOFE. Maybe I am not.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, we are both managing the time.
  Mr. INHOFE. We are both doing it. All right.
  What I am saying is that shouldn't really be a Democrat-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 here who wants to be heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, I do have some remarks I would like to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  I think Senator Inhofe and I will have to talk about how we are going 
to yield back and forth, but at this point I had not finished my 
remarks and I wanted to respond to his.
  We are here as partners on this bill. We are not partners on a lot of 
things. And I didn't say, when I opened my remarks, where we are not 
partners, but my friend did, so I am going to respond to his opening 
comments in which for some reason he wanted to open by saying that the 
one place we differ--and he is right on this--is that he blames 
President Obama for the deficit. Now, I want to put this on the record: 
I do not. 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 the blink of an eye to 
turn those surpluses as far as the eye could see into raging deficits, 
and he left President Obama a $1.4 trillion deficit, for which my 
colleagues on the other side blame President Obama. Not only did George 
W. Bush leave him this kind of deficit, but he left him the worst 
recession since the Great Depression, a total collapse of Wall Street, 
bleeding jobs--800,000 a month. Yet we have turned it around. The 
President has shown magnificent leadership--saved Detroit.
  My friend further said that another place we disagree--and he is 
right--is that President Obama is driving manufacturing overseas. No. 
The Tax Code, which the Republicans support, which rewards companies 
for moving overseas, is very much responsible for that.
  So that proves the point. We get mad at each other. He is annoyed now 
that I am saying these things, and I was annoyed at him for saying what 
he said. But the great news today is that we are here to pass a bill.
  My friend said I had a problem with liberal Members in my own party. 
I have to say there was concern, for sure. He is right. But once I 
explained to them that the ranking member and I have to work together, 
they were terrific about it. And I think some of my colleague's 
Republican friends said the same. They said: OK, 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, and you just saw a 
little bit of it.
  I am not going to get into the climate change area because my friend 
believes it is the greatest hoax and I believe it is a scientific fact.
  We could go on and on with these arguments. It would be interesting. 
It would be like ``Crossfire.'' Do you remember that show where two 
people got up there and argued? Yes, we could do that in every way. But 
in this bill we have decided to fight for what we believe in but at the 
end of the day get a bill we believe is fair.
  Did my friend want me to yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. No. I just wanted to say that this should be very visible 
to everyone. How could you and I agree and feel so strongly about 
infrastructure in America when we have such diverse opinions 
philosophically? My case rests.
  Mrs. BOXER. You made the point. I was happy when you made the point 
because it gave me a chance to argue with you, and we both enjoy that, 
and we will continue. Our friendship is deep. We each know when we talk 
to each other that it is from the heart. But when it comes to this 
particular issue, we both agree we have 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 ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the letter to which I am referring.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Washington, DC, February 8, 2012.
       To the Members of the United States Senate: The Americans 
     for Transportation

[[Page S405]]

     Mobility (ATM) Coalition is a nationwide group representing 
     business, labor, highway and public transportation interests 
     that advocate for improved and increased investment in the 
     nation's aging and overburdened transportation system. The 
     ATM strongly supports the motion to proceed to S. 1813, 
     ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century'' (MAP-21), 
     and urges the Senate to pass a multi-year reauthorization of 
     highway, public transportation and safety programs that both 
     includes reforms to the federal programs and maintains, at 
     minimum, FY 2011 investment levels adjusted for inflation 
     before the expiration of the six-month extension of current 
     law on March 31, 2012.
       At a time of continuing economic stagnation in the 
     construction sector, slow U.S. economic growth, and 
     increasing competitive pressures, multi-year highway and 
     transit reform and investment legislation is critical for 
     boosting productivity, U.S. economic competitiveness and 
     supporting jobs. A study released last week by the Associated 
     Equipment Distributors found that over two years, one dollar 
     spent on infrastructure construction produces roughly double 
     ($1.92) the initial spending in direct and indirect economic 
     output. The long-term impact is also significant, with a 
     dollar in aggregate public infrastructure spending generating 
     $3.21 in economic output (GDP) over a 20-year period.
       We commend the Senate committees that helped craft S. 1813, 
     a bi-partisan 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. 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 the 
     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.
       The ATM 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 and the fiscal sustainability of the Highway Trust 
     Fund.
       Without the certainty of a multi-year 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 multi-year reauthorization, 
     there would be continued uncertainty and erratic funding for 
     critical infrastructure investments and the public and 
     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 S. 
     1813. The ATM Coalition stands ready to bring together 
     business, labor, highways and transit stakeholders to provide 
     Congress the public support to pass an adequately funded 
     multi-year surface transportation bill by March 31, 2012.
           Sincerely,
                            Americans for Transportation Mobility.

  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 
Laborers' International Union of North America, the National Asphalt 
Pavement Association, the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, 
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Now, I have to say----
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, but let me make one statement. This list I have just 
read represents America--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
  Yes, I yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. Even though we haven't ironed out how to handle time, we 
have a Senator who wanted to speak 20 minutes ago, and if we could, I 
would love to get back into the dialog.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am finishing this, and then I will yield the floor and 
am happy to have him speak. I felt this was opening time for the 
chairman and the ranking member to lay down their case, and I am not 
about to let an attack on the President of the United States of America 
go unanswered. I am not going to do it. So if we are going to go down 
that road, we are going to have a give-and-take. If we are going down 
the road I hope we will go down, it is about getting this bill done.
  So let me talk about this letter, and then I will yield the floor. 
And I say to my ranking member, we will decide how to divide the time, 
and we should. That is fine with me.
  They say in this letter:

       We commend the Senate committees that helped craft S. 1813, 
     a bi-partisan 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.

  They are talking about the fact that the highway trust fund is a 
third of where it should be. That is why we are so happy that the 
Finance Committee, on a bipartisan vote, is replacing these funds.
  The letter goes on to talk about what would happen 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 the 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.

  Additionally, this great coalition, which is comprised of the chamber 
of commerce, the unions, and business, says:

       The ATM 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 and the fiscal sustainability of the Highway Trust 
     Fund.

  This next quote from their letter is so important:

       Without the certainty of a multi-year 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 multi-year reauthorization, 
     there will 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 S. 
     1813.

  Of course, Mr. President, that is the motion we will be voting on 
today at 2 p.m.
  They continue:

       The ATM Coalition stands ready to bring together business, 
     labor, highways and transit stakeholders to provide Congress 
     the public support to pass an adequately funded multi-year 
     surface transportation bill by March 31, 2012.

  On the issue of the enhancements, we already had a vote on 
enhancements before, and we 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 have to tell you--and I won't do it now, but perhaps Senator Paul 
is going to speak about these enhancements--we know for sure that these 
enhancements--and I think that is the wrong name because they are 
really safety projects--have saved lives because they fund things such 
as pedestrian paths and safe passageways for kids to get to school. So 
while my colleague and I may differ, I strongly believe Congress stands 
behind--I should say the Senate stands behind continuing to fund these 
safety projects, and we have given the States far more flexibility. So 
I hope we will defeat any amendment to remove the ability of our States 
to determine which of those safety projects they want because we have 
the facts behind us--13 percent of traffic fatalities involve 
pedestrians and bicyclists. I feel we give our States the opportunity, 
and if Oklahoma doesn't have any of these problems because it is a much 
more rural State than California, I am happy with that. But we have to 
understand that these are safety projects, and I hope we will defeat 
any amendment that tries to reduce the ability of the States to fund 
these projects.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior 
Senator from Kentucky be recognized for up to 7 minutes. He has been 
trying to get on for quite some time. I think that is agreeable with 
everyone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.


