I am also interested in your Critical Immediate Investments Program.

Another area where there appears to be duplication is the new $500 million Rapid Growth Area Transit Grant Program that would support bus rapid transit services.

In reviewing the budget, I was struck by the fact that given the backlog of roadway and bridge improvement projects nationwide, that the budget proposes a 60 percent increase in transit spending, but only a 17 percent increase for highways.

I am curious why the administration decided to create a brand new fund instead of working through existing programs.

More important, this proposal does not represent a long-term solution to the funding woes of the Highway Trust Fund, and once again kicks the can down the road.

I am concerned that the Department has failed to fully examine what the implications are of establishing a Federal standard without regard to the existing laws in each State.

Generous funding, as the chairman pointed out, is requested for the TIGER program, a program that I strongly support.

It strikes me, as a provision, when I see a 60 percent increase for transit and only a 17 percent increase for highways, that it is really biased toward urban States that have mass transit as opposed to more rural States.

Thank you. Secretary Foxx, just following up quickly on the chairman's question on the General Motors recall.

I hope you really will take a look at that. Maybe there is a way to carve out those individuals who are going through Job Corps or vocational education and really getting trained very well between the age of 16 and 18.

I urge Congress to act.

I do not agree that the Fed lacks this authority and find its disregard of my clear intent, as the author of Section 171, to be frustrating.

the Bank Capital Framework was not designed to, and does not, take into account the critically significant differences between the business of banking and the business of insurance.

I want to emphasize my belief that the Federal Reserve is able to take into account and should take into account the differences between insurance and other financial activities.

the legislation previously proposed by Senators Brown and Johanns, and today by Senator Collins, represents a sound basis for moving forward.

But certainly Dodd-Frank is not such a perfect piece of legislation that any and all amendments should be resisted for all time.

I feel strongly that it is so important that nothing be done to diminish or weaken it.

Consideration should be given to the distinctions between banks and insurance companies.

I hope that during this additional period of study, and in view of the firm Congressional support for resolution of the issue, the Federal Reserve will move expeditiously to find an interpretative solution to the problem.

Indeed, Congress would be departing from its own fundamental principles if it sought to bind future Congresses from absolutely any reconsideration of what was legislated by its predecessors.

It was not the intent of Congress to supplant prudential State-based insurance regulation with a bank-centric capital regime.

I would strongly urge Congress to act to prevent a result that is so clearly unwarranted and potentially so damaging.

it was not Congress's intent that Federal regulators supplant prudential State-based insurance regulation with a bank-centric capital regime.

I want to especially thank you, Chairman Brown and Senator Johanns, for your hard work.

I rise today to introduce the Clean Cookstove Support Act. This legislation addresses a serious global public health and environmental issue, and I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin…