John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. McCAIN. The majority leader is incorrect. This article was last Friday, talking about this week, the chairman of the panel talking about this week.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I just have a brief question for the majority leader. In case he missed the morning Washington Post, it says that the independent commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks will have to consider scaling back the scope of its inquiry and limiting public hearings unless Congress agrees by next week to give the panel more time to finish its work, its chairman. Governor Keane, a Republican chairman, said that their ability to conduct their investigation will be impaired permanently and severely unless Congress acts by next week.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for one question?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, that is the bill that was passed through the Intelligence Committee yesterday; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Doesn't it have to be sent to the desk?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for it to be sent to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sent Congress what should be a much needed and sobering wake- up call. He warned that a lack of fiscal discipline could lead to increased long-term interest rates and called for new steps to restrain spending. In delivering the Fed's monetary report to the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Greenspan said that should investors become significantly more doubtful that the Congress will take the necessary fiscal measures, then appreciable backup in long-term interest rates is possible. Also, as we know, yesterday the administration transmitted its statement of administrative policy which we will continue to talk about throughout this debate. We all know the projected budget deficit for 2005 is over $500 billion, half a trillion dollars. Almost every Member in this Chamber has been talking the talk about reining in spending, but when are we going to start to back up our words with our actions? Passage of this bill would be the quintessential example of what we are doing wrong and how we are not stepping up to future financial straits for our children and grandchildren. The current budget resolution provided $231 billion for the EPW Committee to spend on its portion of the bill. That is the current budget resolution. The pending EPW proposal would instead provide $255 billion, or $24 billion over the current budget resolution by which we are to be abiding. The current budget resolution provided $37 billion for the Banking Committee to spend on its transit portion of this bill. The Banking Committee proposal contained in the pending bill provides $46 billion or 25 percent over the budget resolution. I guess I have to ask a question about this body's adherence to the budget resolution. We spend arduous days, and then with a vote-athon that is the most unpleasant day and evening of the year--certainly for me and I believe for most of my colleagues--we come up with a budget resolution and one we at least commit to abide by. This bill, at least in two instances which I am bringing to your attention, is $24 billion over the current budget resolution by EPW, and 25 percent or $9 billion over the budget resolution by the Banking Committee. A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial entitled ``Road Kill'' had some pretty harsh comments about what we are doing today. I will not quote from all of it. The Wall Street Journal editorial says: An old political adage has it that the most dangerous place in Washington is between a Congressman and asphalt. That is exactly where taxpayers now find themselves as Congress conspires to pass another monster highway bill. The only good news is that President Bush is showing signs he may fight this election year. The administration has its own highway proposal which is hardly cheap. Mr. Bush is asking for $256 billion over six years, which is 21 percent more than the past six years and fairly close to Treasury estimates of revenue from the current 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax that is earmarked for roads. Ah, but this isn't enough for the boys of summer construction. The draft Senate bill demands $55 billion more than Mr. Bush and is loaded with fiscal gimmicks that divert money from general--non-gas-tax--revenues into roadbuilding. One of the more embarrassing arguments from Congress's highwaymen is that this is somehow a ``jobs bill.'' That is what we continue to hear on this floor over and over again. So at least for parochial matter, Republicans claim to believe in the superiority of government over private spending. Some Econ 101: Highway spending rolls out slowly over many years but new taxes are immediately taken away from the more productive private economy. I would like to repeat that. Highway spending rolls out slowly over many years but new taxes are immediately taken away from the more productive private economy. Still, this is a fight worth having. Congress will keep spending freely until Mr. Bush shows he's willing to spend political capital to say no. In a letter to Congress last week, Administration officials warned that any bill that includes higher gas taxes, trickster accounting or a siphoning of general tax revenues will face a veto. Presidents who make veto threats and don't fulfill them quickly come irrelevant. There are one of two