                          Foreign Aid to Egypt

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator from Oklahoma 
on being a leader in trying to repair and restore our infrastructure. I 
think

[[Page S406]]

the Senator from Oklahoma has shown 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 urgent concern regarding what 
is happening in Egypt. I rise 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 
their people and government stand at a moment where they will choose 
their future. Will they stand for freedom? 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 they will promote freedom, democracy, and the interests of the 
United States abroad. Too often, though, it does none of those things. 
Instead, it enriches dictators and emboldens governments that act 
against our interests.
  Right now American citizens who work for prodemocracy 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 leave 
Egypt and are facing trial by a 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 prodemocracy forces--these 
individuals who are American citizens--in an attempt to gain support 
from radicals who are convinced that NGOs represent a Western plot to 
undermine Egypt. These extremists 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 Egypt--the ones 
responsible for the transition--has 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 and 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 toward democratic 
development, seizing their computers and documents. This past weekend 
Egyptian prosecutors filed criminal charges against these innocent 
American citizens. This must not be allowed to stand.
  The American people should be concerned. We are subsidizing behavior, 
through U.S. taxpayer foreign aid to Egypt, that is leading to and 
allowing for the unjust 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 gall to hold American citizens hostage. This must end.
  Not everyone in this body agrees on foreign policy or on the role of 
U.S. foreign assistance. But the reckless actions of Egyptian 
authorities in this matter should bring us together to form one 
undeniable conclusion: American foreign assistance dollars should never 
be provided to any country that bullies our citizens, recklessly seeks 
to arrest them on imaginary charges or denies them access to their most 
basic rights.
  Egypt must immediately stop the detainment and prosecution of these 
American citizens. If they fail to do so, then we have the moral 
obligation to immediately end their foreign aid. The time for action is 
now.
  I will offer an amendment to suspend Egypt's foreign aid until our 
American citizens are released. It is our duty as our people's 
representatives to ensure no more American taxpayer dollars will flow 
to Egypt until they rescind the charges against innocent Americans and 
allow them to peacefully leave the country. The American people are 
behind this, and I advise the Senate to consider that we should no 
longer send foreign aid to a country that is illegally detaining our 
citizens.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, with the Senator from Kentucky still on 
the floor, I appreciate what he has said, and I am glad he has shown 
support for the Leahy amendment which passed in the last foreign aid 
bill.
  There was a lot of pushback from a number of people, the 
administration and on the Senator's side of the aisle, initially, when 
I wrote into the law that said it would suspend any money--$1.3 
billion--for the military, unless there was a certification that they 
were upholding the moves necessary toward democracy.
  As a result, all the money the Senator is concerned about is being 
held back because of the Leahy amendment--which is joined in by Senator 
Graham, whom I see coming onto the floor--when we did the Foreign 
Operations bill.
  I appreciate the words of the Senator from Kentucky. I can assure 
him, with the Leahy amendment, none of the foreign aid is going to 
Egypt as they conduct their operations the way they are.


           Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
letters in support of the reauthorization of the bipartisan Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 
           Against Women,
                                                 February 9, 2012.
       Dear Representative: We, the undersigned organizations, 
     represent millions of victims of domestic violence, dating 
     violence, sexual assault and stalking, and the professionals 
     who serve them, throughout the United States and territories. 
     On behalf of the victims we represent, we ask that you 
     support the Violence Against Women Act's (VAWA) 
     reauthorization.
       VAWA's programs support state, tribal and local efforts to 
     address the pervasive and insidious crimes of domestic 
     violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. These 
     programs have made great progress towards keeping victims 
     safe and holding perpetrators accountable. This critical 
     legislation must be reauthorized to ensure a continued 
     response to these crimes.
       Since its original passage in 1994, VAWA has dramatically 
     enhanced our nation's response to violence against women. 
     More victims report domestic violence to the police and the 
     rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has 
     decreased by 53%. The sexual assault services program in VAWA 
     helps rape crisis centers keep their doors open to provide 
     the frontline response to victims of rape. VAWA provides for 
     a coordinated community approach, improving collaboration 
     between law enforcement and victim services providers to 
     better meet the needs of victims. These comprehensive and 
     cost-effective programs not only save lives, they also save 
     money. In fact, VAWA saved nearly $12.6 billion in net 
     averted social costs in just its first six years.
       VAWA has unquestionably improved the national response to 
     these terrible crimes. We urge you to support VAWA's 
     reauthorization to build upon its successes and continue to 
     enhance our nation's ability to hold perpetrators accountable 
     and keep victims and their children safe from future harm.
       We look forward to working with you throughout the 
     reauthorization process. If you have any questions, please 
     feel free to contact Juley Fulcher with Break the Cycle at 
     [email protected], Rob Valente with the National 
     Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges at 
     [email protected], or Terri Poore with the National 
     Alliance to End Sexual Violence at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
       9to5, National Association of Working Women; A CALL TO MEN; 
     AAUW; Alianza-National Latino Alliance to End Domestic 
     Violence; Alternatives to Family Violence; American 
     Association of University Women; American Civil Liberties 
     Union; American College of Nurse-Midwives; American Indian 
     Housing Organization (AICHO); American Probation and Parole 
     Association; American Psychiatric Association; Americans 
     Overseas Domestic Crisis Center; ASHA for Women; Asian & 
     Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence; ASISTA 
     Immigration Assistance; Association of Jewish Family and 
     Children's Agencies; Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; 
     Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; Black 
     Women's Health Imperative; Break the Cycle.

[[Page S407]]

