Floor Statements

Mr. President, at a time when America's infrastructure is crumbling, at a time when the Postal Service is losing $4 billion a year, does it make sense to send $2 billion to Egypt? Does it make sense to borrow money from China to send it to Egypt? At a time when American citizens are being prosecuted in Egypt, at a time when American citizens are having international warrants sworn out on their arrests by Egypt, does it make sense to send $2 billion to Egypt?

Last week I met with a young prodemocracy worker from Egypt. She is afraid to return home. She is afraid she will never see her children again. She is afraid of the cage they will put her in to prosecute her for political crimes. She fears that the Egyptian freedom movement will die in its infancy.

So I ask--for as long as prodemocracy workers are being prosecuted, American and Egyptian--I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2023 and that it be voted on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to not offer my amendment No. 2026, and I yield back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous to call up amendment No. 2027.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, at a time when we are asking post offices and people around our country to suffer the loss of their local post office, I think the very least we can do is show we are willing to give up some of the post offices around here. We have seven post offices in the Capitol. We have a post office in almost every building. I am asking that we have one on the House side and one on the Senate side. If we are asking people to suffer the loss of their post offices in their States, I think the very least we can do is do without a few post offices here, and I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2028.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment would allow a pilot program for local postal autonomy. One of the complaints I heard from postmasters when they came to talk to me about this bill is that they think there is a lot of middle management in the Postal Service making unwise decisions, and if they were given more autonomy at the local level to make decisions about their post offices, they would have the ability to have cost-saving measures to try to save the post office for their local community. I think this makes sense. I think we would have more innovation and get some useful ideas from our local postmasters.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, this amendment doesn't change any of the postal mandates and, to tell my colleagues the truth, the system we have now is not working very well. I think we do need some innovation, so I think it would be a good idea to vote for this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2029 with the modifications at the desk be reported.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment would add a technical change to the profitability plan that is already required under the bill, and it would simply ask that when they do the profitability plan, they report on whether Congress is helping or hurting. A lot of times we do things that are well intentioned that may not work out. I think they need to let us know more about whether Congress is helping or hurting the process.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2039.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, let's be frank. The Postal Service is bankrupt and only dramatic action will fix the Postal Service. The problem is labor costs. Eighty percent of the Postal Service's costs are labor. If we look at UPS, it is about 50 percent. If we look at FedEx, it is about 38 percent. Before we close one post office, before we end Saturday mail, before we ask citizens to get poorer services for higher prices, maybe we ought to look at the root of the problem.

Even FDR--the biggest of the big government advocates--said this about collective bargaining:

All Government employees should realize that the process of

collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be

transplanted into the public service.

So agreeing with FDR, I hope my colleagues from across the aisle will agree with their patron saint FDR and will support this amendment that would end collective bargaining.

In the interest of time, I will be happy to have a voice vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2025.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, it is a Federal crime for anyone but the U.S. Postal Service to use a mailbox. The United States is the only country in the world that grants a mailbox monopoly. You can purchase your mailbox, you can install it, you can fix it, but you do not truly own it because you do not control what goes in your mailbox. If someone vandalizes your mailbox, you are responsible for it. You repair it. But you cannot decide what goes in it. If you put something in a mailbox without the permission of the U.S. Postal Service, if your child puts a birthday invitation in a mailbox, it can be a $5,000 fine. If an organization puts something in a mailbox other than through the Postal Service, it is a $10,000 fine.

My amendment would grant individual owners of mailboxes the right to make decisions about their mailboxes. Adopting this amendment would restore individual mailbox choice. So I am for mailbox choice, and I hope the body is. It seems to me a fundamentally American concept to control access to your own mailbox. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an amendment that would end aid to Egypt until they end the prosecution of our U.S. citizens. I offered this amendment earlier this spring when Egypt was detaining our citizens--these prodemocracy workers--and was not letting them leave the country. Since then, they have let them leave the country but sort of in an insulting fashion in the sense they have let them leave when we paid, basically, ransom. We had to pay about $5 million in ransom--$300,000 per person--to let these people leave Egypt.

So they came home, but Egypt still could only get its aid if the administration certified they were pro democracy. Within days, Secretary Clinton did release the aid and said they were achieving their democratic goals. I wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton asking her not to do this because the prosecutions still go on. These American citizens who were allowed to leave the country had to pay $300,000 in bail but they also had to sign a statement saying they were coming back for the trial.

Everybody said, well, I doubt they are ever going back to Egypt for these show trials. But it gets worse. It turns out in December of last year, President Obama signed an Executive order--this is Order No. 13524--that gives Interpol, the international police organization, immunity in our country. We also have an extradition treaty with Egypt,

meaning if you are accused of a crime in Egypt, we can send you back.

