[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15828-15833]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
              RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2012

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2112, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2012, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Inouye) amendment No. 738, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reid (for Webb) modified amendment No. 750 (to amendment 
     No. 738), to establish the National Criminal Justice 
     Commission.
       Kohl amendment No. 755 (to amendment No. 738), to require a 
     report on plans to implement reductions to certain salaries 
     and expenses accounts.
       Durbin (for Murray) amendment No. 772 (to amendment No. 
     738), to strike a section providing for certain exemptions 
     from environmental requirements for the reconstruction of 
     highway facilities damaged by natural disasters or 
     emergencies.
       McCain amendment No. 739 (to amendment No. 738), to ensure 
     that the critical surface transportation needs of the United 
     States are made a priority by prohibiting funds from being 
     used on lower priority projects, such as transportation 
     museums and landscaping.
       McCain amendment No. 741 (to amendment No. 738), to 
     prohibit the use of appropriated funds to construct, fund, 
     install or operate certain ethanol blender pumps and ethanol 
     storage facilities.
       Sanders amendment No. 816 (to amendment No. 738), to 
     provide amounts to support innovative, utility-administered 
     energy efficiency programs for small businesses.
       Landrieu amendment No. 781 (to amendment No. 738), to 
     prohibit the approval of certain farmer program loans.
       Vitter amendment No. 769 (to amendment No. 738), to 
     prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from preventing an 
     individual not in the business of importing a prescription 
     drug from importing an FDA-approved prescription drug from 
     Canada.
       Coburn amendment No. 791 (to amendment No. 738), to 
     prohibit the use of funds to provide direct payments to 
     persons or legal entities with an average adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1 million.
       Coburn amendment No. 792 (to amendment No. 738), to end 
     payments to landlords who are endangering the lives of 
     children and needy families.


                           Amendment No. 739

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until noon will be equally divided between the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. McCain, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, or their 
designees.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 
10 minutes of debate prior to noon on the McCain amendment No. 739 be 
equally divided between Senator McCain and myself or our designees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. To lead us off on this very important amendment and to 
explain why it is important to not support the McCain amendment is a 
senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a great 
member of that committee and a great supporter of the environment and 
transportation, Senator Cardin of Maryland. I yield him 6 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Boxer for her 
extraordinary leadership as chair of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. She has stood for legislation that will allow us to rebuild 
our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure in this country, to create 
jobs, and make America competitive.
  I rise to oppose the McCain amendment, and I will give three reasons 
why: First, jobs; secondly, the transportation enhancement programs 
help our traveling public. It is what they want, what they need; third, 
there is a safety issue.
  First, on jobs. Let me point out that the Transportation Enhancements 
Program represents 1.5 percent of the annual Federal surface 
transportation funds--1.5 percent--a relatively small amount of money 
of the total pie. But it is interesting that the projects funded by the 
Transportation Enhancements Program actually yield more

[[Page 15829]]