things that are going to happen and let's be very clear about what is happening. One of two things is going to happen. No. 1, if we pass this bill, it goes to conference and the President of the United States makes good on his very specific veto threat. I am sure that will be of benefit to the President of the United States in showing he is willing to crack down on reckless fiscal insanity, which is really what this bill is all about, or, somehow, a bill is passed by both bodies and they go to conference and, without the participation of the majority of Members of the Senate, the bill will be pared down to the President's demands. Either way, this bill is rendered meaningless. What we are arguing about is a meaningless 1,300-page piece of document because the President has assured us that, unless it is a certain level, far lower than the present level, he will veto it. I don't know if the President has the votes to sustain his veto in this body, but I am confident the President has the number of votes to sustain his veto in the other body. Either way, my dear friends of the Senate cannot come out of this looking good because we are so far over in excess of what the President has guaranteed he would veto. As my colleagues who are managing this bill keep saying: We will fix it in conference. We will fix it in conference. The last time we fixed something in conference we got a Medicare prescription drug bill that, it turns out, was only $143 billion short. I have seen things fixed in conference and there is nothing worse than seeing a piece of legislation ``fixed in conference.'' So we are arguing about a piece of legislation that cannot pass--that cannot pass, certainly at its present level, by a significant number of billions of dollars. We are in violation of our own budget resolution in this bill. Therefore, I raise the point of order against the substitute amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I was incorrect in my comments concerning the Amtrak provisions. These were provisions that I opposed in the bill and I was incorrect when I stated that they were put in by the committee. My apologies to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield to me for a comment, through him, that is a correction?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the amendment being offered by the Senator from Texas. Her eloquent explanation of the amendment is very compelling. Let me go back to the larger issue. It is fascinating to me that after receiving a Statement of Administration Policy where the President of the United States says: In total the Senate bill authorizes $318 billion in spending on highways, highway safety, and mass transit . . . a full $62 billion above the President's request for the same period. . . . Accordingly, if legislation that violates these principles (such as this legislation, which authorizes $318 billion) were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. There was discussion amongst Republican Senators yesterday that we will fix it in conference. I have this quaint and unusual idea that when we are authorizing $256 billion or $318 billion, maybe the whole Senate ought to be involved rather than ``fixing it'' in conference. I cannot speak for my friends on the other side of the aisle--they are the opposition party--but how does this party, the party of fiscal sanity, the party of smaller Government, the party of lower taxes, the party that insisted that any revenues to fund highways should come out of the trust fund, now support a bill--according to the last vote-- overwhelmingly when the President of the United States and the American people are saying ``enough.'' Enough deficit spending, my friends. Enough. We are mortgaging our children's futures. We just found out we have been sold a bill of goods on the Medicare prescription drug bill. It is $153 billion more than it was advertised to be a few months ago. When does it stop? When does the Republican Party find its soul? And this bill is an outrageous manifestation of how badly we have left our moorings. The amendment of the Senator from Texas at least restores some equity and fairness to this proposal. I don't want to take too much more time except to mention one other point about the President's message: In addition, the Administration opposes inclusion in a surface transportation bill of unrelated provisions regarding Amtrak. Any legislation regarding the future of Amtrak should be considered separately and should provide for meaningful reforms. . . . What is interesting about that aspect of the President's message is, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, none of the provisions that the administration objects to came out of the Commerce Committee, the authorizing committee. It was stuck in by the managers of the bill who have about as much knowledge, expertise, and jurisdiction over Amtrak as I do over nuclear science. It is fascinating the overreach of this bill. They add provisions for Amtrak that have nothing to do with their area of jurisdiction, and what we reported out of the Commerce Committee was not objectionable to the administration. Finally, this whole formula is just crazy. It is bizarre and byzantine. In TEA-21, there was an immediate increase in the highway formula to provide each State a minimum return of 85 percent to 90.5 percent. The very first year of the authorization period, all donor States received an immediate increase. It has still not been explained to me or any of my colleagues why we should wait 5 years before our share increases. Why should we wait 5 years? It is patently unfair, and it is patently abusive, particularly for those of us who represent States that are dramatically growing in population, which means that our needs, obviously, are greater. I make no argument that my State deserves more, not in any way. I say the citizens of my State deserve $1 back for every dollar they sent in the form of taxes to the Federal Government. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. This is an opportunity for the supporters of this legislation to avoid a Presidential veto, in two ways. One, bring it down to the President's number and, two, the criteria established by the statement of administration policy highway spending should be financed from the highway trust fund, not from the general fund of the Treasury. All spending for highways should be authorized and appropriated from the trust fund and derived from taxes imposed on highway use. It says the administration supports an authorization level of $256 billion. So to avoid a Presidential veto, I think the Kyl amendment is very important. I do not want to comment on the statement of the Senator from Missouri, but I was entertained by his comments about the hole in the roof. I will tell the Senator from Missouri, there is actually a hole in the net, there is a hole in the safety net. Maybe highways are more important than people's Social Security and health care to the Senator from Missouri, but the fact is, and ask any expert, including testimony by Alan Greenspan just yesterday, this deficit is going to destroy America, and the first casualties will be Social Security and Medicare because they are unfunded mandates to which we just added, with the support of the Senator from Missouri, a $400 billion and now $543 billion debt on the taxpayers of America. So if he is worried about a hole in the roof, I hope we are worried about a hole in the net, the safety net, the guarantee that we have made to people who are the least able to defend themselves and help themselves in our society. Those are recipients of Social Security and Medicare. Both systems are going bankrupt while we spend 60-some billion dollars more than the President wants and $35 billion more than the budget resolution we passed calls for.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, I thank him for his hard work. Again, I do not look forward to the most unpleasant day we have this year in the Senate, and that is when we all vote every 30 seconds on issues of huge import and none of us have a clue as to what we are voting for when we do it. Again, I don't think it is through any fault of the chairman of the Budget Committee that this is over the budget resolution by $35.5 billion. But, if this is the process we should go through when we are authorizing or appropriating money--we have a budget resolution. It calls for a certain amount of money to be spent for a certain function. But then we can get the chairman of the Finance Committee to come down and say, Don't worry about what we decided in the budget resolution; we will just find some more money. Usually customs user fees is one of the old chestnuts that are drawn out of the fire to be used over and over again. The other thing about this, my dear friends, the House of Representatives just decided to delay by 4 months consideration of the transportation bill. Why? Because there is an outright revolt over there, because they are closest to the people, about these totally out- of-control spending practices which have given us these unprecedented high deficits. I hear a rumor that they may do what is probably the right thing to do and just extend for 1 year the existing transportation legislation. So what do we do? We are passing legislation of which the President of the United States has guaranteed a veto. Again, I like to point out, it is the Republican Party that is the majority. It is the party of the President of the United States that is in the majority here, yet we are pushing a bill to which the President says he is unalterably opposed. What is going on? I hope my colleagues will consider voting to uphold this budget point of order. It is clearly valid. This budget point of order is clearly valid. My friend from Oklahoma said he wished I hadn't raised this point of order because he doesn't like to see the budget really overridden. A vote against upholding the budget point of order, to waive the budget point of order, will basically override the work of the Budget Committee. I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration if they vote to waive this and future budget points of order. It is interesting, on this bill no further budget point of order can be raised, according to the waiver that is before the Senate now. No matter how outrageous, no matter how egregious, we have waived this budget point of order and future points of order. There is something wrong with this system. Let me remind my colleagues again, we have been on this for 2 weeks. For 1 week we didn't have a single vote. Yes, I oppose unanimous consent agreements. I never ever opposed votes on amendments. I was in favor of those. Why didn't we have a vote on the Gregg amendment? The reasons are obvious: Because they didn't want a vote on it. But that was not a reason to stall any process. But that is behind us. Now we are faced, as of yesterday, with a veto threat from the President of the United States because of the tremendous $35.5 billion increase in spending over the budget resolution and about $62 billion above the President's request on this legislation. I urge an affirmative vote, a vote against the motion to waive the budget point of order. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I probably will not win this vote since I think the sentiments of many of the Members were expressed in the cloture vote, but I think it is important to point out again that the total spending in this bill exceeds the current budget resolution by $35.5 billion. We are facing a $500 billion deficit for the year 2005. In the Armed Services Committee hearing the other day, the Secretary of Defense pointed out that they will be coming in for a supplemental appropriation, many billions of dollars, after the elections, probably sometime in January. Our service chiefs mentioned that they might be 4 months' short of being able to operate with the funding they have. Our priorities seem to be passing a bill that exceeds the budget resolution by $35.5 billion. I note the presence of the Budget Committee chairman, who I think does an outstanding job. I appreciate the credible efforts he has made both as chairman and otherwise for fiscal sanity. I wonder if we ought to waste our time this year going through the couple of weeks of trying to come up with a budget, or should we consider, as many House Members have and other Members of this body, that perhaps we should make the budget resolution signed into law by the President of the United States? With all due respect to my dear friend from Oklahoma, who has been here many years, this makes a mockery of the entire budget process. The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee came to the floor and raised these old chestnuts as to how we are going to finance it. My all-time favorite is customs user fees. Again, I ask my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, how many times have we used customs user fees as a way of paying for something which has now given us a half-trillion-dollar deficit, the party of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in 1994? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Oklahoma to respond to my tirade.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, since the Senator from Missouri is on the Senate floor, I draw his attention to the index of his own substitute which has the commerce provisions of the bill in it in title IV. I wish he would ask to strike his comments if he doesn't know what the Commerce Committee is. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little surprised that he doesn't know what is in his own substitute. The Senate Budget Committee staff tells us that EPW is $24 billion over the budget; Banking, $9 billion over the budget; Commerce, $2.5 billion over the budget--I would be more than happy to erase all of those--for a total of $35.5 billion over the budget. Meanwhile, everybody in America is warning us about running up these huge deficits. The President of the United States, the administration's proposed authorization level was $262 billion on highways and highway safety, $50 billion over the President's request; $56 billion on mass transit, $12 billion over the President's request. In total, the Senate bill authorizes $318 billion in spending on highway safety and mass transit over the next 6 years, a full $62 billion above the President's request for the same period. The President has guaranteed a veto. He has guaranteed a veto if we go on with this number which the managers of the bill continue to stoutly defend. King Canute had a better idea. I hope my colleagues will vote to support the point of order which was raised against the Budget Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware that the EPW portion is over, by $24 billion, the budget resolution? The Commerce Committee is over by $2.5 billion. The reason it is over by $2.5 billion is because of administration requests. But I would be more than happy and would vote for removing the $2.5 billion which the Commerce Committee is over and the $24 billion that Environment and Public Works is over. That, it seems to me, would be fair. Again, I hope the Senator from Missouri would look at the substitute that contains the Commerce Committee's input in title IV. The Senator from Missouri keeps claiming that the Commerce Committee is not in there. Look at title IV of the substitute, I say to the Senator from Missouri, and then you will find out what the Commerce Committee is. I am astonished he does not even know what is in his own substitute.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to respond to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I think it is well known that the President sent over three criteria, one of which was funding has to come strictly from the trust fund and not from general revenues. It is well known. It is published everywhere. I am sorry the Senator from Nevada missed it.