The danger is whether these prodemocracy workers are safe in the United States. We have Interpol agents in the United States who now have immunity and we have an extradition treaty with Egypt. There are definitely problems with allowing this to go on. This is an indication to me that maybe Egypt is not pursuing democratic goals, and that certifying them as a democratic country is perhaps not in our best interest, and maybe sending nearly $2 billion of taxpayer money to Egypt, which continues to prosecute our citizens, is not a good idea.

Let me give an example of what Interpol is doing. Interpol recently took a Saudi journalist from Malaysia and sent him back to Saudi Arabia. Do you know what the crime was? He was accused of blasphemy. He was accused of the religious crime of apostasy. Do you know what the penalty in Saudi Arabia for blasphemy is? The death penalty. So we are now using an international police agency to go into a sovereign nation, where someone is accused of a religious crime and is sent back to a country where they can be put to death. This alarms me.

People say, oh, that could never happen in America. Well, right now, the President has allowed Interpol, through an Executive order, through the President's signature, to have diplomatic immunity in our country. For all I know, Interpol could be at this very moment looking for American citizens in this country and trying to get those people and extradite them to Egypt. This is a problem. This is why you don't want an international police force to operate within your sovereign Nation. There can be cooperation, but you don't want impunity and immunity for an international police force within your borders.

So I will introduce again an amendment to this bill and this amendment will say no aid to Egypt until they end this prosecution; no aid to Egypt until they end these red letter warrants they have asked for on U.S. citizens to be extradited to Egypt. We can't allow U.S. citizens to be sent to a foreign country to be tried in that country where blasphemy is a crime. Those are not American values, those are not American ways, and we cannot allow U.S. citizens to be subject to foreign laws and foreign crimes.

I will ask today for a vote on an amendment that will end Egyptian aid or at least delay Egyptian foreign aid until they relinquish this prosecution of our citizens.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Egypt currently gets $2 billion from our country from the U.S. taxpayer. My question is, should we be sending $2 billion a year to Egypt when they seek to continue to prosecute American citizens.

Recently, President Obama's administration freed up that money and said Egypt is pursuing democratic aims, so

we freed up the $2 billion. How did Egypt respond to this? Egypt basically thumbed their nose at us. Egypt said we are now issuing international warrants to get American citizens, extradite them, take them back to Egypt for a political show trial. So we give money to a country that insults us.

I think this should end. I think this deserves 15 minutes of Senate time to discuss whether America has money to be sending to Egypt when we have 12 million people unemployed in this country, and whether we have needs here at home that need to be met before we send $2 billion to Egypt which turns around and insults us by prosecuting American citizens.

I respectfully object and seek a vote on this amendment that would end their aid if they do not end the prosecution of American citizens.

Reserving the right to object, the Post Office is losing $4 billion a year, and I sympathize. But at the same time we are losing $4 billion, we are sending $2 billion to Egypt. We have problems in our country and we don't have the money to send to Egypt, so I would say it is relevant. It is relevant whether, when we have limited resources, we send $2 billion to Egypt, or whether we try to fix the problems we have at home. I would say bring some of that money home and that might help us fix the Post Office.

I continue my objection.

Mr. President, since I have been referred to, may I interject with a question?

Could I interject with a----

Will the Senator yield for a question? Since I am being characterized, I would think I would be allowed a response.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss gas prices. Gas prices have doubled under this President, so today this body will consider new legislation which the other side, I assume, thinks will make the situation better. But their solution is to raise taxes on oil companies--raise taxes by $25 billion.

Any of you who have a business know when we raise taxes on a business, it simply is a cost to doing business. When your costs increase for making your product, what do you do? You charge your consumer more.

So I am not sure what person is advising the other side, but I do not quite understand how raising $25 billion worth of cost on the oil industry is going to help gas prices. In fact, I think it is going to send gas prices even higher.

Some on the other side say: Oh, this is a matter of fairness; everybody needs to pay their fair share. Well, oil companies actually pay $86 million a day in taxes. In the last 10 years the oil companies have paid over $100 billion in taxes. And the people who say, well, we must punish them; they are making too much money; let's punish them, well, the oil companies employ 9.2 million people. They are 8 percent of our GDP. Do we want to punish the people who are creating jobs, the people who are trying to make us energy independent in our country? It makes absolutely no sense.