jobs per dollar spent than the funds that are used for the traditional 
transportation programs. So on a jobs basis, we actually get more jobs 
from a lot of the projects that are in the Transportation Enhancements 
Program.
  Secondly, let me talk about the type of programs involved. We are 
talking about bicycle paths. We are talking about when people travel on 
a road and there is a pulloff where one can safely view the scenery. 
These types of projects we are talking about could be jeopardized by 
the McCain amendment.
  I know my colleague from Alaska talked yesterday about the safety 
issue, but let me underscore it. Today, more accidents are caused from 
our pedestrians and our bicyclists. They are on the rise. There are 
actually an increased number of fatalities related to cyclists and 
pedestrians. Fourteen percent of roadway fatalities involve cyclists or 
pedestrians and two-thirds of these accidents occur on Federal 
highways. Accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists result in far 
more serious injuries. While motorist fatalities are on the decline, 
pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are on the rise.
  When we have a pulloff on a highway where someone can pull their car 
safely off in order to look at the vista, that is the way it should be. 
In my own State of Maryland, we are constructing the Harriet Tubman 
scenic byway so people can visit the Eastern Shore of Maryland and see 
firsthand where Harriet Tubman operated the Underground Railroad. These 
roads are county roads. These are roads which are narrow and on which 
we have a lot of commercial traffic as well as people who just want to 
look at the scenes. The State of Maryland should have the flexibility 
of using these transportation enhancement funds in order to do what the 
traveling public wants them to do; that is, to provide a safe 
experience for the motorists to be able to enjoy our transportation 
highways. That is what the Transportation Enhancements Program allows 
our States to be able to do. The McCain amendment would jeopardize 
those funds.
  So the Transportation Enhancements Program offers flexibility to our 
States to be able to provide the whole array of transportation options. 
It is a very small part of the overall transportation budget. It 
provides those enhancements that the traveling public wants and needs. 
It creates jobs, and it allows for greater public safety.
  So for all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the McCain 
amendment.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during this 
debate, all time that elapses during quorum calls be equally charged to 
both sides of the debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Transportation Enhancements Program 
that the McCain amendment would essentially cripple was established in 
1991 in a bipartisan transportation bill signed by President George 
H.W. Bush, and it has been continued in subsequent bipartisan 
transportation bills which passed in 1998 and 2005.
  This program benefits all Americans by making significant investments 
in safety, helping to reduce congestion, expanding transportation 
choices, and it strengthens local economies, provides jobs, protects 
the environment.
  This amendment eliminates seven of the activities eligible under the 
Transportation Enhancements Program, and it prevents any funds from 
being spent on those activities.
  Here is the thing about the TE Program, the Transportation 
Enhancements Program: There are things in it we need to reform. Senator 
Inhofe and I, along with Senator Vitter and Senator Baucus, are working 
very hard, and we have a bill, a bipartisan bill. The Acting President 
pro tempore is a proud member of our committee. We are going to mark up 
that bill very soon. Yes, it needs reform. But this amendment takes a 
meat ax to a very important program, and it would have far-reaching and 
unintended consequences.
  By prohibiting any funds to be used on these activities that Senator 
McCain has singled out, this amendment actually eliminates the 
flexibility of our States and prevents them from spending funds on 
activities which are necessary to construct and maintain our highway 
system.
  So even setting aside the loss of jobs that would incur as a result 
of the McCain amendment, let me tell you the other unintended 
consequences. But maybe Senator McCain intended that there would be 
fewer jobs. But I am assuming he did not intend, for example, this kind 
of a situation.
  In the case of historic bridges, a bridge could be deficient, but 
under this amendment we could not fund a rehabilitation project because 
the bridge is historic. Because he says we cannot spend any money on 
historic sites, a regular fix to a bridge that happens to be historic 
would not take place.
  I just happened to have finished a book I strongly recommend: ``The 
Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge.'' 
What a story David McCullough tells. That bridge was built in the 
1800s. It is historic. Under the McCain amendment, they could no longer 
get funds. That is the unintended consequence because it is historic. 
So even though it is probably one of the heaviest traveled bridges--and 
the Acting President pro tempore could attest to that--in our Nation, 
imagine this amendment which would not allow bridges such as this to 
get funded. It is a poorly drafted amendment. I do not know, maybe this 
was intended. I cannot imagine it was intended, but this is the truth. 
This is what would happen.
  We also have in this amendment a prohibition on the use of funds for 
landscaping, which is necessary to complete any Federal aid highway 
project in order to prevent erosion along a highway. So I happen to be 
a person who believes, when we do a project, it ought to look good, it 
ought to make people feel good. Landscaping is important and it creates 
jobs and it cleans the air. OK. But setting all that aside, it is a 
safety question because a lot of times those plants will hold the soil 
in place and stop erosion when we have strong and heavy rains.
  Yesterday, our friend from Alaska, Senator Begich, mentioned the 
Seward Highway outside Anchorage and how scenic overlooks were added to 
provide a safe place for tourists to pull over. Under the McCain 
amendment, as I understand it, we could not spend money on scenic 
outlooks. But let me tell you, in the case of this particular scenic 
outlook, it was necessary for safety because people were so inspired, 
before the scenic outlook, they would just pull over in a dangerous 
way, have no place to go, and it was not good for safety.
  I wish to talk about the Transportation Enhancements Program in 
Senator McCain's State of Arizona. The demand is so strong from Arizona 
for these funds that Arizona submitted three times what they were 
actually able to get under the Transportation Enhancements Program. For 
example, in 2006, 72 applications requested $31 million in local 
project TE funding, but only $11 million was awarded to 24 projects.
  In Safford, AZ, TE funds are being used to improve five intersections 
and