       Casa de Esperanza; Church of the Brethren; Coalition of 
     Labor Union Women; Daughters of Penelope; Deaf Abused Women's 
     Network; Disciples Justice Action Network; Disciples Women of 
     the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Domestic Violence 
     Report; Feminist Majority/Feminist Majority Foundation; 
     Futures Without Violence (formerly the Family Violence 
     Prevention Fund); General Federation of Women's Clubs; 
     Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.; 
     Indian Law Resource Center; Institute on Domestic Violence in 
     the African-American Community; International Association of 
     Forensic Nurses; Japanese American Citizens League; Jewish 
     Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Women International; 
     Joyful Heart Foundation; Korean American Women In Need (KAN-
     WIN); Legal Momentum.
       MANA--A National Latina Organization; Men Can Stop Rape; 
     Men's Resources International; Mennonite Central Committee 
     US; Methodist Federation for Social Action; National Alliance 
     of Women Veterans, Inc; National Alliance to End Sexual 
     Violence; National American Indian Court Judges Association; 
     National Association of Counties; National Association of 
     VOCA Assistance Administrators; National Center for Victims 
     of Crime; National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence; 
     National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life; National 
     Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Coalition of 
     Anti-Violence Programs; National Congress of American Indians 
     Violence Against Women Task Force; National Council of 
     Churches of Christ in the USA; National Council of Jewish 
     Women; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; 
     National Council of Negro Women; National Council of Women's 
     Organizations; National Council on Independent Living.
       National Dating Abuse Hotline; National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline; National Domestic Violence Registry; National 
     Housing Law Project; National Institute of Crime Prevention; 
     National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; National 
     Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty; National Legal Aid 
     and Defender Association; National Network to End Domestic 
     Violence; National Organization for Women; National 
     Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault; 
     National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; National 
     Resource Sharing Project; National Women's Political Caucus; 
     NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Nursing 
     Network on Violence Against Women International; Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America; Praxis International; Range 
     Women's Advocates; Rape Abuse and Incest National Network; 
     Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
       Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Security on 
     Campus Inc.; Service Women's Action Network; Sexuality 
     Information and Education Council of the United States; 
     Sisters in Sync; The Joe Torre Safe at Home Foundation; 
     Tribal Law and Policy Institute; Union for Reform Judaism; 
     United Church of Christ; United Methodist Church (General 
     Board of Church and Society); Veteran Feminists of America; 
     Voices of Men; Witness Justice; Women of Color Network; 
     Women's Information Network; Women's Law Project.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                            Attorneys General,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2012.
       Dear Members of Congress: Since its passage in 1994, the 
     Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') has shined a bright 
     light on domestic violence, bringing the issue out of the 
     shadows and into the forefront of our efforts to protect 
     women and families. VAWA transformed the response to domestic 
     violence at the local, state and federal level. Its successes 
     have been dramatic, with the annual incidence of domestic 
     violence falling by more than 50 percent.
       Even though the advancements made since in 1994 have been 
     significant, a tremendous amount of work remains and we 
     believe it is critical that the Congress reauthorize VAWA. 
     Every day in this country, abusive husbands or partners kill 
     three women, and for every victim killed, there are nine more 
     who narrowly escape that fate. We see this realized in our 
     home states every day. Earlier this year in Delaware, three 
     children--ages 12, 2\1/2\ and 1\1/2\--watched their mother be 
     beaten to death by her ex-boyfriend on a sidewalk. In Maine 
     last summer, an abusive husband subject to a protective order 
     murdered his wife and two young children before taking his 
     own life.
       Reauthorizing VAWA will send a clear message that this 
     country does not tolerate violence against women and show 
     Congress' commitment to reducing domestic violence, 
     protecting women from sexual assault and securing justice for 
     victims.
       VAWA reauthorization will continue critical support for 
     victim services and target three key areas where data shows 
     we must focus our efforts in order to have the greatest 
     impact:
       Domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault are 
     most prevalent among young women aged 16-24, with studies 
     showing that youth attitudes are still largely tolerant of 
     violence, and that women abused in adolescence are more 
     likely to be abused again as adults. VAWA reauthorization 
     will help us break that cycle by consolidating and 
     strengthening programs aimed at both prevention and 
     intervention, with a particular emphasis on more effectively 
     engaging men and local community-based resources in the 
     process.
       A woman who has been sexually assaulted can be subjected to 
     further distress when the healthcare, law enforcement, and 
     legal response to her attack is not coordinated and 
     productive. Whether it is a first responder without adequate 
     training, a rape kit that goes unprocessed for lack of 
     funding, or a phone call between a crisis counselor and a 
     prosecutor that never takes place, sexual assault victims 
     deserve better. We must develop and implement best practices, 
     training, and communication tools across disciplines in order 
     to effectively prosecute and punish perpetrators, as well as 
     help victims heal and rebuild their lives.
       There is a growing consensus among practitioners and 
     researchers that domestic violence homicides are predictable 
     and, therefore, often preventable. We can save the lives of 
     untold numbers of potential homicide victims with better 
     training for advocates, law enforcement, and others who 
     interact with victims to recognize the warning signs and 
     react meaningfully.
       The fight to protect women from violence is one that never 
     ends. It is not a year-to-year issue, which is why we think 
     it is critical that Congress reauthorize the Violence Against 
     Women Act. We know a great deal more about domestic violence, 
     dating violence, sexual assault and stalking than we did 17 
     years ago. Reauthorizing VAWA will allow us to build on those 
     lessons and continue to make progress and save lives.
       VAWA was last reauthorized in 2006 and time is of the 
     essence for reauthorization of this important law. We urge 
     Congress to take on this critical mission and reauthorize 
     VAWA.
                                  ____



                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                 Alexandria, VA, February 1, 2012.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mike Crapo,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo: On behalf of the 
     National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and 3,079 elected 
     sheriffs nationwide, I am writing to express our support for 
     the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA).
       NSA and the nation's sheriffs recognizes the extreme 
     seriousness that the crimes of domestic violence, sexual 
     assault, dating violence, stalking, and sex trafficking have 
     on law enforcement, victims, and communities across the 
     nation. Originally established in 1994, VAWA works to 
     increase officer and victim safety, while striving to prevent 
     future abuse, by providing resources to law enforcement 
     agencies to enhance their core programs and policies, as well 
     as to reaffirm the commitment to reform systems, that affect 
     victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating 
     violence, stalking, and sex trafficking.
       The reauthorization of VAWA would continue to enable law 
     enforcement agencies across the country to adequately address 
     domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, 
     and sex trafficking crimes by expanding funding for programs 
     that recognize the concerns and needs of victims. 
     Furthermore, VAWA supports the key collaboration between the 
     victims' services community; health care community; and law 
     enforcement to ensure that all victims are receiving the 
     critical treatment and services necessary after a crime has 
     occurred.
       However, we do have one point of concern regarding the VAWA 
     reauthorization involving PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) 
     standards as they apply to the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS). NSA strongly believes that sexual violence 
     and abuse have no place in our correctional facilities. As 
     such, NSA has been working closely with the Department of 
     Justice (DOJ) on PREA to ensure that the final standards take 
     into consideration the vast differences between jails, which 
     sheriffs largely operate, versus prisons; thus enabling for 
     the efficient and effective implementation in jails 
     nationwide.
       Title X of the VAWA reauthorization would require DHS to 
     establish and implement PREA standards for DHS detention 
     facilities. As you may be aware, many sheriffs contract with 
     DHS to house criminal aliens in their jails. As sheriffs will 
     need to comply with PREA standards when finally established 
     by the DOJ, NSA would ask that you, and the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee, ensure that the VAWA reauthorization language 
     clarifies that DHS PREA standards need to be consistent with 
     DOJ PREA standards. This would ensure that there are not 
     differing standards for jails based on the federal, state, or 
     local detainees held, as well as help with the swift and 
     successful implementation of final PREA standards.
       While the law enforcement community, and society as a 
     whole, has made great strides in combating such crimes as 
     domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, sex trafficking, 
     and dating violence since the original enactment of VAWA, 
     there is still more work that still needs to be done. The 
     reauthorization of VAWA will enable the continued partnership 
     among sheriffs and victims' advocates and service providers 
     to protect victims and prevent future victimization 
     throughout the United States.
       Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo, the National Sheriffs' 
     Association thanks you for

