To ensure the expeditious processing of Keystone XL permit applications consistent with current law, prohibit the export of crude oil produced in Canada and transported by the Keystone XL pipeline and related facilities unless the prohibition is waived by the President, and require the use of United States iron, steel, and manufactured goods in the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and related facilities with certain exceptions.

MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1813, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1813) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and
highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will follow up on the comments of the
Senator from Texas on an issue that we will be voting on this
afternoon, I understand, regarding the construction of the so-called
Keystone Pipeline.
I have been somewhat frustrated by the debate around this issue.
Unfortunately, I think we are going to be confronted again with kind of
a bifurcated choice that doesn't get to the possibility of us actually
putting into place a comprehensive energy policy that will remove this
Nation's dependence upon foreign oil and start to look at the ability
over the longer haul to bring down the price at the pump and make sure
we are truly a participant in the opportunities of a glowing,
multifaceted energy policy going forward.
I support the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. I believe we
need to have an energy policy that has an ``all-of-the-above''
approach. I do believe there are appropriate regulatory reviews that
need to be made. I also, frankly, think any construction of the
Keystone Pipeline should take into consideration the very serious
environmental considerations that particularly affect the State of
Nebraska, and there will need to be a route for this pipeline that
would avoid that potential environmental damage.
However, because of the way this process is being laid out, I will
not be voting for the Keystone amendment today because by making this a
straight up-or-down issue, without taking advantage of the opportunity
to put together the beginnings of an energy package, we are missing a
great opportunity.
As I have mentioned, if we are truly serious about energy security,
and if we are truly serious about reducing our dependence upon foreign
oil, I believe we need an energy policy that has an ``all-of-the-
above'' approach. Yes, that means more domestic oil and gas. But it
means when we have an opportunity in an issue of controversy such as
this regarding Keystone, we could have taken this opportunity to
include a rational approach with appropriate environmental reviews to
get to, I believe, a positive answer on Keystone but also link that
with other energy policies that would make sense.
I know the Presiding Officer has in his State a number of wind
facilities and solar facilities. Unfortunately, those areas that need,
as well, to be part of our energy mix--the tax treatment that allows
those projects to move forward have been put in limbo because of the
failure of Congress to extend the so-called tax provisions, or tax
extenders, on a going-forward basis. Wind projects all across the
country--in fact, I was visiting with some folks right before coming to
the floor, and they have a variety of wind projects that are stopped
dead in their tracks because of the uncertainty regarding whether
Congress will act.

The ability to get the Keystone Pipeline passed, in combination with
passing, as well, the extension of these appropriate renewable energy
tax credits could have built the kind of bipartisan consensus around
energy policy that would be needed. I also believe the lowest hanging
fruit in terms of how we save and can have a rational energy policy in
this country means a much greater involvement with energy conservation.
There is a very strong bipartisan energy conservation bill, the
Shaheen-Portman bill, that could have been included in this package as
well.
I think if we are going to get serious about reducing our dependence
upon foreign oil, if we are going to make sure we give the American
taxpayers a vision that in the future we are going to see the ability
to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil that results in higher gas
prices, we actually could have put together around this Keystone
proposal a true compromise, a bipartisan consensus that would have
included construction of Keystone, with the appropriate environmental
reviews, with making sure those key areas of Nebraska are protected,
with the inclusion of the energy tax cuts and provisions that we do on
an annual basis, and that we continue to allow wind, solar, and other
renewable energy production to continue, and a meaningful energy
conservation bill--the Shaheen-Portman bill.
I believe those three policies linked together would have resulted in
a vote that would have been overwhelmingly bipartisan and would have
been a demonstration to the American people that we are going to get
out of our respective fox holes and put the beginnings of a truly
comprehensive energy policy in place.
Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to have that happen. We are
going to have a straight up-or-down vote on Keystone that dismisses any
of the appropriate review processes and doesn't bring in the issues
around the so-called energy tax extenders or the conservation
bipartisan legislation that was put together by Senator Shaheen and
Senator Portman. Instead of getting a more comprehensive vote this
afternoon, which I believe would have passed overwhelmingly, we are
going to end up with one more vote that will, for the most part, break
down on partisan lines. I am disappointed in that.
I do believe we need construction of the Keystone Pipeline. I believe
we need meaningful energy conservation legislation and meaningful tax
policy that promotes renewable energy