[[Page 15830]]

the surrounding streetscapes along Main Street to provide safer means 
of travel for pedestrians. According to the city of Safford, in 
Arizona, this project provides a viable transportation component 
dedicated to pedestrian safety within the increased vehicle traffic on 
Main Street. This downtown project to improve safety, mobility, and 
commerce was supported by the town of Thatcher, the Safford Downtown 
Association, and the Graham County Chamber of Commerce.
  Again, we have a situation where I believe this amendment has very 
adverse consequences to our local people, to our States.
  Right now, the way TE is in our bill--the old bill--it is up to the 
States whether they want to do this. No one can force them to spend the 
money on this. They have the flexibility.
  So now seven ways of using these funds would be taken away from the 
States. Let's be clear on it. This is a State decision how they spend 
this money. They do not have to take this money. They make the decision 
themselves. This amendment would take away that ability.
  There is also a prohibition on controlling outdoor advertising in the 
McCain amendment. That means if a State wanted to remove outdoor 
advertising, they could not use any Federal funds to do it, and they 
could not effectively control their advertising, which is required 
under current law. Again, they are supposed to control outdoor 
advertising, but the funds would not get to them to do that. I think if 
we ask the average person, they want their local people to have control 
over these things. So we need to defeat the McCain amendment or table 
the McCain amendment.
  My friend from Arizona also is telling us that 10 percent of surface 
transportation funding goes to transportation enhancements. That is not 
correct. The Transportation Enhancements Program represents a tiny 
fraction of the Federal highway program--about 2 percent--not 10 
percent, as my colleague John McCain said. Furthermore, the seven 
activities prohibited by the amendment have represented less than 1 
percent of the entire Federal highway program.
  This amendment is making a dramatic and sweeping policy change in 
what should otherwise be a clean appropriations bill. It represents an 
issue we have been discussing at the EPW Committee for quite some time 
in the context of a multiyear surface transportation reauthorization 
bill, which, as I said at the outset, is the proper vehicle for such a 
policy change.
  I thought we had decided as a Senate--Republicans and Democrats--we 
should not legislate on these bills. Senator McCain does not like seven 
things in the Transportation Enhancements Program. Maybe I do not like 
two things or Senator Gillibrand may not like four things. It is not up 
to one colleague to stand here and decide, without any hearings or any 
discussion, what they do not like in a particular bill.
  I do not think that is the way we should legislate, especially since 
the TE Program is run by the States. We make the funds available. They 
decide whether they want the funds for those activities. They do not 
have to do it. They do not have to take the funds. They do not have to 
do any of the eligible projects. So it, at the moment, has a lot of 
flexibility built in. As we reform in the next bill, we will look at 
some of the areas where we think we can make this a better program.
  Believe me when I tell you that Senator Inhofe and I have been 
working very closely on this, along with Senator Vitter and Senator 
Baucus. So we think we are going to have a very good reformed TE 
Program. This is not the place to change a program that our States 
like. They like it because it is flexible. They like it because it has 
a number of ways they can use the funding.
  So we are going to have a bill. It is called MAP-21, which stands for 
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century. It is going to have a 
lot of reforms in it. It is going to consolidate a lot of programs. It 
is going to be a bill most of us can embrace and be happy with. It is 