Some will argue, well, we need to make the Tax Code fair, and the oil companies have special exemptions. Well, guess what. These exemptions and business deductions apply to other businesses. But they just want to take them away from one of our successful industries. It seems to me, if an industry is successful and creates 9.2 million jobs, instead of punishing them we should want to encourage them. I would think we would want to say to the oil companies: What obstacles are there to you making more money and hiring more people? Instead they say: No, we must punish them. We must tax them more to make things fair.

This whole debate about fairness is so misguided and it has gotten out of hand. The rich in our society do pay the vast majority of our taxes. Do not let them tell you otherwise. Those who make over $200,000 a year pay 70 percent of the income tax. Those who make more than $70,000 a year pay about 96 percent of the income tax. And 47 percent of our public do not pay an income tax. So those who are saying the rich are not paying their fair share are trying to use envy and class warfare to get people stirred up. But it makes absolutely no sense.

We as a society need to glorify those who make a profit and those who employ people. We need to encourage more business in this country. The oil companies employ 9.2 million people. We do not need to heap punishment on them. We need to give them encouragement to employ more people.

I will have two amendments to this bill that I think would actually make it better. While the President talks about people not paying their fair share, he is actually giving more than their fair share to his friends. I do not think the government should be used as a loan agency to give money to contributors. This is unseemly. I think the conflict of interest is undeniable.

We have companies such as Solyndra. This is a company that received $500 million of your money and went bankrupt. It just so happened that the owner of the company is the 20th richest man in the United States and a big donor of the President. It just so happens that this company, Solyndra, the person who approved their loan was related, was the husband, of a woman who worked for Solyndra.

Another company, a company called BrightSource out of Massachusetts, is owned by a member of the Kennedy family. They got $1.8 billion. Guess who approved their loan. A guy who used to work for the Kennedys who is now in President Obama's administration. It does not pass the smell test. What we have is crony capitalism or crony governmentalism where the government is picking out their friends and giving money to their friends.

So we come here today to raise taxes on Big Oil. Meanwhile, we are giving money to millionaires and billionaires, and it does not seem right that your tax dollars should be sent to companies simply because they were big contributors.

Another company, Fisker Karma, got $500 million supposedly to make an electric car in the United States. Guess where they are making it. In Finland. We sent money to Solyndra through international banks, through the Ex-

Im Bank. We sent money to First Solar through the Ex-Im Bank. Do you know what their money was for? Their money was given to them so they could buy their own products. The company bought a subsidiary in Canada. We gave money to the company in the United States and let them buy their own products with your money. It makes absolutely no sense. So I have two proposals.

One amendment to this bill would say. Look, if you think some companies are getting unfair deductions, let's get rid of all deductions. Let's just have a flat tax. Let's make the corporate income tax 17 percent. Currently it is 35 percent.

So if we want to encourage business, if we want to encourage employment, lower taxes; do not raise taxes. Canada has an income tax for their corporations of 17 percent. Most of Europe is in the low 20s, and we are at 35 percent. We wonder why we cannot get business started in this country. We wonder why there is billions, even trillions of dollars, left overseas that will not come home because we want to charge them a 35-percent tax when it comes home.

Our bill would also say: If you have already paid taxes overseas once, you do not have to pay again when you come home. So a 17-percent flat tax. We would see a boom in this country like we have not seen in a generation. We would see millions of jobs being created if we would just learn the basic facts of economics. If we punish a company, we will have less jobs. If we encourage a company by giving them more tax breaks, we will have more jobs. Taxes are a cost.

If this bill passes, not only will our gas prices continue to rise-- they have already doubled--but we will see our gas prices going through the roof. But then again there are people in this administration who do not even drive a car. They do not understand the price of gas because they do not have to drive a car. Someone picks them up in a limousine. The thing is, they need to go to the pump. They need to see how much we are spending on gas. They need to see what they are doing to this country and what they are doing to the job market.

I have a second amendment to this bill that would take all of this money, all of these loans they are giving to their buddies--the Solyndra loans, the Fisker Karma loans, the First Solar loan--all of this money that is being dispensed to people who are large contributors of the President, we would take that loan program and eliminate it. When we eliminate that loan program, we would save nearly $30 billion. The GAO has said as much as $6 billion is at risk for loss now. If we were to eliminate that money, we could put half toward the debt and then put half toward rebuilding our infrastructure.

The President says he wants to rebuild our bridges. He came to my State. I stood on a bridge with him and said I would help. But the way to help is by not passing out dollars to friends that are being lost by the billions of dollars. We cannot simply create the money; let's find the money.