[[Page S1505]]

around solar, wind, and biomass. Unfortunately, we are going to miss
the opportunity today to send that strong signal of a comprehensive
``all-of-the-above'' energy policy that would actually move this Nation
forward.
I know my friend, the Senator from Texas, is no longer here. I would
have loved to have been able to support a comprehensive package that
would have allowed the Keystone effort to move forward in conjunction
with these other efforts. Unfortunately, that will not happen. Perhaps
later in the year we will have the ability to cobble together something
that includes more of an ``all-of-the-above'' energy policy and we can
actually get about the business of making sure we have a national
energy policy.
But there is no silver bullet. We were going to need to make sure we
take advantage of all of the energy resources we have in this country--
oil, gas, offshore oil, nuclear, and appropriate revenue sharing with
States--such as my State of Virginia--and energy conservation and
renewables as well. The sooner we get to that debate, the sooner we can
build the bipartisan coalitions that will allow that kind of policy to
move forward.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 1535

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1535 which is
at the desk, and I ask it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 1535.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for an extension of the Draft Proposed Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2010 2015)

On page _, between lines _ and _, insert the following:

SEC. _. EXTENSION OF LEASING PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2010 2015 issued by the Secretary
of the Interior (referred to in this section as the
``Secretary'') under section 18 of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344) shall be considered to be
the final oil and gas leasing program under that section for
the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2018.
(b) Final Environmental Impact Statement.--The Secretary is
considered to have issued a final environmental impact
statement for the program applicable to the period described
in section (a) in accordance with all requirements under
section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, amendment No. 1535, the Vitter amendment,
is very simple and straightforward, and it goes to an awfully important
issue. It goes to the issue of the price of energy, particularly the
price of gasoline at the pump. There will be a vote today on this
amendment. In fact, it will be the first vote we take this afternoon.
The amendment is very simple. It would allow us to go back to the
previous lease plan for the Outer Continental Shelf, replacing the
current Obama administration lease plan which cuts that previous plan
in half and moves us in the wrong direction in terms of producing our
abundance of domestic energy, including oil and natural gas.
Everybody is concerned about the rising price of oil at the pump. It
is on the rise again. It is significantly increasing. And that hits
middle and lower class families right in their pocketbooks, right where
it hurts, and it is particularly harmful in a down economy. We are
struggling to get out of this recession, we are trying to mount a
recovery, we are trying to make positive things happen, and these
increasing prices at the pump are hitting at the worst possible time.
What can we do about it? Well, there are a lot of things we can do,
but certainly increasing supply, including domestic supply, is one
major, positive thing we can do. We know that 88 percent of the price
of an average gallon of gasoline is attributable to the cost of crude
oil and taxes--88 percent. That only leaves 12 percent that is
refining, marketing, and distribution. And, by the way, that 12 percent
also includes the compliance cost for a host of mandates required by
statutes and regulations related to refining, marketing, and
distribution. So again, the huge bulk of that price represents the
price of crude oil as well as taxes.
I could argue forcefully and present a lot of data that taxes on oil
and gas are actually too high, but I don't expect a majority of this
Senate to listen. So what we are left with as a way to impact those
rising prices at the pump is to find more, develop more, increase
supply, and that brings the price down worldwide. And we can do that
starting right here at home.
Most Americans don't realize it, because of Federal policy, but the
United States is the most energy-rich country in the world, bar none.
When you look at all of our energy resources, certainly including oil
and gas, the United States is the most energy rich, and we are far
richer, by a long shot, in terms of those total energy resources, than
any Middle Eastern country, such as Saudi Arabia. The only other
country that comes close is Russia, and they are well behind.
The problem is the United States is also the only country in the
world that puts about 90 percent of those resources off limits and says
no, under current Federal law, under the current Obama administration
lease plan, to drilling off the east coast, no to drilling off the west
coast, no to production of energy in the eastern gulf--at least as of
now--no to most things offshore Alaska, no to ANWR--the Alaska National
Wildlife Refuge--and increasingly this administration wants to say no
and wants to put up hurdles and blockages on lands where a lot of
energy production is happening because of enormous shale finds and
relatively new technology.
One major thing we can do to affect the price at the pump in the
right direction--which would be to lower it--is to say yes instead of
no to developing more of our domestic energy. Unfortunately, in the
last several years, under President Obama, we have been moving in the
opposite direction. We have been moving away from that production.
An excellent example is the Outer Continental Shelf. This first chart
I will put up is the last lease plan--prior to the Obama
administration--that was actually beginning to say yes in a significant
way. This was the result of the outcry from the public--the appropriate
outcry after the summer of 2008--the last time prices at the pump
spiked so significantly. People said, wait a minute. Why aren't we
producing more at home? Washington finally responded to that, and
through this lease plan we were saying yes more and more. We were
saying yes--green light--on the east coast; yes, do more in the gulf;
yes, green light off the west coast; yes, do more in offshore Alaska.
Unfortunately, that came to a screeching halt under the Obama
administration. One of the first energy actions this administration
took--President Obama and Secretary of the Interior Salazar--was to
very quickly cancel this lease plan. Once they took office, they
scrapped this. Then they studied it for quite a while, with no lease
plan in sight. Finally, several months ago, they announced and put
forward their own lease plan--the first under the Obama administration.
And what a difference an election makes. What a difference a change in
administration makes. All of a sudden the green lights became red
lights again. We reverted to the old policy of moratoria on production
again and the answer, again, was no, no, no, no. No, off the
east coast; no, for now, in the eastern gulf; no, offshore Alaska; no,
off the west coast--no, no, no, no.

This plan is only half as much as the prior 5-year lease plan. So
instead of moving in a positive direction, accessing more of our
energy, including in the Outer Continental Shelf, we are backing up, we
are turning around, and we are turning our backs on the needs of the
American people. Again, we are saying no, no, no, no.
The Vitter amendment, No. 1535, would reverse that. It would say yes.
It would say, no, this plan isn't a good idea. Let's go back to the
prior 5-year lease plan. Let's develop, explore, and produce U.S.
energy in a responsible way. Again, we are the single most energy-rich
country in the world, bar

[[Page S1506]]

none. We have enormous resources, including offshore, including oil and
gas. But we are the only country in the world that says no, no, no, no,
and that puts over 90 percent of those resources off limits.
This amendment will begin to change that. This amendment will reverse
that mistaken policy. In so doing, it would significantly increase the
supply of oil where we can control it most--right here at home. And
when everything else stays the same--you increase supply, demand is the
same--what happens? Price goes down. That is the first law of
economics.
So let's say yes. Let's say yes to good, reliable U.S. energy, let's
say yes to increased energy independence by doing more for ourselves
right here at home, and let's say yes to great American jobs. Because
that is also what this amendment would produce--jobs. And by definition
these jobs can't be outsourced. You can't take good U.S. energy jobs
and ship them to China or India. You can't do that, by definition.
Let's also say yes to this amendment because it would help with
deficit and debt reduction. This increased activity would do what? It
would produce significant Federal revenue. The Federal revenue or
royalty on domestic energy production is the second biggest source of
revenue to the Federal Government, second only to the Federal income
tax.
Let's say yes. Let's do something about the rising price at the pump,
and let's take control of our own destiny. Please support amendment No.
1535. As I said, I urge all of our colleagues to support this important
amendment--Democrats and Republicans. It will be the first amendment
vote we take this afternoon.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to speak against the Vitter
amendment because I think it is a huge danger to our economy, and I
will explain why. It is a huge overreach by the Federal Government into
the ability of States to determine if they want a recreation industry,
if they want a fishing industry, if they want a tourist industry. So I
will speak more about it.
Before I do that, I want to let people know where we are. Thanks to
the extraordinary patience of our majority leader, Harry Reid, today,
we finally have a path forward to the transportation bill. And normally
I would name lots of other people--yes, we have all been involved--but
Senator Harry Reid is extraordinary.
He sat in his office last night, 7, 8, 9, 10, I was calling him
finding out what was happening. I was calling the great staff he has,
working with my staff and Senator Inhofe's staff, whom I have grown to
respect so much. Given all the issues that are facing us, we all knew
that having a transportation bill is critical. We do debate very
fiercely on lots of things, and we are going to see that this morning.
But when it comes to infrastructure, we have found common ground with
most of our Republican friends.
I do wish to say, those who tune in to this debate are going to be a
bit confused because they are going to hear debates on amendments that
are not about highways, bridges, roads. They are not going to hear too
much about that for a while. Why is that? Because the Senate is the
Senate is the Senate. We tried very hard to limit the debate to
relevant amendments, but we were thwarted a couple times. We couldn't
get the 60 votes, pretty much party line; colleagues wanted to have
votes on very controversial amendments, which I do not think are going
to pass, but we will find out. One of them is the amendment offered by
Senator Vitter of Louisiana.
This amendment would essentially take the drilling plan that was
released in the last few days of the Bush administration and would open
for drilling entire new areas on the Atlantic, Pacific, the eastern
Gulf of Mexico, and Bristol Bay. The fact is, since that plan was
offered, we have to understand we are drilling more now than ever