going to have a reform TE Program, and that is the way to do this. 
There will be significant reform. But it is not right, in my view--and 
we will see how the vote goes--for one Senator to say: I do not like 
seven things that are in this potpourri of things we can use TE for, so 
I am saying we cannot do it. We cannot use the funds.
  It is just not right, and I pointed out how this is worded in such a 
fashion that bridges such as the Brooklyn Bridge and other historic 
bridges could lose all their funding as a result of the way this is 
drafted.
  So let's turn away from this McCain amendment. We know what works 
around here. What works around here is bipartisan cooperation, 
coordination. I see the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, in the 
Chamber. She works so closely with Senator Rockefeller, and I will tell 
you what that means. It means we have wonderful progress in the 
Commerce Committee, which we would never have. Senator Inhofe and I 
work very closely in the EPW Committee. Everyone kind of smiles about 
it because they know on the environment side we do not work closely. 
That is true. We know that. He thinks global warming is the biggest 
hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. I think it is happening. 
It is real. So we know we do not see eye to eye on that, and we have 
decided that is just a fact. So we do not engage in long arguments 
about it. We pursue our agendas, and we try to get the votes. But on 
infrastructure, he is one of the most conservative, I am one of the 
most liberal Members here. The fact is, there is no daylight between us 
on infrastructure because he believes that is one of the major 
functions of our government and I do, too, and it makes a lot of sense.
  I want to note the McCain amendment is opposed by the National 
Association of Counties, the American Association of State Highway 
Transportation Officials, the National League of Cities, the National 
Trust for Historic Preservation, and the U.S. Travel Association. 
America does not support this amendment.
  This is a group of bipartisan organizations. When you look at the 
National Association of Counties, I started as a county supervisor. You 
have Republicans, Democrats, Independents, everything in between.
  Highway Transportation Officials is completely nonpartisan. National 
League of Cities, we have Republicans and Democratic mayors and 
councils; National Trust for Historic Preservation, again a mixture of 
different views. And the U.S. Travel Association. I mean, I do not know 
how that breaks down, but it certainly is a bipartisan group.
  Please, I hope people will turn away from the McCain amendment. It is 
not good for jobs. It is going to hurt jobs. It is going to have the 
unintended consequences of not allowing us to fix some of our most 
deficient bridges. It goes against the people we are supposed to 
represent here, the people out there on the ground: our county 
officials, our State highway transportation officials, our city 
officials, and those who work so hard to preserve the history of this 
greatest Nation in the world.
  We cannot turn our backs on historic preservation. Otherwise we do 
not know what our past was. I cannot tell you how many mistakes were 
made in California where in the early years we did not realize what we 
were losing. What people would give back to get back some of those old 
courthouses that were torn down--I cannot tell you--from the 1800s. And 
they could have been fixed up. But people did not have the foresight. 
This McCain amendment would do real damage.
  The U.S. Travel Association, you know, we are talking here about 
small businesses. We are talking about people who work in recreation, 
in airline travel. They do not want to see this happen, this McCain 
amendment. So I am assuming Senator McCain will be here. We have 
reserved the last 10 minutes before noon.
  At this point I think I have said all I can say to persuade my 
colleagues, who I hope are listening in their offices, that they should 
turn away from the McCain amendment.

[[Page 15831]]

  I yield the floor and I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I wish to speak for a moment in regard 
to amendment No. 739, which is Senator McCain's amendment. Senator 
McCain has been very careful with this amendment, to make sure, in 
terms of enhancements, that he excluded those things that were most 
important to a lot of people in this country in terms of alternate 
transportation.
  This amendment, which limits the expenditures, mandatory expenditures 
on enhancements of the Highway Trust Fund money, does not include--in 
other words, it would not prohibit funding for bicycle paths, or 
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and 
education activities, the conversion of abandoned railway corridors to 
trails, for either trails or bicycle paths. It would not prohibit 
funding for environmental mitigation of highway runoff pollution, 
reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality, maintain habitat 
connectivity, and it would not prevent funding for the acquisition of 
scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. I think Senator Cardin 
might have related something other than that. I wanted to clarify that 
for my colleague who cannot be here.
  What a lot of Americans do not realize is that we have several 
hundred thousand bridges in our country that are substandard, in 
disrepair, or are at great risk for those who travel over them. And by 
mandating that 10 percent of highway funds have to be spent on 
nonhighway needs, at a time when our country is running massive 
deficits, has almost $15 trillion worth of debt--as a matter of fact, 
we are in excess of $15 trillion worth of debt right now, that we 
should make sure we only apply those enhancements to the things that 
are most specifically needed.
  We do have a commitment from Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe that we 
will have some flexibility with enhancements in the future on the next 
highway bill. What Senator McCain is trying to do here will legitimize 
that and certainly does not harm the purpose of that.
  Basically what Senator McCain's amendment would do, funding this bill 
for 7 of the 12 transportation enhancement activities, is it would 
prohibit funding for scenic and historic highway programs, including 
tourist and welcome centers. We should not be building a welcome center 
when there is one bridge in any State that is a danger for the American 
people who are going across it.
  Landscape and scenic beautification are nice things. But you know, 
when you are down making hard choices about the things that are most 
important, that is not one of them. Historic preservation we cannot 
have as a priority now. Rehabilitation and operation of historic 
transportation building structures or facilities; we should not, in 
fact, spend that money on archeological planning and research when, in 
fact, we have dangerous bridges that people are coming across every 
day.
  Finally, although transportation museums are great, that cannot be a 
priority today when we are borrowing $13 trillion every year to keep 
the transportation trust fund at a level that will not allow us to 
increase the level at which we resolve these difficult bridges. We 
cannot continue to borrow that $13 trillion. So this is a commonsense 
amendment. It is a modification of what I have offered in the past. It 
is a smarter amendment. It is a better amendment. It still allows the 
bicycle community and the enhancements associated with that to 
continue.
  I would remind my colleagues, the Federal Highway Administration 
obligated $3.7 billion in enhancement funds for 10,857 projects between 
2004 and 2008.
  That included $1 billion for signing, beautification, and 
landscaping. That billion dollars could have fixed well over 5,000 
bridges that are dangerous today.
  There was $224 million on projects to rehabilitate and operate 
historic transportation buildings. Another 2,500 bridges could have 
been fixed for that. And $28 million to establish 55 separate 
transportation museums.
  It is not about not wanting the money to get out there, about 
targeting the bicycle community--it is absolutely protected in this--
but it is about ordering our priorities. If there is anything we have 
not done a good job of in Congress over the last 10 or 15 years, it is 
making hard choices about what is a priority and what isn't. I think 
the vast majority of Americans would think the safety of the bridges 
they drive across is more important than any of these things Senator 
McCain is saying we are going to limit in this bill.
  Of the 604,000 bridges in the United States in 2010, 24 percent of 
them are deficient. This includes 69,000 that are structurally 
deficient. In other words, they have significant deterioration, and 
they have had to have load reduction carrying capacity limitations 
placed upon them. And 77,410 bridges are functionally obsolete; they 
don't meet the criteria of design standards.
  These figures expose a nationwide problem of deficient bridges as 
well as the misplaced priorities of Congress. We need to fix this, and 
I am in support of the McCain amendment.
  I yield the floor at this time and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment is about white squirrel 
sanctuaries, museums, roadside landscaping, Lincoln highway, roadside 
museums, antique bike collections--my favorite is the National Corvette 
Museum Simulator Theater. I will try to go to that one, since my first 
purchase as a young naval officer was a wonderful Corvette, which I 
remember with great affection. I would like to go back into their 
simulator theater.
  Then, of course, there are wildlife echo passages. We have some great 
pictures here of some of the things. I think the squirrel sanctuary is 
good. But one of my favorites is, of course, the roadside museum 
featuring a giant coffee pot. I am a coffee drinker, so I think a 
coffee pot is pretty nice.
  You know, we have some fun stuff here. Here we have 60 antique bikes 
for a bicycle museum. They paid $440,000 for 60 antique bikes for that 
museum. Again, I think bicycle museums are nice. But it is also a fact 
that more people travel over deficient bridges every day--that is 210 
million people--than go to McDonald's. So we have these projects here--
and, obviously, full disclosure, we picked some of the more interesting 
and exciting ones to get our colleagues' attention. But the fact is 
that we have deficient bridges and we have highways that need to be 
repaired.
  What I am saying here is let the States decide their priorities. Do 
not force the States to set aside 10 percent of their funding for these 
so-called transportation enhancement activities. If they want to have 
enhancement activities--and we do--I am so pleased, when driving 
through Phoenix and Tucson, to see the bougainvillea, the cactus, and 
other things that have been built there and put in, which have been 
very helpful. But those decisions on those State highways were made by 
the State of Arizona and the cities and the counties.
  Instead, we have forced every State in America to use 10 percent of 
their taxpayer dollars, which are in the form of gasoline taxes, which 
were originally put in to build the national highway system in America 
under the Eisenhower administration, which they pay--they pay that. At 
the same time, we have a situation, such as the deputy

[[Page 15832]]

director in southern Nevada of the Nevada Department of Transportation, 
saying:

       It is really getting out of hand to where these pots of 
     money have those constraints associated with them and you 
     can't spend money where you want to.

  That is what this is all about. This is a fundamental philosophical 
difference that we have about where taxpayer dollars should go and who 
decides. That is what this amendment is about. I want the mayor of 
Phoenix to decide where the money goes. I want the Department of 
Transportation in Arizona to decide where the money is best spent. We 
should not be forcing people to spend money on things that are not 
necessary anymore.
  I think a white squirrel sanctuary is probably an important thing and 
squirrel lovers all over America are overjoyed. But who loves this 
boulder? Really, $498,750 to beautify an interchange with decorative 
rocks?
  It is not as if this money is spent in a vacuum. It is that we have 
to set priorities. I want the States to set those priorities, rather 
than them be mandated by some provision enacted in the Senate, which 
does not have a good handle on what those States' priorities are.
  I note the presence of the Senator from Washington, who wishes to use 
a few minutes in opposition to the amendment. I look forward to hearing 
her eloquent opposition. Maybe she will change my mind.
  I yield to the Senator from Washington.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would very much like to thank the 
Senator for yielding me time and will take just a couple minutes in 
rising to speak in opposition to the McCain amendment No. 739.
  I believe the intent of my colleague is to prohibit the use of funds 
communities across the Nation use for streetscaping and bike and 
pedestrian paths and transportation improvements that help separate 
motor vehicles from local wildlife.
  I believe communities should determine for themselves, as they have 
done for decades, how to use those funds. And the proper place for 
updating these laws would be in the reauthorization process. So I 
oppose the amendment on those grounds alone.
  However, the amendment goes much further than that. It actually 
prohibits the use of funds in the entire division C; that is, the 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 
for any landscaping or historic preservation. So this impacts not just 
the Department of Transportation but also HUD. In particular, it would 
prohibit cities and towns from using their CDBG dollars for eligible 
activities, such as historic preservation or basic landscaping or 
streetscaping activities.
  It actually prohibits the use of funds for the rehabilitation or 
operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, and 
facilities. That would cripple Amtrak. There are over 126 stations that 
Amtrak services in 41 States that are on the National Register of 
Historic Places. Under this amendment, Amtrak would not be able to 
operate or rehabilitate any of them. Amtrak could not make any 
improvements to stations to comply with access requirements for persons 
with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Amtrak 
could not even operate in Union Station.
  The amendment would also prohibit the structural preservation and 
rehabilitation of historic bridges, such as the Brooklyn Bridge, or 
other covered bridges in the Northeast.
  This amendment goes too far, and it is not appropriate for the 
Transportation-HUD appropriations bill we are currently considering. So 
I urge my colleagues to oppose the McCain amendment.
  Again, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I believe I heard the Senator from 
Washington say that it would prohibit activities by Amtrak. I know of 