[[Page S408]]

     your leadership on this important issue in the 112th 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                       Sheriff Paul H. Fitzgerald,
     President.
                                  ____

                                           Federal Law Enforcement


                                         Officers Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 2012.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: On behalf 
     of the 26,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association (FLEOA), I am writing to express our full support 
     for Senator Leahy's proposed reauthorization of the Violence 
     Against Women Act (VAWA). FLEOA has supported the essential 
     purpose of this legislation since it was first passed in 
     1994. According to the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, one in four women will experience domestic 
     violence in their lifetime. In our proud Land of the Free and 
     Home of the Brave, this is unacceptable.
       FLEOA fully supports the substitute amendment to S. 1925. 
     The amendment properly calls for the U Visa cap to be raised 
     to allow for the recapture of 5,000 unused U Visas. Current 
     law authorizes an annual issuance of only 10,000 U Visas. 
     Unfortunately, dangerous criminals remain undaunted by this 
     cap and it only serves to discourage non-citizen battered 
     women from cooperating with law enforcement.
       The absolute priority for all law enforcement officers is 
     the pursuit and capture of violent criminals. By limiting the 
     number of U Visas law enforcement can request, Congress is 
     effectively amputating the long arm of the law. Law 
     enforcement officers and prosecutors don't hand out U Visas 
     like cotton candy. U Visas are an essential tool carefully 
     used by law enforcement and tempered with great scrutiny. 
     Again, our unwavering priority is to do everything within our 
     means to protect women who are victimized by violent 
     criminals.
       I respectfully ask that both parties rally behind this 
     important legislation, and that we unite in recognition of 
     the need to protect all battered women from dangerous 
     criminals.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                        Jon Adler,
                                               National President.

  Mr. LEAHY. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act has 
been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
  Senator Crapo and I introduced this bill, a moderate bill, which has 
now gone through the Senate Judiciary Committee and should be voted up 
or voted down. It saves money, but it also commits to those programs 
needed by our States.
  At some point, if it is delayed much longer, I am going to come to 
the floor and recount some of the horrific crime scenes I went to of 
violence, sexual violence, domestic violence, the things that are being 
combated now, things that happened when we did not have the Violence 
Against Women Act.
  Last Thursday, the Judiciary Committee approved the bipartisan 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. For almost 18 years, the 
Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, has been the centerpiece of the 
Federal government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
  It has been extraordinarily effective, and the annual incidence of 
domestic violence has fallen by more than 50 percent since the landmark 
law was first passed.
  As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by 
domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days before VAWA, when too 
often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were 
few, if any, services for victims.
  We must not go back to those days. This law saves lives, and it must 
be reauthorized.
  Senator Crapo and I introduced a moderate bill that incorporates 
input from survivors of domestic and sexual violence all around the 
country and the tireless professionals who serve them every day.
  This legislation builds on the progress that has been made in 
reducing violence against women, and it makes vital improvements to 
respond to remaining, unmet needs.
  Unfortunately, partisan politics threaten to stop this critical 
legislation from moving forward. We have seen this same pattern too 
often.
  The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the Second 
Chance Act, both laws originally championed by Republican Senators and 
supported by Republican Presidents, are now suddenly unacceptable.
  This obstruction must stop. These programs are too important. They 
save lives. They make our communities safer.
  Nowhere is that more true than for the Violence Against Women Act. 
Certainly, helping survivors of domestic and sexual violence should be 
above politics.
  The last two times VAWA was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved 
by the Senate. Now, this law, which has done more to stop domestic and 
sexual violence than any other legislation ever passed, faces 
Republican opposition. That is not right.
  To those who suggest that this legislation creates too many new 
programs, I say that is simply not true. In fact, the bill reduces the 
scale of VAWA.
  It consolidates 13 existing programs and reduces authorization levels 
by nearly 20 percent while providing for only one small additional 
program.
  The improvements in this bill are important but modest when compared 
to previous reauthorizations, which created many new grant programs and 
raised authorization levels almost across the board.
  I have heard some say that our bill protects too many victims. I find 
that disheartening. One thing I know from my time as a prosecutor, and 
I would hope it is something we can all agree on, is that every victim 
counts.
  All victims deserve protection. That is a message we have heard loud 
and clear from our States and something I hope is common ground.
  More than 200 national organizations and 500 State and local 
organizations have expressed their support for this bill.
  Many of them have written strong letters urging swift passage of this 
legislation including the National Task Force to End Sexual and 
Domestic Violence, the National Association of Attorneys General, the 
National District Attorneys' Association, the National Sheriffs' 
Association, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
  This legislation has the support of five Republican Senators.
  I thank Senators Crapo, Kirk, Murkowski, Brown, and Collins for their 
willingness to step forward and support the reauthorization of this 
landmark legislation.
  This is the Violence Against Women Act. It should not be a partisan 
matter.
  I hope that all Senators will support this bill and that we can move 
quickly to reauthorize this critical legislation.
  It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of 
what we can accomplish when we work together.


                    Air National Guard and Reserves

  Madam President, I am glad to see the senior Senator from South 
Carolina. For the first 50 or 60 years I was in the Senate--or it felt 
like that--it was a different senior Senator. But I am delighted to see 
the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, who is joining me 
to address a matter of great importance to the Nation at a crucial 
moment in our history.
  The U.S. Air Force last week offered a preliminary look into its 
budget for fiscal year 2013. While the President will formally submit 
his budget proposals on Monday, last week's briefing and information 
papers offered enough detail for the Senate to begin considering the 
overall strategic direction of the Air Force Future Years Defense 
Program. In Pentagon jargon, that is usually called FYDP.
  I have to say I am deeply disappointed and very worried as I look at 
the first glance at that proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to engage 
in this colloquy.
  As cochairman of the Guard Caucus, which obviously has the Air 
National Guard Component, Senator Leahy has been a real pleasure to 
work with.
  The bottom line is, this effort to downsize the Air Force falls 
incredibly heavy on the Air National Guard. There will be 3,000 Active-
Duty members lost regarding the plan he just mentioned, 5,000 coming 
from the Air National Guard. The airframes to be eliminated in the 
plans Senator Leahy just mentioned fall disproportionately on the Air 
National Guard. In just a moment, we are going to talk about the bang 
for your buck in terms of the Reserve component called the Air National 
Guard, and we are going to challenge the Congress and the Department