So I propose to end the Department of Energy loans and take that money, put half of it against the debt, and put half of that into repairing or replacing our bridges. This is how government should work. We should pick priorities. There is not an unlimited amount of money. So let's take it from an area where it is prone to corruption and where it is prone to a conflict of interest--these alternative energy loans that seem to be going mostly to the President's friends and political campaign contributors, let's take that money and use it to repair the bridges and to pay down the debt. This is what responsible government should do. But what we are doing in this body, what will happen in the next 24 hours as we discuss this bill is--and everybody in America needs to be very clear about this--when they go to the gas pump and pay more every day for gasoline, they need to realize where the responsibility lies.

The responsibility lies with those who are running up the debt, and as we pay for the debt we print new money. So gas prices rising means the value of the dollar is shrinking. That is why prices are rising. We need to realize who is to blame for the gas prices. It is those who are running up the debt. But we also have to realize it is even worse than that. It is not just the running up of the debt, we have to realize these people today now want to add $25 billion to the gas prices. That is what happens.

When we raise the taxes on the oil companies we will add $25 billion in taxes, but we will increase their cost by $25 billion. Any business that sells products simply passes that on to the consumer.

So what we are here about--and they should retitle their bill--since they are willing to, by this legislation, increase gas prices, it should be called ``the bill to raise your gas prices.''

So what I would ask this body to do is to consider two amendments that would actually lower the debt and take money away from crony capitalism and another one that would reform the Tax Code to eliminate deductions and discrepancies within the Tax Code, but to do it by lowering the tax rate, flattening the tax rate, and allowing businesses to succeed in our country.

It gets down to whom do you want to represent you in Washington, DC? Do you want a party that basically wants to punish business, those who are creating jobs, or do you want a party that wants to encourage business?

We are in the midst of a great recession. Until we understand this fundamental fact, we are not going to recover as a nation.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, I am amazed the majority party objects to an amendment that simply restates the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers feared granting power to declare war to the Executive. They were quite concerned that the Executive can become like a King. Many in this body could not get boots on the ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran. We don't just send boots to war; we send our young Americans to war. Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate. Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of war, over the advisability of war, and over the objectives of the war. James Madison wrote:

. . . that the Constitution supposes what history

demonstrates, that the Executive is a branch most interested

in war, and most prone to it. Therefore, the Constitution,

with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.

My amendment is one sentence long. It states that nothing in this act is to be construed as a declaration of war or as an authorization of the use of military force in Iran or Syria.

I urge that we not begin a new war without a full debate, without a vote, without careful consideration of the ramifications of a third or even a fourth war in this past decade. I, therefore, respectfully, object.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to corporate welfare. At a time when our country is borrowing over $1 trillion a year, I think it makes no senses to loan money to countries we are borrowing from. For example, we borrowed $29 billion from Mexico, and yet we are sending them $8 billion of the money we borrowed from them to subsidize trade.

A lot of the subsidized trade goes to very wealthy corporations. When 12 million people are out of work in the United States, does it make sense for the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize loans of major multinational corporations? The President is big on saying, well, these rich companies need to pay their fair share. Well, why then is the President sending loans out to these very wealthy corporations? And he is actually giving them their fair share of our taxpayer money. Why is that occurring?

I have often asked the question, Is government inherently stupid? Well, you know, I don't think government is inherently stupid, but it is a debatable question. Government doesn't get the same signals your local bank gets. Your local bank has to look at your creditworthiness. Your local bank has to make a profit. Your local bank has to meet a payroll. But once the government gets in charge of these things, Katy- bar-the-door. We don't have a good track record with government banks because they do not feel deep inside the same pain that an individual banker feels when he gives a loan.

We have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac losing $6 billion of your money a quarter. And what do they want to do? They want to expand another government bank. So get this right. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are government banks are losing $6 billion a quarter, and recently they wanted to give their executives multimillion dollar bonuses. They said, Well, you have to pay people if you want to keep good talent. My question is, How much talent does it take to lose $6 billion a quarter? I think there are people here today watching the Senate who would take $19 million a year to run one of these government banks only to have their record be that they lost $6 billion a quarter. That is outrageous. Then wanting to expand a new government bank and give money to very wealthy corporations that are making a profit? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Jefferson said government is best that governs least. What did he mean by that? He meant he wanted government to be small because government is inherently inefficient. Government doesn't get the same signals. That is why we should only let government do the things the private sector can't do. Banking is something the private sector can do. We are not talking about starting new companies, for the most part; we are mostly talking about subsidizing very wealthy multinational companies.

But let's look at the companies the Export-Import Bank is subsidizing. One of them is called First Solar. You may have heard that a lot of these solar companies are big contributors to President Obama. I wonder if that has something to do with them getting loans. But here is the loan First Solar gets from Export-Import. They get paid and they have a loan that says they are going to make solar panels, and then who is going to buy the solar panels? Themselves. So they made a deal with another company they own and the taxpayer is stuck financing a loan so First Solar can make solar panels and then buy them from themselves. That sounds like a good deal. You get the government to subsidize a loan to buy your own product.