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, while the Senate began debating S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, known as SAFETEA, nearly 1 week ago, I am not sure some of my colleagues have been informed about how this bill would impact their State's highway funding. While perhaps we have all taken a look at the tables distributed by the committee of jurisdiction a few weeks ago, these tables omit some very important facts, including the fact that the number of donor States would actually increase under the pending legislation compared to the last reauthorization bill, TEA-21. Instead of giving greater parity, it appears to be going in the opposite direction, as I will explain in a few minutes. Before I go too much further, I understand that after my colleague from Arizona was on the floor last week in opposition to this legislation, the Senator from Oklahoma went through some routine about how Arizona would do well under this legislation. Rather than subject my colleague from Oklahoma to that again, I would suggest we swap formulas between Oklahoma and Arizona. If the Senator from Oklahoma is not willing to do that, then please don't waste my time and his in trying to convince me this is a good deal for the State of Arizona. First, I think it might help to put the bill in context by quickly reviewing the history of the Federal highway program, which I briefly mentioned on the floor last Monday evening. Nearly 50 years ago, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was enacted. As you can see, it was a deceptively inconspicuous-looking piece of legislation. It was 29 pages, but what it accomplished truly changed this country. The 1956 act created programs that constructed the interstate highway system, the largest civil works project ever undertaken by the United States. The act established the highway trust fund, financed by taxes paid by motorists--financed by taxpayers, not by general revenue--which is an important aspect to look at as we consider this legislation. It required that the interstate be built using a uniform design that would be safe within most U.S. highways in existence at that time. The program to construct the interstate was first proposed by President Eisenhower in 1954 and signed into law in 1956. Today we are all the beneficiaries of the foresight of President Eisenhower and a Congress that helped to shepherd this bill through to enactment. The interstate system is 47,000 miles long, comprised of 62 superhighways crisscrossing the Nation in a grid. Twenty-four percent of all travel occurs on the interstate, and it has obtained a record being twice as safe as other highways. Unfortunately, when people look back 50 years from now at the highway legislation currently before the Senate, I don't think history will be as kind. We reauthorize the multiyear highway transit safety programs about every 6 years. We last reauthorized these programs in 1998 with enactment of TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, following extensive debate in the Senate. The highway program reauthorization measure is a bill second to none in terms of attracting Members' interests. We all want to know how much our States will receive in highway funding under the byzantine formula distribution being proposed during each authorization debate. Therefore, because of its significance, it is important that each and every Member have an opportunity to know what the bill would do and how it would do it. At this point, what exactly do my colleagues know about the real impact this bill would have on their States? I recognize the difficulties this reauthorization poses for the bill managers. I would prefer to be in a position to support their legislation. But in its current form, I cannot. The bill would increase highway funding by over $60 billion over the TEA-21 enacted level, again, over $60 billion, for a total of $255 billion. At the same time, the bill not only perpetuates the donor/ donee discrepancy that we donor State representatives have battled during every highway bill reauthorization, but it actually expands it. The 28 donor States under TEA-21 will have the company of another three States--New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin--if this proposal is approved. I guess I could say something about misery loving company, but I don't want more States to be shortchanged. Instead, I want all States to be treated more fairly. It amazes me that an additional $60 billion still can't enable the authorizing committee to develop a fairer formula but, as demonstrated by EPW's funding tables, they cannot or perhaps simply will not. Where will this extra $60 billion go? While the EPW Committee argues its bill would get every State to a 95-percent rate of return by 2009, the sixth year of the authorization, I remind my colleagues that under TEA-21, the formula increased the minimum rate of return from 85 percent to 90.5 percent in the first year, and it continued throughout the authorization period. Yet, again, the EPW bill we are considering doesn't raise the floor to 95 percent until the sixth year. So, again, where exactly will this $60 billion go? The committee proposes a new so-called formula. I say that because it is not actually a formula but instead is a series of five calculations consisting of funding caps and floors. This Rube-Goldberg-like funding contraption is grossly unfair and would result in 31 States getting back significantly less funding than they contribute to the highway trust fund. Further, while a number of the current bottom-of-the-barrel donor States would receive an immediate step up from the smallest of 90.5 percent rate of return, including a number of donor States with members on the committee, six States would receive almost no percentage increase until the last year of the authorization in 2009. Under this formula, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, and Texas would be held at the very bottom, while many other States also would continue to get shortchanged. This is not the right approach. It is unfair. We should