[[Page S409]]

of Defense to reconsider this because, quite frankly, it makes no 
military or fiscal sense.
  Mr. LEAHY. As an example of the approach to the budget cuts, one of 
the A-10 units slated for cutting, the 127th Wing from Michigan, just 
returned from fighting bravely in Afghanistan and as a welcome home: 
Great job. Sorry, we are going to disband you.
  The approach to budget cuts the Air Force has decided to take is 
simply wrong. We have to have budget cuts. We know that. But there is a 
wide variety of reasons why this makes not the sense it should. I draw 
the Senate's attention to a study produced by the Pentagon last year 
that was signed by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs that demonstrated 
what we already knew: Even when mobilized, Reserve component units are 
far less expensive than their peer units in the Active component.
  It has always been a foregone conclusion that the Air National Guard 
costs are far less than Active component costs when they are on base or 
in garrison. Personnel are not drawing the salaries their peer units 
are and so on. But the Pentagon report showed something more 
interesting. It showed the Guard and Reserve save taxpayers dollars 
even when mobilized. The Reserve component units are estimated to be 
about one-third as expensive as similar Active component units, and 
they can deploy nearly half as often. That adds up to lot of savings in 
dollars and cents, but it also reflects a very major component of our 
security, because in the wars we fought in the last decade, we could 
not have done it without these Guard and Reserve units.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator is absolutely right. When we look at the 
utilization of the Guard and Reserve since 9/11, it has been at World 
War II levels. When we go into the combat theater, we can't tell the 
difference between Guard, Reserve or Active-Duty member, which is a 
testament to all three.
  But when we look at what the Air Force is doing--and I think it is 
proper to consider the other services--the Marine Corps is making no 
reduction to their Reserves. The Army is making very small cuts in the 
Guard and Reserves and substantial cuts to the Active Forces. The Army 
and Marine Corps plans support the new strategic concept of 
reversibility; that is, the part of the Department of Defense strategic 
guidance. We cannot be sure what contingencies might arise, and we 
cannot afford to make cuts that will leave us incapable of responding 
when necessary.
  Secretary Flournoy, during her last speech to the Defense for Policy, 
stated that ``the Guard and the Reserves will play an extremely 
important role'' in the reversibility concept because they give the 
military built-in adaptability and resourcefulness. This reversibility 
concept is what we are doing to reduce the defense infrastructure. If 
it were ever reversed or had to be reversed because of some 
contingency, we want to make sure that is possible. The Guard and 
Reserve is the most capable force to maintain and, in terms of the 
concept of reversibility, is our best bang for the buck.
  So the Air Force is taking a different approach than the Army, Navy, 
and Marine Corps to their Reserve component, particularly their Air 
National Guard. I think Senator Leahy and I are going to make sure that 
decision is examined in-depth.
  Mr. LEAHY. I agree with my colleague on that, and that is why the 
bipartisan Guard Caucus will have some very strong statements.
  We look at what the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, GEN Ron 
Fogelman, said before these plans were announced. He argued for a 
larger Reserve component and a smaller Active-Duty Force. He did a 
guest column in DefenseNews. He said, among other things:

       The big question is, how does the department reduce its 
     budget and continue to provide a modern, balanced and ready 
     defense when more than half of the budget is committed to 
     personnel costs?
       The answer to that question is right before us: We should 
     return to our historic roots as a militia nation. So, what 
     does that mean, exactly? Simply put, it means we should 
     return to the constitutional construct for our military and 
     the days when we maintained a smaller standing military and a 
     robust militia.
       To do that, leaders must put old parochial norms aside and 
     be willing to actually shift forces and capabilities to the 
     National Guard and Reserve.

  He said ``put old parochial norms aside.'' He goes on to say:

       This would enable significant personnel reductions in the 
     active components. It would also result in a larger reserve 
     component. Most important, it would preserve capability and 
     equipment that has cost the American taxpayer trillions of 
     dollars, nest it in our mostly part-time Guard and Reserve, 
     and have it available should it be needed.
       This concept worked well for our country for the better 
     part of two centuries. Unfortunately, several generations of 
     leaders have come and gone, and most of today's leadership 
     fails to recognize the true potential of the militia model.
       We need our collective senior military and civilian leaders 
     to recognize there is a way back to a smaller active military 
     and a larger militia posture. The fiscal environment and 
     emerging threats demand it.

  Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a former Air Force 
Chief of Staff.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Senator Leahy is right. When we look at our Constitution 
itself, it talks about a militia. When we look at the history of the 
country, it is the citizen soldier who got this whole concept called 
America started.
  We do need a standing Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. But 
when we are looking at the budget problems we face and the fiscal 
concerns we have as a nation and we want to restructure the military, I 
will be talking in just a minute about why we should be looking for a 
greater role from the Guard and Reserve just from economics. But when 
it comes to military capability, I think we have the best of both 
worlds now: a very efficient, quite frankly, cheaper force to maintain 
with very similar, if not like, capabilities. We don't want to let that 
concept be eroded by a plan that I think doesn't appreciate the role of 
the militia and doesn't appreciate the cost-benefit analysis from a 
robust Reserve component.
  Mr. LEAHY. In fact, Senator Graham and I introduced a successful 
amendment in last year's Defense authorization bill that required the 
Pentagon and the GAO perform studies that should produce more 
conclusive analysis of the relative cost of similar units in the Active 
components and the Reserve components. We are also aware of at least 
two other third-party studies currently underway to address the 
questions. I think we are going to have three or four such studies that 
will conclusively answer the questions. Senator Graham and I--and I 
think most of our colleagues in the Senate--consider these proposed Air 
Force cuts to be dangerously premature. Once we cut the Reserve 
components, once we send an aircraft to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan 
Air Force Base and these airmen and pilots go out to civilian life, we 
don't get them back. In fact, that is precisely why the Army and Marine 
Corps have taken a different approach of preserving their Reserve 
component force structure: They can mobilize Active component troops 
they place in the Reserve component. But once we cut that, they are 
gone forever. They are gone forever.
  Mr. GRAHAM. What I am about to provide to the body, I think we need 
to absorb and be aware of.
  This study that Senator Leahy is talking about, an analysis of the 
effectiveness and cost, is an ongoing endeavor. I would like to know 
more about what the study yields before we make what I think are pretty 
Draconian cuts in the Air National Guard.
  But this is what we know before the study. This information is 
already in: According to an Air Guard briefing, the Air National Guard, 
operating under today's deployment constraints, is still 53 percent of 
the cost of an equivalent Active-Duty major command. The Air National 
Guard costs $2.25 billion less annually than a similarly sized Active 
Air Force command. That is $6.2 million a day in savings.
  After 20 years of service, our average enlisted airman costs nearly 
$80,000 a year in total compensation. On the other hand, an identical 
Air National Guard enlisted airman costs about $10,000 a year, about an 
85-percent savings.
  Over a 20-year career, an Air National Guard airman will save the 
country about $1 million compared to an active-duty airman. At 22 
years, an active-duty pilot will cost about $150,000 in compensation. 
On the other hand, an Air National Guard pilot at 22