Who else are we subsidizing? We gave $10 million in loans to Solyndra. You may have heard of Solyndra. Solyndra is owned by the 20th richest man in the United States, who just happens to be a big contributor to President Obama. Coincidence? I don't know.

Guess who works for the Department of Energy. Solyndra's lawyer's husband works for the Department of Energy, and he was apparently a big fan of these loans and a big fan of restructuring these loans. Do you think people approving the loans should be related to the people getting the loans?

Robert Kennedy, Jr., of the famous Kennedy family, got $1.8 billion. Just so happens they are big political supporters of the President also. How did they get the loan? Somebody who used to work for Kennedy now works in the loan department at the Department of Energy. Sounds as though there might be a conflict of interest.

This is a real problem. But this is a problem that is endemic to government banks. Once you let the government get hold of the banks, and once you let them make the loan decisions, they do it and they give the money to their favorites. So when one party is in charge, their favorites get them; when the other party is in charge, their favorites get them.

The government shouldn't be in this business. These are large multinational corporations that can find loans for themselves. Guess what. Sometimes they are loaning money to other governments that then compete with our industry. We are loaning money to India, to whom we also owe billions of dollars, but then India subsidizes an airline that competes with U.S. airlines. It doesn't make any sense at all. But we continue to do things that are counterproductive, counterintuitive, at taxpayers' expense. Then we say, well, to keep good talent, we have to pay these guys millions of dollars to run these government banks.

The problem is government banks don't respond the way business does. They respond in a fashion where they do not feel the pain. No one loses their job. No one loses a night's sleep over a government loan. When a bank loans you money, someone has to make a profit and meet a payroll. It is different. You have the checks and balances of the marketplace. You don't

need to have the government involved here.

There are a couple questions we should ask before doing what the other side wants to do. They want to expand the size of this corporate welfare. They want more corporate welfare going out to multinational corporations. In doing so, they want you, the taxpayer, to be on the hook for more money.

I would say we have to ask some questions. Should we be dispensing loans based on political favoritism? Should it matter if one is a big contributor to the President? Should that matter in getting a loan? No. I think that ought to be illegal. If it is not immoral, it ought to be. It is immoral. It should be illegal. We shouldn't be doing that.

Then the other question is, does it make sense to borrow billions of dollars first from China or India and then send it back to them to say: Please, buy our products with it. So we borrow the money from them, and then we send it back to the very same countries. It makes utterly no sense. I ask the Senate to consider seriously whether, at a time we are running a $1 trillion deficit, it makes sense to be subsidizing profitable, large multinational corporations. I don't think so, and I don't think the taxpayer thinks so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1556.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The question I have for Senate is, Has your government gotten out of control? Have the regulators become so numerous and so zealous that we can't even carry on the ordinary affairs of our government?

We recently had a bridge where a boat ran into the bridge in Kentucky and one could no longer cross the bridge because it is not there. We have to wait for environmental regulations and environmental studies, which sometimes can be 4 and 5 years, before we can repair our bridges and our roads during an emergency. This is crazy. This goes on even in regular affairs, such as trying to replace a sewage plant in our State or throughout the United States. Do we want to live in a country where we have to stop and count how many barnacles are on our bridge before we decide whether to rebuild the bridge? Do we want to stop and count how many mussels are attached to the pier before we rebuild the bridge? In the end we are going to rebuild the bridge anyway, but we spend a year's time or more wasted on these studies but in the end we are going to rebuild the bridge. I will give an example.

We have a small town in Kentucky that has a sewage plant, and the population of the town has outgrown the sewage plant. When it rains, the raw sewage goes into the river. I don't know any Republican or Democrat who wants raw sewage in the river. So we need a new sewage plant in the town. But what does the EPA say? They want to count the mussels. They want to count the mussels in the river and then they want to estimate will there be more mussels or less mussels after we build a new sewage plant. Guess what. When we build a new sewage plant, the raw sewage would not go in the river, which is what we all intend and in the end what will happen but, in the meantime, we waste time and money.

This small town of about 300 people is going to have to spend $100,000 on an EPA study to hire someone to count the mussels. While they are counting the mussels, they are going to have to hire someone to count the Indian artifacts and look for Indian arrowheads. If they find an arrowhead, it may delay it indefinitely. We have gone crazy as a country. We all want some rules. We don't want anyone to pollute our neighbor's property, but the EPA is out of control.