before. We have four times the number of rigs out there. We are now
exporting oil.
Does everyone agree we want more oil? I want more oil. I want it to
stay in America. But I don't want to endanger entire economies by
saying to our friends in the States: Uncle Sam says to forget about
their fishing industry, forget about their tourist industry, forget
about all the restaurants and the hotels and everybody else who depends
on it.
I can tell you, in my State, tourism is one of the biggest industries
we have and the beauty of our State and the beauty of our coast is what
draws so many people there. So this heavy-handed amendment says we
don't care what you think, we are going to just open everything.
In 2006, this body passed the Gulf of Mexico Energy and Security Act.
I know my friend from Florida is on the floor. That act offered 8.3
million acres for drilling in the central and eastern gulf planning
areas in exchange for protecting Florida's coast until 2022. We will
see, if this were to pass, lease sale No. 220 off the coast of Virginia
go forward, despite concerns that this will interfere with the Navy's
and NASA's activities in the region. The Vitter amendment requires
drilling in Bristol Bay, one of the world's richest fishing grounds,
which supports a commercial fishery worth $2 billion a year.
Let's be clear, America. We have 2 percent of the world's proven oil
supplies and we use 20 percent of the world's energy. So we can't drill
our way out of this. What one can do, if one votes for Vitter, is maybe
feel they are doing something, but we are destroying whole areas of our
Nation that are so dependent upon the beauty of our coastline.
On top of it all, this amendment would waive environmental review of
this entire plan--no environmental review. So nobody in the country
would know what lies ahead.
Look, we don't need any more giveaways to Big Oil. They are having
raging profits even at the height of the recession, raging profits,
billions of dollars. Here is the point. They are sitting on 50 million
acres of onshore and offshore leases they have yet to drill upon.
Let me repeat that. Senator Vitter wants to open huge swaths of the
coastline to Big Oil companies that are making record profits, the
price of gas is soaring, and they are sitting on 50 million acres of
land, onshore and offshore leases they have yet to drill upon. They
have done nothing with more than 70 percent of the offshore acres and
nearly 60 percent of the onshore acres in which they currently hold
leases. When they had a chance to bid on more lease sales, they only
bid on 5 to 6 percent of those offshore acres in 2009 and 2010. So they
are not taking advantage of the leases they hold. But Senator Vitter
wants to open huge swaths, waive all environmental review, put at risk
how many jobs in California alone--400,000 fishing and recreation--
400,000 jobs. That is larger than some of our tiny States--well, maybe
a little bit smaller. I think one of our States has about 500,000. This
is 400,000 jobs, folks. We have to defeat this.
It is a great bumper sticker. ``Drill, Baby, Drill'' is a great
bumper sticker. But I could write another one that says, ``Keep the Oil
Here in America,'' and they are exporting the oil. We are exporting
oil. We are going to have more of that debate when we come to the
Keystone Pipeline.
Here is the deal. The Vitter amendment is a giveaway to Big Oil. They
made a combined $137 billion in profits last year. The American
consumer doesn't see a dime of savings at the pump. It would do nothing
to lower gas prices. It would encourage them to continue to sit on
their assets, and that is what I think this is about. They list their
assets in their yearly report to their shareholders, and those assets
have value. So they just show them year after year and they never
drill. In reward for that, we are going to give them even more assets
they can brag about.
I am going to put again into facts what I said before: Domestic oil
production under President Obama is up. There are 1,272 active oil rigs
in the United States right now, more than four times the amount than in
2009. In 2010, for the first time in 13 years, imported oil accounted
for less than 50 percent of the oil consumed in America.
Why is this happening? It is happening for many different reasons;
one is we are drilling more and we are doing it in a sensible way, not
destroying areas that need to be protected and jobs that need to be
protected but in a wise way, in the regular order, in the

[[Page S1507]]

regular process. But also, we are driving more fuel-efficient vehicles.
That is extremely important because I already told everyone, we can't
drill our way out of this mess with only 2 percent of the supply, using
20 percent of the world's energy. It is a tilt. It is a mismatch. So we
have to have more fuel-efficient cars. Of course, our President led the
way on that, and Detroit has rebounded because of this President and
those in this Senate and House who voted to assure they wouldn't go
bankrupt.
The truth is, the Vitter amendment is dangerous. It is very
dangerous. If he wanted to come here with an amendment that had any
hope of passing, in my opinion, why doesn't he go after the speculators
on Wall Street who are driving up prices? The CFTC Commissioner, Bart
Chilton, has calculated that consumers pay an additional $7 to $15 on
each tank of gas due to oil speculation. So if one wants to come and do
something we could all support, come with an amendment that says the
oil companies should drill on the lands they already have leases on;
that we are very willing to open more acres that make sense, with the
understanding that oil will stay here. We will work to stop the
speculation on Wall Street that is driving up prices. Frankly, I think
if we see this continued upswing in prices, my belief is we should go
to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has been done time and time
again under Republican and Democratic Presidents, and we have seen the
salutary impact on gas prices. They go down at least one time was 10
cents--I remember 10 cents a gallon right away. One time they
stabilized the prices. So we have seen it happen before. That is why we
have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

So one wants to come with a balanced plan and talk about how the oil
companies have to drill on lands they have, how we support drilling
where it makes sense and doesn't put people out of work who are in the
recreation and tourism and fishing industry, go after the speculation
on Wall Street, and tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is 97
percent full, if it looks like we can't get a handle on these prices.
That is a plan, in addition to which we should continue to give tax
credits and tax writeoffs to those people who buy fuel-efficient
vehicles. I would love to see an added benefit for those made in
America.
Vitter should be defeated. It is very controversial. It doesn't help
us at all, and it would only pad the paychecks of the oil companies.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator from
California yield.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I would.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I just wish to underscore the statement of the
Senator from California with regard to the Outer Continental Shelf and
point out that the Vitter amendment would allow drilling in the one
place on the Outer Continental Shelf that is off-limits in law; that
is, the Gulf of Mexico off Florida.
There are several reasons that was passed in a bipartisan way with my
colleague Senator Mel Martinez back in 2005. In the first place, there
is no oil out there of any appreciable amount. The Senator has already
pointed out there are 50 million acres under lease that are not
drilled. Well, 30 million of those acres under lease that have not been
drilled are in the Gulf of Mexico, where the oil is, in the central and
western gulf. There is very little oil and gas in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico. Why? Because Mother Nature had those sediments coming for
millions of years down the Mississippi River, and then the Earth's
crust compacted for millions of years and made that oil and the oil is
where the sediments were.
It is not out there and the oil companies know that and that is why
they have 37 million acres under lease and only 7 million in the Gulf
of Mexico are drilled, are producing of the 37 million acres.
That ought to be prima facie evidence of why we don't need to go in
the Gulf of Mexico off Florida. But there is more. Didn't we have some
lessons from the BP oilspill 2 years ago of what happens to tourism
when oil comes up on the beach? It came very little on the Florida
beaches, thank the good Lord, but the tourists thought the beaches were
covered. So that tourist season on our gulf coast beaches was a bust
from the Alabama-Florida line all the way down the west coast of
Florida. We get down to Clearwater Beach, St. Petersburg Beach, lo and
behold, they had a devastating dropoff of tourists who didn't come to
those hotels and those restaurants and all those ancillary businesses.
Part of what we have been doing with the BP money is trying to make
people whole for all the income they lost. That ought to be reason
enough. But there is another reason, and this is where people often are
so surprised when I tell them.
The Gulf of Mexico off Florida is the largest testing and training
area for the U.S. military in the world. This Senator from Florida has
two letters from two successive Secretaries of State--by the way, both
Republican--Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Gates, that say we can't
put oil drilling and oil-related activities in the Gulf of Mexico off
Florida in the test and training range, which in effect is the Gulf of
Mexico off Florida.
I just wanted to bolster the Senator's statements about why we have
to vote down this Vitter amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. I was just going to suggest that Senator Nelson continue
with the time because I do not need any more time at this point. So
please continue.

Amendment No. 1822

(Purpose: To provide for the restoration of the natural resources,
ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, and
coastal wetlands of Gulf Coast States and to provide funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund)

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if I may be recognized, I want
to point out that later on today we are going to have an amendment that
is bipartisan. It is an amendment that, of its original filing with 10
Senators, 3 of them are Democrat and seven of them are Republican. It
is called the RESTORE Act. What it does is when the fine is determined
on BP because of the 5 million barrels of oil they spilled--the fine
allocated according to the Water Pollution Act, which says that a fine
will be levied upon anyone who spills a barrel of oil in public waters,
and, of course, because of the enormous amount of oil that was spilled,
this could be a very substantial fine, 5 million barrels of oil--once
that fine is determined, then the question is how is it going to be
allocated.
If nothing is done, only about $1.5 billion would go into the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund. The rest of it is undeclared. Naturally,
what the Gulf Coast Senators wanted to do was to have some of that
money come back to restore the gulf--the critters, the water, and the
people who are the ones who suffered as a result of the BP oilspill.
What we have worked out is a formula, that 20 percent of whatever the
fine is would go back to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and the
remaining 80 percent would be allocated according to a formula devised
by the National Gulf Restoration Council, appointed by the States and
the Federal Government. It would go to make the environment of the gulf
whole. It would go to help the economic development along the gulf that
had suffered. And, very critically to this Senator, it would go to help
research the long-term health effects on the gulf because there is no
telling the effects. With all that oil sloshing around out there, we
are already seeing enormous effects and we are going to be seeing that
for years and years.
For example, there are two professors down at LSU with whom I visited
who have been doing research on a little fish that roots around in the
marshes to get its food. This little fish, called killifish--it is
about the size of a silver dollar--they took that little fish and took
slices of its gills, put them under a microscope, and have shown
dramatic results in fish that live in the marshes where the oil
penetrated, such as Barataria Bay, where it is all mixed up down into
the sediment, and then taking samples of the killifish that came from
marshes where not much oil hit. The dramatic result shows that these
little fish do not reproduce. The ones that are there are stunted in
their growth. They have all kinds of aberrations in their actual
biological makeup. This spells bad news for the future of the gulf.