[[Page S410]]

years costs the taxpayers about $30,000 in total compensation. Over a 
26-year career, an Air National Guard pilot will save the country 
nearly $2 million compared to an active-duty pilot.
  Active-duty pilots retire on average with 22 years of service. Air 
National Guard pilots retire with an average of 26 years of experience, 
giving the country a greater level of experience and ability for those 
final 4 years, at a much lower cost. These cost figures do not even 
account for other life cycle and infrastructure savings that a Reserve 
component-first model would yield.
  These are stunning numbers without the study to fully be 
accomplished. We are going to do our best, I say to Senator Leahy, to 
tell the story of capability and cost.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, clearly this approach, if we keep the 
Guard and Reserve, saves our country precious resources at a time we 
need to tighten our belts. There are a couple of things we agree on. 
Everybody in the Senate agrees that our military has to be kept strong 
and vigilant to threats from our enemies. But the source of our 
military strength has been and always will be our economic might. If we 
are to protect ourselves militarily while also marshaling our economic 
power, moving to the kind of constitutional defense model my colleague 
has discussed should be our first choice.
  I think these Air Force proposals are ill-advised and premature at 
the very least. I think they are flat-out wrong, as has already been 
said here on the floor. When any of us who have visited the areas, 
especially in the last few years, where our military guard and our 
Reserves are deployed, you cannot tell the difference between their 
duties or the risks they put themselves in--between the active-duty and 
Guard and Reserve components. The National Guard has been given a much 
greater role in our overall national defense--more missions, greater 
responsibility, heavier burdens. They perform these missions superbly, 
with great skill and effectiveness. They have defended our interests, 
and many have lost their lives doing it, but they carried out the same 
missions as everybody else.
  The Senate National Guard Caucus worked closely with all concerned to 
accommodate and facilitate these changes. But now we are going to take 
an active role in informing the Senate as these are being made. We are 
not going to sit by while any of the military services decimate their 
Reserve components. We will work together, Senator Graham and I, with 
the Senate Armed Services Committee on which he serves with 
distinction, and the Senate Appropriations Committee on which we are 
both privileged to serve, but also the entire membership of the Senate, 
to produce a thoughtful, well-conceived strategy for military manpower 
that makes use of a cost-effective and accessible, fully operational, 
trained, and ready Reserve component.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I look forward to working with Senator Leahy and others 
to bring about what he indicated to make it a reality. The bottom line 
of this whole discussion is that the Cold War is over. We are very 
proud of our standing military, our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 
Corps, Coast Guard--they do a terrific job, the standing military. The 
militia component has been the heart and soul of this country since its 
founding and in a post-Cold War war on terrorism environment where you 
have to call on resources that the Guard and Reserve have that are 
unique--like civil affairs. When you are going into Afghanistan and 
Iraq, it is one thing to clear the village; you have to hold the 
village. You have to hold it. Agricultural specialists come from the 
Guard and Reserve, people from Vermont and South Carolina who have 
skills in their day job, who can do more in the war effort than 
dropping a bomb.
  As we look at the threats we face, I think we need to understand the 
Reserve component is more valuable than ever. We are not defending the 
Fulda Gap against a massive Soviet Union tank invasion. We have to be 
nimble, we have to deploy quickly. The Reserve component, particularly 
the Air National Guard, has a great return on investment and, like any 
other part of the military, can be reformed. But this proposal doesn't 
reform it; it in many ways neuters the Air National Guard and at a time 
when that makes no sense. We will continue this endeavor, and I look 
forward to working with Senator Leahy and others to create a rational 
approach to the Reserve and Guard.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from South Carolina. We will from time 
to time report to the Senate on this issue. It is extremely important. 
It comes down to the bottom line: Have the best defense at the least 
cost to the taxpayer. That is what we are both aiming for.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Nomination

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that today, 
February 9, at 1:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider Calendar No. 407; that there be 30 minutes divided in the 
usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate 
proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 
407; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be 
in order; and that any statements related to this matter be printed in 
the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action; and the Senate proceed then to legislative session and 
the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1813, under the 
previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask permission to speak as in morning business for 
about 12 or 13 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Operation Fast and Furious

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for over a year now I have been 
investigating Fast and Furious. That is an operation coming out of the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
  This has been a very complicated investigation. It has been made even 
more difficult because of the Justice Department's lack of candor and 
transparency. Basically, the Justice Department is stonewalling, 
interfering with Congress's constitutional responsibility of oversight.
  For example, the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General 
recently disclosed that it has received 80,000 pages of documents from 
the Department and over 100,000 e-mails.
  Think of what the Inspector General gets from the Department: 80,000 
pages and 100,000 e-mails. How much do you think they have given the 
Congress of the United States, which has the constitutional 
responsibility of oversight? It is only 6,000 pages that we have 
received.
  Similarly, the inspector general has been allowed to conduct 70 
witness interviews. How many has the Justice Department allowed the 
Congress, in our responsibility of oversight, to interview? Only 9 
witnesses.
  Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House 
Committee On Oversight and Government Reform. The Justice Department 
did a document dump to Congress the Friday night before the hearing. 
That has become a very bad habit of the Department of Justice. In fact, 
without giving us any advance notice that it was coming, they actually 
put a CD under the door of our office, after business hours. What did 
they do for the press? They gave the same documents to the press 2 
hours before they ever gave them to us. Yes, they managed to find time 
to leak the documents to the press during regular business hours. This 
is the kind of cooperation we get from the Justice Department in our 
constitutional responsibility of oversight.
  What I am telling my colleagues here is that we have a terrible lack 
of cooperation from the Justice Department. The Justice Department is 
not only thumbing its nose at the Senate, they are doing it to the 
entire Congress of the United States, when we know there are 80,000 
pages of documents and they only give us 6,000 pages; when

[[Page S411]]

there are 100,000 e-mails and we get a handful of e-mails. Why would 
they be so mysterious by putting a disk under our door on a Friday 
night and giving it to the press 2 hours before? What sort of attitude 
is that of our Justice Department toward the cooperation you ought to 
have with our filling our constitutional role of oversight? So I guess 
I would say there is hardly any cooperation whatsoever from the Justice 
Department.

  Even though we get a dribble here and a dribble there, even though we 
get a CD under the door, instead of very openly face to face receiving 
documents, what we got last Friday did reveal further facts about a 
previously unknown proposal to allow these guns to cross the border.
  We have long known that in March of 2011, Deputy Attorney General 
James Cole had a conference call with all Southwest border U.S. agents. 
In a follow-up e-mail after the call, Mr. Cole wrote:

       As I said on the call, to avoid any potential confusion, I 
     want to reiterate the Department's policy: We should not 
     design or conduct undercover operations which include guns 
     crossing the border. If we have knowledge that guns are about 
     to cross the border, we must take immediate action to stop 
     the firearms from crossing the border, even if that 
     prematurely terminates or otherwise jeopardizes an 
     investigation.

  Attorney General Holder himself told us in a hearing in May that Mr. 
Cole was simply reiterating an existing Justice policy in his e-mails, 
not communicating new policy. So imagine my surprise when I discovered 
in the document slid under my door late last Friday that while in 
Mexico Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer proposed letting guns 
cross the border. Mr. Breuer's proposal came at exactly the same time 
the Department was preparing to send its letter to me denying that the 
ATF ever does the very thing he was proposing.
  In a February 4, 2011 e-mail, the Justice Department attache in 
Mexico City wrote to a number of officials at the Justice Department:

       AAG Breuer proposed allowing straw purchasers to cross into 
     Mexico so [the Secretariat of Public Safety] can attest and 
     [the Attorney General of Mexico] can prosecute and convict. 
     Such coordinated operations between the US and Mexico may 
     send a strong message to arms traffickers.