nothing in this page-and-a-quarter amendment that would in any way 
affect Amtrak or the Brooklyn Bridge. In fact, I would like for the 
money to be used to repair bridges because there are so many thousands 
of bridges in the country. There are 146,633 deficient bridges in this 
country. I would hope the Senator from Washington would agree with me 
that deficient bridges are a threat and a danger. I believe it was in 
the State of Washington where one collapsed, as I recall.
  So you can distort this amendment if you want to. You can say it 
would be the end of Western civilization as we know it. You can say 
this will cause irreparable harm and damage. It doesn't, my friends. It 
doesn't. It just says that none of the amounts would be for scenic or 
historic programs or tourist and welcome centers. And we are not 
prohibiting these things from being built. If the States want to build 
them, if the counties want to build them, if the cities want to build 
them, let them do it. But right now we are mandating that 10 percent of 
the money they get go to certain purposes, which results in this 
outcome.
  So I say, with respect to my colleagues who are opposing this 
amendment, if my colleagues would like to amend the amendment so that 
it doesn't have the Draconian effects that are predicted here, I would 
be more than happy to amend the amendment to make sure that doesn't 
happen. What I am trying to say and what this amendment clearly says in 
its 10 lines on the front and 4 lines on the back is that we think 
these things are unnecessary in light of the fact that we have so much 
infrastructure in need of repair.
  So, again, I had no contemplation that civilization would be affected 
so terribly by such an amendment which would try to give the director 
of transportation in southern Nevada the ability to be able to say: It 
is really getting out of hand to where these pots of money have these 
constraints associated with them, and you can't spend money where you 
want to. That is what this amendment is all about, my friends.
  I have been engaged in many debates on the floor of the Senate on 
various amendments, but to construe this very short amendment as 
somehow inhibiting or harmful to the work that needs to be done is 
obviously, in my view, fairly transparent and certainly not applicable 
to this amendment.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. If Senator Inhofe would like to use that time, I would be 
happy to yield to him.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding that the last 10 minutes would be 
equally divided, but perhaps the Senator from Arizona has already used 
maybe 2 of those minutes. Is that correct? I just want to be recognized 
for, say, 6 minutes in opposition.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is this in addition to the 5 
minutes that the Senator was allocated, so a total of 11 minutes of 
debate?
  Mr. INHOFE. Well, let me clarify. It doesn't make any difference to 
the Senator from Arizona or to me how much time I have. I need to have 
about 5 minutes to clarify a couple of things.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am happy to yield my 5 minutes to 
Senator Inhofe at the appropriate point.
  Mr. INHOFE. I think the appropriate time is here.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I disagree with the Senator from Washington 
for a different reason than the Senator from Arizona disagrees with 
her. I think his amendment goes too far--not just far enough but too 
far--and I think it is very important that people understand.
  Let me talk to the conservatives, let me talk to the Republicans, 
because this is certainly misunderstood. It wasn't drafted that way to 
carry out the intent of the Senator from Arizona, I am quite sure. This 
amendment