do everything we can to try to ensure that any bill voted on is more equitable for all States. Again, it isn't just these six States that I mentioned that are being asked to contribute more to the highway trust fund than they will get back. I asked the Department of Transportation to provide an analysis of the formula. I thought it would be revealing to first learn how much each State would receive if the formula funds in the EPW bill were distributed proportionately back to each State based on their contributions to the highway fund. According to the Department of Transportation, 31 States are donor States under this formula, while 19 get back more than they pay in, according to this chart. Let me give some examples. The people of California are being asked to send almost $2 billion to Washington, DC, so that it can be redistributed through some arcane funding scheme to the lucky 19 States that would get back more than they put in. For Arizona, $364 million of its contributions would be sent away to the 19 States. You know, it is interesting, Arizona and California, neighboring States, have something in common that, frankly, neither Vermont nor Oklahoma have, which is high growth. Obviously, it puts on greater pressure when you have a high-growth population, which actually argues for increased funding. Instead, we are being shorted. But here are other examples of funding. Florida, another high-growth State, would send away a billion dollars; Georgia would send away $643 million; Illinois would send away $403 million; Kentucky would send away $304 million; Michigan would send away $383 million; Missouri would send away $286 million; New Jersey would send away $547 million; Ohio would send away $517 million; and Texas would send away $1.7 billion. The list goes on and on. It is remarkable. I fully realize that during the era when the Federal Government was building the Interstate System, a redistribution of funding between the States may have made sense. Clearly, it would have been difficult for Montana, for example, with fewer than a million people, to fully pay for building its share of the Interstate System. But that era is over. Congress declared the construction of the interstate complete in 1991. Yet here we are, 13 years later, and donor States are still being expected to agree to the redistribution of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to other States, regardless of the already enormous transportation needs in donor States. Why? I am sure we will hear about the great transportation needs of the States that receive more than they contribute. I have no doubt that those States do in fact have such needs. But how is it determined that California should have nearly $2 billion of its funding redistributed? Why aren't California's transportation needs as worthy of receiving the same percentage of Federal funds as provided to meet the transportation needs of New York, for example, which will receive $989 million more than it contributes over 6 years? Where is the logic? I am afraid there is none. Let's consider New Hampshire and Vermont. These are two very similar sized neighboring States. Both have about the same total road and street mileage--around 15,000 miles. But under this EPW formula, New Hampshire is a donor and Vermont is a donee, getting a windfall of almost $500 million, or almost 190 percent of what it contributes. In fact, Vermont would even receive more in total dollars than New Hampshire. There can be no policy rationale for that--none. I will admit that I have a certain affection for the State of New Hampshire--a great deal of affection for the State of New Hampshire. But to have this kind of disparity between two States is rather remarkable. Madam President, this bill is suspect. In fact, the tables that have been circulated by the EPW Committee actually raise more questions than they answer. For example, what affect will new air quality standards have on State allocations? The new formula included in the EPW bill for the congestion management and air quality improvement program, a program totaling $13 billion, is not reflected in the tables. What happens to State allocations if the bill is not fully funded? The promise that your State, if you are a donor, will finally achieve a 95-percent return by 2009 may be empty. In order to achieve a 95- percent rate of return for all States in 2009, it would require a 1- year increase of $5.5 billion in 2009. How likely is that to occur, taking into consideration the projected fiscal year 2005 budget deficit of $\1/2\ trillion continued budget deficit projections well beyond 2009? Here is a fundamental question, one I think the President is seriously considering: Are we really paying for this bill? The Finance Committee has proposed what many of us consider to be accounting gimmicks to make the highway bill appear to be fully paid for. But appearances are often deceptive, as several colleagues have already discussed on the floor. How will the Finance Committee's proposed accounting changes for gasohol taxation impact your State's share? I am told it will be dramatic for some States. Should the EPW Committee's funding tables not be updated to reflect any and all changes so that we all know the real impact of what we are being asked to vote on? What affect will provisions in a potential managers' amendment have on your State's funding? Last Friday, on this floor, the chairman of the committee announced that Members' staff should bring all of their amendments to