  We have people here in Washington saying the program doesn't exist at 
the same time we have people talking down in Mexico City of what we are 
trying to accomplish by the illegal sale of guns.
  That e-mail I quoted, the recipient of it included Mr. Breuer's 
deputy, Jason Weinstein, who was helping to write the Justice 
Department letter to me that they would later withdraw for its 
inaccuracies. In other words, they wrote a letter to me on February 4 
of last year that in October they admitted they misled us. Mr. 
Weinstein was sending updates about the draft letter to Mr. Breuer in 
Mexico at the very same time so he cannot say he didn't know about it. 
Yet, during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Breuer 
downplayed his involvement in reviewing the draft letter. It is 
outrageous to me that the head of the Justice Department's Criminal 
Division proposed exactly what his Department was denying to me was 
actually happening.
  The Justice Department's letter to me clearly said:

       ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been 
     purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to 
     Mexico.

  They said that at the very same time Mr. Breuer was advocating that a 
Justice Department operation allow weapons to be transported into 
Mexico. Further, what Mr. Breuer advocated directly contradicted what 
the Justice Department said its policy was.
  Is it possible they can have it both ways? No, you cannot have it 
both ways. If they didn't have a policy against such operations, and if 
the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, perhaps it is 
not a surprise that an operation like Fast and Furious sprang up. After 
all, as that same Justice Department attache wrote of a meeting a few 
days after his first e-mail:

       I raised the issue that there is an inherent risk in 
     allowing weapons to pass from the US to Mexico; the 
     possibility of the [Government of Mexico] not seizing the 
     weapons; and the weapons being used to commit a crime in 
     Mexico.

  Well, the light bulb went on. If you are selling 2,000 guns illegally 
and they don't interdict them, well, yes, they end up murdering 
hundreds of people in Mexico and at least one person in the United 
States.
  If the Justice Department did have a policy against such operations, 
this is a record of Mr. Breuer proposing to violate it. That is not 
just my conclusion, that is the Attorney General's conclusion as well.
  At last week's hearing in the House of Representatives, the Attorney 
General was asked to explain the contradiction between his deputy's 
anti-gunwalking policy and the evidence of Mr. Breuer's proposed 
operation to let guns cross the border. He could not answer that 
question, but the Attorney General answered:

       Well, clearly what was proposed in, I guess, February by 
     Lanny Breuer was in contravention of the policy that I had 
     the Deputy Attorney General make clear to everybody at Main 
     Justice and to the field . . .

  Perhaps this disconnect between Justice Department policy and Lanny 
Breuer's proposal explains Mr. Breuer's previous inaction to stop 
gunwalking. When he found out about gunwalking in Operation Wide 
Receiver in April of 2010, he failed to do anything to stop it or to 
hold anyone accountable. He simply had his deputy inform ATF 
leadership.
  Regardless, Mr. Breuer's contravention of Justice Department policy 
is yet another reason why it is long past time for Mr. Breuer to leave 
the Department of Justice.
  Mr. Breuer misled Congress about whether he was aware of the 
Department's false letter to me. To this day he is still the highest 
ranking official in any administration that we know was aware of 
gunwalking in any Federal program, yet he took no action to stop 
gunwalking. He failed to alert the Attorney General or the inspector 
general.
  Mr. Breuer has failed the Justice Department, and he has failed the 
American people. This failure raises some important questions. When did 
Attorney General Holder determine that Mr. Breuer was proposing 
allowing straw purchasers to reach Mexico with traffic weapons? What 
has he done about it? Will Mr. Breuer be held accountable for hatching 
a plan to directly violate the Attorney General's anti-gunwalking 
policy? The Attorney General clearly testified that the proposal was in 
contravention of that policy. How does the Justice Department know 
other senior criminal division officials were not proposing operations 
similar to Fast and Furious? These are just a subset of some of the 
major questions remaining in our investigation of Fast and Furious.

  It has now been 1 year since the Department sent me its false letter. 
How did the Justice Department move from its position of dismissing the 
complaints of whistleblowers to acknowledging that now those 
whistleblower complaints are true? What officials were internally 
dismissive of whistleblower complaints and who believes that they could 
have merit and should be taken seriously? To what extent did Justice 
Department officials seek to retaliate against whistleblowers? Exactly 
how and when did the Justice Department officials begin to learn the 
truth of what happened?
  Former ATF Director Ken Melson has testified how and when he learned 
that guns had walked in Fast and Furious. What about Attorney General 
Holder? When and how did he learn guns had walked? What about Assistant 
Attorney General Lanny Breuer? A year after Operation Fast and Furious 
concluded, who will be held accountable? Why didn't top Justice 
officials see the clear connection between Fast and Furious and 
previously flawed operations that they have admitted they knew about? 
How has the Justice Department assessed the mistakes and culpability of 
these officials?
  Finally, it is time for the Justice Department to stop stonewalling 
and start providing answers. It is time for Holder to share with 
Congress the other 74,000 pages of documents they have turned over to 
the inspector general. It is time for Holder to give us access to the 
dozens of other people the inspector general has been allowed to 
interview.
  In short, it is time for Holder to come clean with the American 
people.

[[Page S412]]

The sooner he does it, and the Department does it, the sooner we can 
get to the bottom of what happened.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today, as I do 
week after week, as a physician who practiced medicine in Casper, WY, 
taking care of families in the community and across the State for about 
a quarter of a century. I come as a doctor providing a second opinion 
about the health care law. Since this health care law was signed by the 
President almost 2 years ago, the public has been overwhelmingly 
opposed to it. The Democrats in Congress drafted this health care law. 
They did so quickly and behind closed doors. In spite of the 
President's promise that the discussions would be held on C-SPAN, no 
one saw what was happening.
  Now the bill is law and, as Nancy Pelosi said, first you have to pass 
it before you get to find out what is in it. We have, as Americans, 
witnessed week after week the unintended consequences of the rush of 
the Democrats to score what they thought would be a political victory. 
So I continue to come to the floor with a second opinion because week 
after week there is another new finding of this monstrous law, and it 
is why week after week this health care law remains incredibly 
unpopular. The list of victims of this law continues to grow longer 
each week. Small business owners, families, people who get their 
coverage through their employers, and patients all across the country 
have already been impacted by this health care law.
  But on January 20, the third anniversary of the President's 
inauguration, the President's health care law found a very new target, 
and that target amazingly is religious liberty. Now this administration 
is mandating that religious institutions provide services that 
undermine the beliefs of religious institutions across the country. In 
my opinion, and in the opinion of many across this Nation, this ruling 
tramples one of the amendments of the Constitution. I would say it is 
an easy amendment to find since it is the first one. It is the one 
which protects the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of 
expression. Reading from the Constitution, Amendment No. 1, Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
  If you take a look back at our Nation's history, the right to freedom 
of religion is one of the main reasons that many people came to America 
in the first place, and it is one of the reasons people have fought and 
have died for our Nation.
  So what is someone to do? Well, Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl 
has expressed the dilemma many institutions face, and he did it in a 
letter last week. The archbishop in Washington said the mandate will 
allow a Catholic school only one of three options: No. 1, to violate 
its beliefs by providing coverage for medications and procedures that 
Catholics believe are immoral; No. 2, to cease providing insurance 
coverage for all of its employees and then face ongoing and ultimately 
ruinous fines; or, No. 3, attempt to qualify for the exemptions by 
hiring and serving only Catholics, exclude everyone else.