What we need to do is in emergencies or urgencies, when a bridge collapses or a roadway is washed away, we don't need to spend 1 year or 2 or 4 or 5 years doing an EPA study, which basically enriches some contractor that counts the mussels. We don't need to be counting the mussels in this stream. We need to get to repairing the bridge, which we are going to do anyway. We are just going to waste 1 year counting the mussels and paying some contractor $100,000 a year.

So this amendment would allow States to opt out. The bridge we have out in Kentucky has two communities. Many people live in one community and have to drive to the other community. They can't get there because of the bridge. Do we want to wait 1 year because they have to count how many barnacles are on the bridge?

This is a commonsense resolution that should pass, but I will tell you the way Washington works, the other side doesn't want my amendment to pass, even though it has common sense, so they are going to offer an alternative. Their alternative is to say something but do nothing. It is called a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. They will proudly proclaim we need to make it better, and, please, Mr. Regulator, make it better. But they will not change the law.

Mine would actually change the law to allow communities to start rebuilding their bridge or repairing their road almost immediately, in the same location, free of the government regulations. We need to do this at all levels. This is a very small incremental step forward. It is something on which we should all agree. If we watch the vote later on today, we will find out we don't all agree and, instead, the other side is going to say: Say something; do nothing.

This is something we need to, as a society, get started on because we are being killed by regulations. This is one small step on something that should be bipartisan. There are many more steps that need to be taken, because throughout our country millions of jobs are being lost from overzealous regulators. Millions of people's privacy and private property rights are being invaded by these regulators, and this is a very small incremental stop of the encroachment of these regulators.

I urge support of my amendment 1556, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

Madam President, we have a bridge out between Marshall County and Trigg County. It takes 1 hour to go around the lake. What we are asking for is an exemption from onerous and overzealous regulations that can slow the process of rebuilding a bridge or road by years. The average time for an environmental review for a construction project is 4 years.

The other side wants to pay lip service. They want to say something about it but do nothing to fix the problem. The people who live in Marshall County and Trigg County want their bridge fixed. They want to get to work and not take an hour and a half to get to work.

The way we fix this is we get rid of the redtape. The way we do that is by changing the law. So what I propose is that we vote against the say something, do nothing and vote for a reform that actually has teeth and would take away the redtape and allow us to immediately begin to repair our bridges without Big Brother obstructing the reconstruction.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, currently, the bridge between Marshall County and Trigg County has been collapsed by a disaster. If you were to repair your bridges or repair roads that have been washed out, there is an enormous amount of government redtape that can slow the process down. On average, to get an environmental study done, it can be 4 years at times.

This amendment would remove government redtape and allow us to fix our bridges when we have a disaster--such as a collapse--and fix our roads when a road is washed out.

This is different than the alternative. The alternative we just voted on was: say something; do nothing. This is something that will say something and do something--an amendment that will get rid of government redtape and allow us to repair our bridges in an expeditious fashion.

Often we wait years to go through the government redtape. This cuts through it and allows States to immediately repair and replace broken or collapsed bridges and roads. I urge support for and adoption of amendment No. 1556.

Thank you.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(G)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, dependency often leads to indolence, lethargy, a sense of entitlement, and ultimately to a state of insolence. Egypt has been receiving welfare from the United States for nearly 40 years. America has lavished $60 billion on Egypt. They react with insolence and disregard by detaining 19 of our U.S. citizens. For several months now these citizens have been essentially held hostage, unable to leave Egypt. They are held on the pretense of trumped-up political charges, held in order to display them in show trials to placate the mob.

The United States can respond in one of two ways: We can hang our head low; we can take the tack of Jimmy Carter; we can try to placate Egypt with concessions and offer them bribes in the form of more government aid; or America can respond with strength.

Today the President should call the Egyptian Ambassador in and send him home with a message, a message that America will not tolerate any country holding U.S. citizens as political prisoners. Congress should act today to tell Egypt that we will no longer send our annual welfare check to them; that this year's $1.8 billion is not on the way. America could put Egyptian travelers on notice that the welcome sign in America will temporarily expire unless the Egyptian Government lets our people go; or America could hang her head, promise to continue the foreign aid to Egypt, and apologize for supporting democracy. Which will it be?

So far, the signal sent to Egypt from the President and from the Senate has been weak or counterproductive. In late January the President's Under Secretary of State said to the administration that he wanted to provide more immediate benefits to Egypt; let's speed up the welfare checks. The President's budget this week still continues to include $1.8 billion for Egypt without a single word of rebuke or any demand that our U.S. citizens be released. The President went one step further when he actually increased foreign aid to the Middle East in his budget, and now the Senate refuses to hold a single vote to spend 10 minutes discussing why U.S. citizens are being detained in Egypt.