[[Page S1508]]

It is one of the amendments to the transportation bill. It is about
five down on the list. Hopefully we will vote on it this afternoon.
With seven Republican Senators being the sponsors of the original
legislation, we are going to have this up. I plead with Senators, if
you are concerned that you do not want all this money that is being
fined as a result of the spill in the gulf--if you want it to go
elsewhere in the country, I plead for you to recognize if you were in
our shoes what you would want. But acknowledging that you want some of
the money--because we had to get a pay-for, and the pay-for is not
controversial, yet it produces about $1.5 billion additional--that can
go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The pay-for is something
that the Senate has extended every year, a portion that was passed back
in 2004 having to do with the World Trade Organization.
It is a very complicated thing. Each year the Senate has put that in
abeyance for another year. That is our pay-for, to put it in abeyance
for the ninth year of the 10 years that this provision is to be in
effect. What it does is it produces about $1.5 billion for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund so that it will have an effect for those
concerned outside of the area of the Gulf of Mexico.
As you know, the Deepwater Horizon oilspill was right at 5 million
barrels. It coated the beaches. It seeped into the wetlands. It kept
fishermen at the dock during one of the busiest fishing seasons. It
killed wildlife. It kept the tourists away from the gulf. The long-term
impacts are not known because there is still a lot of oil out there at
5,000 feet, on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. The fish and the
wildlife that were not immediately killed are showing the signs of
damage, as I have indicated with the killifish.
The gulf residents and the communities continue to suffer. In the
Senate today, we have a chance to take a step to make the gulf coast
whole again. As a sign of solidarity for the gulf, of the five Gulf
Coast States that collectively have two Democratic Senators and eight
Republican Senators, all but one Senator of those five States signed as
a sponsor of the bill. It is bipartisan. This commonsense legislation
is supported by so many people who looked at this: National
Environmental Policy Act groups, sportsmen, chambers of commerce,
academic institutions, local governments, the business community.
Today's vote is going to be a huge step toward making sure that the
fine that is going to be imposed upon BP, however much it is, ends up
in the local communities that were harmed by BP's oilspill; otherwise,
the money is going to end up in the Federal Treasury, and there is no
telling, then, where it is going to be spent.
The RESTORE Act amendment provides funding to each Gulf State for
ecosystem restoration and economic recovery. It also creates a Federal-
State council responsible for developing and executing a holistic plan
to increase the resiliency of the gulf ecosystem. Why were baby
dolphins dying in record numbers? We don't know. We have to find out.
We have to test these results for years to come.
The amendment is also going to ensure that each Gulf State would come
up with a State plan that is consistent with the Federal-State council
plan.
Finally, this bill sets aside funding for science, specifically
dedicating funding for data collection for our fisheries, for our
wildlife, for long-term observation and monitoring, and sets up centers
of excellence to carry out research on the gulf for years to come.
But there is also a national component in this bill. It creates a
set-aside funding for an endowment for the oceans, an endowment for the
Great Lakes, so in addition to restoring the gulf where the harm
occurred, we can better protect all of our coasts from environmental
harm. It provides substantial investments in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, which I mentioned, which protects and conserves land
in each and every State in this Union.

I believe our people, the whole of America, deserve a healthy and
productive gulf too, and the civil fines that are going to be assessed
to BP can ensure that.
I wish to share with my colleagues a vision for a restored Gulf of
Mexico. One of the lessons we learned--and we learned it too late--is
that we do not have sufficient understanding of the gulf ecosystem. We
know that one-third of our domestic seafood comes from the gulf waters
but we did not have a clear picture on the biological status of two-
thirds of the federally managed fish stocks that call the gulf home, so
it is important that some of these fines go toward dedicated, long-term
science about the gulf ecosystem.
That was one of the main things I wanted to get into the RESTORE Act,
because of the obvious implications for the long term. A restored gulf
is one in which clean water that is free from algae blooms and free
from tar mats, is home to oyster reefs and fish habitat and sea grass
beds, where charters ferry tourists from hotels to pristine beaches and
then on out to the productive fishing spots. An integral part of the
restoration is to shore up the coastal communities that were hardest
hit by the economic impacts of the oilspill. It is going to take a
substantial investment to achieve those goals.
The gulf cannot wait. The rigid partisanship that has sometimes
gridlocked this body has given way to a spirit of strong collaboration
and bipartisanship in this Senate when it comes to the RESTORE Act.
I thank all the cosponsors of the amendment and the cosponsors of the
RESTORE Act, and I urge and plead with our colleagues to support this
amendment. It is right for the gulf. It is right for the country.
I call up my amendment, No. 1822, which is at the desk, and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] for himself, Mr.
Shelby, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered
1822.