  Many Americans understand all three of those options are 
indefensible. Americans from across the political spectrum are speaking 
out against President Obama's big government power grab. One of my 
Democratic colleagues, Senator Joe Manchin, called this mandate un-
American. Another, Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, 
objected to forcing Catholic institutions to violate their religious 
beliefs. Then we have former Representative Kathy Dahlkemper, a 
Democrat from Pennsylvania, who voted for the health care law in the 
House of Representatives, who said she would never have voted for the 
final version of the health care law ``if I expected the Obama 
administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and 
universities to pay for contraception.''
  Even liberal commentators such as E.J. Dionne and Mark Shields have 
criticized the administration for being unwilling to offer a broader 
conscience exemption to religious-affiliated institutions.
  Now that the President's liberal allies are even opposed to this 
unprecedented power grab, the White House is trying to clean up the 
mess. It has signaled that it is willing to compromise on its decision. 
Instead of a mild compromise, the regulation--and the entire health 
care law--needs to be fully repealed. As the Wall Street Journal 
editorial board points out:

       In any case HHS would revive this coercion whenever it is 
     politically convenient sometime in Mr. Obama's second term. 
     Religious liberty won't be protected from the entitlement 
     state until Obamacare is repealed.

  I think all Americans should be afraid of the course this White House 
is on with this regulation. This debate isn't about women's health; it 
is about power. Washington should not have the power to force religious 
people and religious institutions to take actions that contradict their 
beliefs.
  What we are going to continue to see as the health care law and the 
mandates and the regulations continue to come out is a government and 
an administration that continue to expand the government reach in terms 
of its size, in terms of its scope, and in terms of its grab for power.
  The health care law was supposed to be about people and health care--
the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford. 
Instead we have a lot of IRS agents but no new doctors and nurses. I go 
to townhall meetings and ask: How many of you under this health care 
law who are hoping to get the care you need from a doctor you want at a 
price you can afford--how many of you believe the cost of your health 
care, because of this health care law, will increase, the costs to you 
will go up? All the hands went up. That is what the people believe when 
they hear more and more about this health care law.
  Then I say: How many of you believe the quality and availability of 
your care will go down? Again, the hands went up.
  These are the American people knowing everything they do about the 
health care law, which is very complicated and has not given them what 
they asked for: the care they need, from a doctor they want, at a cost 
they can afford. What they find and believe is that they are going to 
be actually paying more and getting less. That is not what the American 
people have been promised. It is not what they want. It is not what 
they expected. But it is what they are finding out they have received 
now that the law has passed.
  So this clearly explains why Republicans in the Senate and in the 
House continue to be committed to repealing the President's health care 
law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 
up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, if I could ask my friend 
through the Chair, would it be possible for me to have 2 minutes prior 
to his statement, and then following my remarks the floor will be the 
Senator's.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Sure.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to take 2 minutes to respond to 
Senator Barrasso, who offered a second opinion. I hope my colleague 
will also talk about that.
  I have to say it is stunning to see the assault on women's health 
that is taking place from the Republican Party day after day after day. 
First, they tried to stop women from getting breast screenings. Then 
they tried to stop us from getting cervical cancer screenings. Now they 
are going after our ability to get birth control.
  I have to say this: We know that for a full 15 percent of women, 
birth control is pure medicine. They suffer from debilitating monthly 
pain, endometriosis. We have stories of women who couldn't afford birth 
control pills and a cyst got out of hand resulting in the loss of an 
ovary. We know that birth control is used for a very serious skin 
condition. So if they want to stand here and say that women don't have 
a right to our medicine, that is their right but don't put it into the 
frame of religious freedom.
  We know President Obama said he was going to do what 28 States have

[[Page S413]]

done; that is, to make sure women who work in this country have the 
ability to get access to birth control pills through their insurance. 
That is as simple as it gets. Twenty-eight States do it. I never heard 
a word out of them--never. And eight of those States had no exception 
when President Obama made an exception for 335,000 churches.
  So let's not stand here and talk about the overreach of the Federal 
Government and the rest of it. The fact is our States have been doing 
this for years. More than 50 percent of women in this Nation have the 
ability to get contraception. It is about health. It is the Institute 
of Medicine that said it is critical. It will cut down on tens of 
thousands of abortions when families plan their families.
  So as long as our colleagues on the other side want to make women a 
political football in this country, there are many of us here, women 
and men alike, who are going to stand sentry and say: You can't do this 
to the women of this Nation.
  This is the 21st century, and we are arguing about birth control 
instead of how to get out of this economic malaise when we are finally 
seeing light at the end of the tunnel? Oh, no. I am hoping we go to a 
highway bill this afternoon, but we have to now have this diversion 
about an issue that was resolved, frankly, in the 1950s and in the 
1960s.
  So I thank my colleague for this opportunity. Senator Barrasso has a 
right to a second opinion, but I think his opinion is off the mark.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the 
Senator from California. She is on the floor today with Senator 
Inhofe--unlikely peas in a pod, one pretty liberal, one pretty 
conservative, very different views--to talk about job creation, 
infrastructure, building highways and bridges and public transit, and 
job creation. As so often is the case, people on the other side want to 
change the subject.
  In my State, the elections 1\1/2\, 2 years ago were all about lost 
jobs, about lost manufacturing jobs that, frankly, accelerated during 
the Bush years, and we finally turned that manufacturing job loss 
around. We have seen 20 straight months of job increases in 
manufacturing.
  But the legislature in Columbus, my State capital, and the Governor, 
what are they doing? They are not fighting for job creation. They are 
going after workers' rights and women's rights--the heartbeat bill, 
pretty extreme--instead of focusing on job creation.
  That is what I came to discuss on the Senate floor today too--not 
specifically on this bill but another infrastructure bill, which I will 
get to in a moment.
  The comment I heard from Senator Barrasso, only from the end of his 
discussion, was that he wants to repeal the health care law. How do 
they tell a 23-year-old who now is on her mother's insurance, who is 
without a job and doesn't have insurance, that she is going to lose her 
insurance she has through her mother's insurance? How are they going to 
explain it to the family who has a child with a preexisting condition 
who now can get insurance when the insurance company denied it before? 
How are they going to explain it to the Medicare retiree, the 72-year-
old woman on Medicare who now has no copay, no deductible, free 
screenings for osteoporosis, or the man who gets prostate screenings--
how are they going to explain that? They want to repeal that.
  How are they going to explain the fact that they want to repeal 
stopping one of the most insidious insurance company practices, which 
is that if people get too sick and they are too expensive, insurance 
companies just cut them off? They want to repeal that prohibition. I 
guess it is because they want to do the insurance companies' bidding 
over and over. That is a big part of their game.
  It just breaks my heart when I see the progress we have made for the 
millions of Americans who now will have health insurance. I know the 
Senator and my colleagues, everybody in this body has good health 
insurance. People in this body are generally pretty affluent. They have 
good government insurance. But they don't want millions of men and 
women in our country--people who have lost jobs, people who are working 
without insurance--they don't want them to have insurance, all for some 
political gain of repealing ObamaCare. It is too bad.
  Madam President, now I wish to focus on job creation. I wish to make 
some remarks on legislation I introduced today that is not directly 
Senator Boxer's and Senator Inhofe's highway bill, but it is about 
water and sewer systems and infrastructure.

                          ____________________