One might excuse the Egyptians for not believing we will cut their aid. You cannot lead from behind. Senate leadership appears unwilling to address this issue head-on, so the Senate won't act to help our citizens this week.

I hope that when Senators return home and talk to their constituents in their States, their constituents will ask these questions: Senator, why do you continue to send our taxpayer money to Egypt? Why do you continue to send our money to Egypt when they detain our citizens? Senator, why do you continue to send billions of dollars to Egypt when 12 million Americans are out of work? Senator, why do you continue to send welfare to foreign countries when our bridges are falling down and in desperate need of repair? Senator, how can you continue to flush our taxpayer money down a foreign drain when we are borrowing $40,000 a second? The money we send to Egypt we must first borrow from China. That is insanity, and it must end. Finally, Mr. Senator, I hope your constituents ask you this when you go home: When working families are suffering under

rising food prices, when working families are suffering because gas prices have doubled, how can you justify sending our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to Egypt, to countries that openly show their disdain for us?

When will we learn? You can't buy friendship, and you can't convince authoritarians to love freedom with welfare checks.

America needs to send a clear and unequivocal message to Egypt that we will not tolerate the detention of U.S. citizens on trumped-up political charges or otherwise and that we will not continue to send welfare checks to Egypt, to a country that commits an injustice to American citizens.

I ask unanimous consent today to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment on Egypt that would end all foreign aid to Egypt if our U.S. citizens are not released within 30 days. I think this is an important amendment which deserves discussion, and Egypt deserves to hear a message from the Senate that we will not tolerate this.

I ask unanimous consent to bring up amendment No. 1541.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, some Senators are concerned that I may be delaying a vote in the Senate. This is not true. I offered yesterday to vote on my amendment with 10 minutes of discussion. I have offered to vote immediately at any point in time.

I do think it is worth 10 minutes of our time and 10 minutes of America's time to discuss the plight of U.S. citizens in Egypt. I don't think 10 minutes is too much to ask to discuss, debate, and vote on whether Egypt should continue to get aid from us while detaining our citizens. Egypt is unlawfully preventing U.S. citizens from leaving that country. I don't think 10 minutes is too much to ask. We have sent over $60 billion in aid to Egypt over the years, and they now hold 19 U.S. citizens virtually hostage.

Will we ever learn? Will we ever learn we can't buy friendship? Nineteen U.S. citizens who traveled to Egypt to help Egypt embrace democracy, to help Egypt to have an elective government, to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy and the success we enjoy having a democratic government, those Americans are now being prevented from leaving Egypt. Some of the prodemocracy workers are, in fact, seeking refuge in the U.S. Embassy.

This is a tragedy and something we should make a clear and unequivocal statement about. Does Egypt wish to be part of the civilized world or do they wish to descend into the lawlessness of the Third World? Some have argued we don't need these provisions, that there are already provisions in place to prevent Egypt from getting aid. Apparently, the Egyptians aren't listening, and they need to listen very clearly.

The amendment I proposed will end all aid to Egypt--economic and military. We give over $1.5 billion to Egypt every year, and we cannot continue to give aid to a country that is illegally detaining our U.S. citizens.

Some have said the provisions we already have will take care of this. There are a couple problems. The Egyptians aren't hearing that message, so the message needs to be louder and more firm. We will not tolerate any country holding U.S. citizens as hostages or lawlessly. I think Egypt needs to know America means business, and that is what this debate is all about.

I don't think it is too much to ask the Senate to consider this proposal on Egypt; let's spend 10 minutes and let's have a vote to send a message to Egypt.

The question is, Will we ever learn? Will we ever learn we cannot buy friendship? Will we ever learn we cannot create Democrats out of authoritarians simply by buying them off? We have tried it. We have sent billions of dollars to Africa and asked authoritarians who rape and pillage and torture their own people, and we give them more money trying to convince them to be democratic. It doesn't work.

We need to have a firmer hand and say there will be no more aid to countries that detain U.S. citizens, that don't allow their citizens to vote, and to countries that torture and rape and pillage their population.

We have sent billions of dollars to Afghanistan, and it is an insult to Americans--particularly to American soldiers--that the President of Afghanistan has said if there were a war, he would side with Pakistan against the United States.

Will we ever learn? We send money--billions of dollars--to these countries, and apparently they still dislike us, disrespect us, and say they will side with our enemies.

There are now officials in Pakistan, which has gotten billions of dollars from us, saying Pakistan will side with Iran. Afghanistan is telling us they will side with Pakistan. So Pakistan will side with Iran, and what does the chump, the U.S. taxpayer, get? Send more money. No. 1, we don't even have the money. We are borrowing the money from China, and we are asked to send more money to people who disrespect us. I think that is an insult that should end.