[[Page 15833]]

doesn't eliminate the mandate that States have to spend 10 percent of 
their surface transportation funds on transportation enhancements.
  Now, for clarification purposes, the 10 percent really is not 
represented properly. It really should be 2 percent. It is 2 percent of 
the State's total highway program. That happens to equal 10 percent of 
the Surface Transportation Program. But let's go ahead and use the 10 
percent.
  There are currently written into the law 11 eligible transportation 
enhancement activities. There is not room to put them all up, but we 
will put up this chart. What the Senator from Arizona is saying is that 
you still have to spend 10 percent of your surface transportation money 
on transportation enhancements, but he is saying the States have to use 
it on his transportation enhancements. Those are the bike and 
pedestrian facilities, the bike and pedestrian safety, rails to trails. 
The bikers are going to be very happy with this. They are the only ones 
coming out ahead should this be passed.
  Now, environmental mitigation in our law is restricted specifically 
to wildlife, bridges and tunnels, and to stormwater runoff 
enhancements. Now, stormwater runoff is taken care of anyway; these are 
the enhancements.
  So what this amendment is saying is that we are going to have to 
spend this 10 percent on bicycles and on various types of wildlife, 
bridges, and tunnels so that the turtles can get under the highways and 
not get run over, and that is not what I know the Senator from Arizona 
wants.
  In other words, we are taking the flexibility away from the cities, 
away from the States, and saying to them: You have to spend your 10 
percent, and you have to spend it on these four things. I would just 
suggest to you that in my State of Oklahoma, these are not the four 
things on which we would want to spend it. I come down here all the 
time, and there is this mentality that we have in Washington: No idea 
is a good idea unless it comes from Washington. Well, in my State of 
Oklahoma, we have a great highway program. I want them to have the 
latitude to decide what is really best.
  Now, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
Senator Boxer, and I have disagreed on environmental issues tooth and 
nail. We have fought with each other more than any two people on the 
floor of the Senate. She knows I have done everything within my power 
to do away with all transportation enhancement requirements. I have 
done this.
  If this amendment had eliminated the mandate that States spend 10 
percent of their Surface Transportation Program funds on all 
transportation enhancements, I philosophically would have supported it. 
If the McCain amendment had said that we want to do away with all 
transportation enhancements, I would have philosophically supported it. 
The problem with that is we would not be able to get a highway bill 
done.
  I often say that I have been actually ranked as the most conservative 
member of the Senate probably more than anyone else, but I have also 
said I am a big spender in two areas: No. 1 is national defense and No. 
2 is infrastructure. That is what I think we are supposed to be doing 
here--roads and bridges.
  I am sure my colleagues will recall that during the debate on the 
extension of the highway bill last month, Senators Boxer, Coburn, Reid, 
and I worked out an agreement that reforms the Transportation 
Enhancement Program which would be included in the next highway bill 
that the EPW Committee will be marking up next month. I hope we will be 
marking this up next month. These reforms would allow the States to 
make a determination as to how they want to spend their funds.
  To go back to this 10 percent, the idea behind this is this would 
increase what we are able to do and let the States have the discretion, 
so they can totally eliminate all enhancements. The States can do that. 
But they also would be allowed to use the 10 percent of the surface 
transportation funding on the various programs that are out there 
having to do with endangered species and the burying beetle and all 
that. That is where the problems really are.
  So I don't think we should mistakenly vote for the McCain amendment 
and say to the people in this country: You have to spend 10 percent of 
your surface transportation funds on these four things. And again, the 
bikers would love the bike trails and all that, but I don't believe 
that is what we should be doing here.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes 55 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, again, the question is, What do we do 
with the money? And obviously, when taxpayers are told that, with 
146,633 deficient bridges in this country, that we don't need to be 
spending it on the examples I have provided--I hope it is well 
understood that if those projects are felt needed by the States and the 
counties and the elected officials in the States, then they should be 
able to go ahead with them, but if they don't choose to, they should 
also have the right not to. It is time some of this kind of stuff 
stopped.
  I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of the amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. No time is remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds remaining.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I only want to say that I agree with everything the 
Senator from Arizona is saying in terms of the bridges. I have fought 
for the bridges and highways.
  I have tried my best to get rid of all the enhancements--all of them. 
But to have an amendment that says to my State of Oklahoma: You still 
have to spend 10 percent of your surface transportation funds, but you 
have to spend it on bike trails and turtle bridges, I think that is 
wrong.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________