the committee staff on Saturday to determine if they will be incorporated into the managers' amendment. Today, it was announced that the EPW Committee staff met with 10 Members' offices over the weekend. The Democratic bill manager announced this afternoon that 34 amendments have been accepted by the managers. What amendments are being accepted? I am sure we will know when we read the Congressional Record. Should we not all be informed? Clearly, the managers' amendment needs to be made available for review prior to us being asked to vote on it. And will the EPW Committee distribute tables showing the impact of any funding changes that will occur under the managers' amendment? Again, we should all want to know exactly what is being proposed and how it will impact our State's funding. I strongly support a long-term reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation programs and understand the vital nature of this funding to our States. This legislation only comes before the Senate every 6 years. I urge my colleagues to start asking some questions and ensure that they fully understand how the safety legislation would impact their State before it is allowed to pass the Senate. We also have been told that at some point in the next few days, before we vote cloture on this bill, we will add a ``slimmed down'' energy bill to the highway bill. Now, I will freely admit--in fact, I will testify to the fact--that many times in our Nation's Capital we either are immune to, or insensitive to, the concerns of the American people. Here we are looking at massive deficits, massive overspending, massive growth of Government, unseen in the history of this country, and what are we going to do? We are going to add a ``slimmed down'' energy bill. I understand that it has gone from $31 billion to $18 billion or $13 billion--you know, only in the teens of billions of dollars. This is a remarkable exercise. Adding an energy bill that was basically rejected--thank God--by this Senate, because of its hooters, looters, and polluters provisions, and now we are going to stick it on to the highway bill. What does the energy bill have to do with the highway bill? Nothing. Do we have no shame? Is there no embarrassment whatsoever about the way we are doing business around here? Madam President, I will continue to struggle and fight to see that for these 19 States, the percentage of what they are getting, as opposed to what they donate, is also important, as opposed to the 31 States which will be donating, and that we try to correct this inequity. Really what we should do is have a 1-year extension of the existing legislation and go back at this again next year. I think that would probably be of benefit to the taxpayers of America, who are deeply concerned about our overspending. I also point out that I think the attention of the President of the United States is on this issue. I have heard--not directly but indirectly--that he would contemplate a veto of this legislation. I can think of no single act that might be more important or popular with the American people than for him to veto this bill, because at least the funding should come out of users fees, which was the fundamental principle behind the original highway bill. If this Congress, in its wisdom, because we need more money for highways, thinks we need to increase the gas tax, I think that is a subject for discussion and debate. The American people are getting a little weary of this smoke and mirrors of passing a $400 billion Medicare prescription drug bill and finding out within weeks that it is $130 billion more expensive, to see our deficit skyrocket from surpluses of several trillion dollars and deficits of several trillion dollars. And no one--no one--no economist believes we are going to have the deficit within the next several years because, guess what, Madam President. We are going to be coming back--among other overspending, including this one--we are going to be coming back next year for another emergency supplemental for our operations in Iraq which will probably be in the range, at minimum, of about $50 billion. I am hopeful that the American people will call a halt to this overspending. I am hopeful that the American people, particularly in these 31 States, will recognize that for every dollar in taxes they are paying when they go to the fuel pump, they are getting less than that back because it is being funneled through Washington, DC, to the benefit of States for which no rational argument can be made that it would be more beneficial to them than other States, including those that are experiencing very rapid growth. I will continue, as some of my colleagues will, as long as we can to prevent the passage of this legislation. It is not only our obligation to our individual States that are not getting their money back for the funds they send, but also to all the taxpayers of America who are being victimized by this back-room, porkbarrel spending process which is really remarkable. Again I want to show my colleagues, in 1956, this was the highway bill, and now we all know what rests on our desks. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator know that the President sent over very explicit principles concerning the bill?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I withdraw my--reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I will just tell the managers of the bill that I intend to ask for the yeas and nays on the Gregg amendment when we return to the bill tomorrow.