Will we ever learn? Will we ever learn we can't buy friendship? Will we ever learn authoritarians, no matter how much money we give them, will not become democratic? Egypt must be put on notice.

The President is not leading on this issue. Just a few weeks ago, the President's Under Secretary of State, Robert Hormats, stated he wanted to make sure the administration assured the Egyptians that we want to provide them ``more immediate benefits.''

Do you think that maybe the President is sending the wrong message to the Egyptians? They are detaining 19 U.S. citizens and preventing them from coming home and U.S. citizens are holed up in our Embassy and the administration says we need to make sure the benefits get there immediately. The administration is bragging about sending more aid to Egypt.

Just yesterday, the President came out with a new budget. Guess what. There is $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to be sent to Egypt. What kind of message are we sending them? I think the President is not leading the country and is not exemplifying what most Americans would want; that is, to send a clear and unequivocal message to Egypt that we will not tolerate this behavior or subsidize this behavior.

Think of it. The American taxpayer is being asked to subsidize a government that is detaining U.S. citizens. The American taxpayer is being asked to subsidize Pakistan, that says they would side with Iran. The American citizen, the American taxpayer, is being asked to subsidize Afghanistan, that said they would side with Pakistan against us. All the while we are running trillion-dollar deficits, borrowing this money, and bankrupting our country.

The Egyptians need to be sent a clear and unequivocal message. I think it is worth 10 minutes of the Senate's time to have a vote. I think it is worth it for the 19 U.S. citizens. If it were my child in Egypt working there for a prodemocracy group, I would want to think the

Senate had 10 minutes of time. I would want to think the Senate can spare 10 minutes of time to send the Egyptians a signal that we will not tolerate this and they must let our citizens come home.

The United States will not and should not stand for the detention of American citizens. The United States will not stand for imprisonment or travel restrictions on its citizens, and the United States should not send aid to a government that so casually accuses American citizens of political crimes.

So while some will say I am holding up the business of the Senate, I argue this is the business of the Senate; that foreign policy was delegated--much of it--to the Senate, that we are abdicating our role, and that we as the Senate should send a clear and unequivocal message to Egypt. So I will continue to argue, despite much opposition, to have a vote to send a signal to Egypt that we will not tolerate the detention of U.S. citizens.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to accommodate the President and these nominees. I think the chairman, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, has made very good points about their qualifications. But I would be remiss if I did not rise in support of 1,200 jobs in Paducah, KY, which are threatened to be lost because the Department of Energy is refusing to address the situation.

We have a company that has 1,200 jobs in Paducah, KY, which enriches uranium. For 50 years uranium has been accumulating, and it sits on the ground as a waste product. We could recycle this. It is a green project. It costs no taxes. In fact, it will actually bring back money to the Treasury.

What I would like is help from the chairman as well as the President as well as Secretary Chu on this issue. I have written to Secretary Chu, and we have not heard back. This is very important to us. We are in the midst of a great recession, and 1,200 people are destined to lose their jobs. Once again, this does not cause any spending. It does not cost any taxes. Actually, if you would allow us to reenrich this uranium, it would bring money back to the Treasury. That is my reason for holding this. I would hope that we could find some reason and means to accommodate each other.

Until that time, I would continue to object to these nominations.

Madam President, in response to that question, yes. The government owns the uranium. It has been sitting there for 50 years. It is my understanding that the Department of Energy or the President could at any time sign a statement saying that uranium can be enriched.

It is completely under his prerogative and 1,200 jobs could be saved. These are good-paying jobs. Many of these are union jobs. These are people I would like to help in my State. It does not cost the government anything. It does not cost the taxpayers anything. In fact, it uses a waste product that is sitting on the ground. We had an agreement. We have worked with United Uranium Mine Workers. We have worked with Senators and Congressmen from different States to try to get this figured out. But all it takes is a signature from the Department of Energy to allow them to enrich this uranium.

The Defense Department has written statements saying they could use this uranium. The GAO has said this is the best use of this waste product. But I believe the Secretary of Energy, through a stroke of the pen, could save these 1,200 jobs. That is what I am asking for help with.

Madam President, this is my only objection. If the Senator were to help me save these 1,200 jobs, we would erect a monument to him in Kentucky. This is a big deal for us. It does not cost anything. I would do everything within my power to make sure there is no objection on our side. I think it is the President's prerogative. I will help facilitate this process as soon as possible. This would be huge for us in Kentucky if we could save these jobs.

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

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.