(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Amendment No. 1660

(Purpose: To provide additional time for the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for
industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and
incinerators)

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 1660,
which is at the desk, and ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr.
Alexander, and Mr. Toomey, proposes an amendment numbered
1660.

(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday,
February 15, 2012, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 1660,
the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, to the highway reauthorization bill. I
am very pleased to have Senator Alexander, Senator Pryor, Senator
Toomey, Senator Landrieu, and Senator McCaskill joining me as
cosponsors of this amendment.
Last year I introduced the EPA Regulatory Relief Act (S. 1392) to
provide the Environmental Protection Agency with the time the Agency
itself said it needed to rewrite the proposed Boiler MACT rules to
better serve the public interest and to protect vulnerable
manufacturing jobs. That legislation had the support of 41 of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and a nearly identical bill
passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support this fall.
The EPA Regulatory Relief Act is straightforward. It will help ensure
that the final Boiler MACT regulations will be achievable and
affordable and that manufacturers will have adequate time to bring
their facilities into compliance, thus preserving jobs. We hear over
and over again that the top priority of the Senate should be to create
an environment where jobs are created and preserved. Well, this
amendment is all about saving jobs.
Since the EPA proposed these new Boiler MACT regulations in April of
2010, there has been widespread bipartisan concern over the cost of the
implementation and potential job losses.

[[Page S1509]]

It has been our shared goal to ensure that the final rules crafted by
the EPA protect public health and the environment, while preventing the
loss of thousands of jobs we can ill afford to lose. Enactment of this
legislation is necessary to protect and to grow America's manufacturing
workforce. This is all about jobs.
We have urged the EPA to set emission standards based on real-world
capabilities of the best performing boilers currently available. After
all, that is what Boiler MACT is supposed to be all about.
Unfortunately, the EPA did not begin its rulemaking with that goal in
mind, and the consequences are so serious. The forest products industry
is the lifeblood of many small, rural communities in my State of Maine
and many others; therefore, I am alarmed by a study commissioned by the
American Forest and Paper Association which found that implementing the
EPA rules as originally drafted could cause 36 pulp and paper mills
around the country to close, putting more than 20,000 Americans out of
work. That is 18 percent of the workforce in just this one
manufacturing sector.
Mr. President, you may have heard that the EPA has revised its rules,
and it has. But despite these revisions, the Boiler MACT rules remain
an issue of great concern to manufacturers across the country and to
many of my constituents. With the reconsideration process, the EPA has
taken some initial steps, but they are not even close to sufficient.
The Agency's reproposed rules still do not address the serious and real
threat to factories and mills that will be most directly affected. The
revised rules are still estimated to cost billions of dollars and
thousands of jobs. Regions across this Nation already struggling with
the decline in manufacturing would be the hardest hit. Furthermore, a
recent court ruling has created even more uncertainty and confusion,
and it has increased the pressure on EPA to just rush through these
rules without careful consideration.
Legislative action is needed to ensure achievable and affordable
rules, to allow adequate compliance time, and to reduce the risk to
industries posed by the pending litigation, which has created so much
uncertainty that manufacturers are telling me they are putting any job
expansions on hold. Enactment of the EPA Regulatory Relief Act remains
the best way to provide the time the EPA says it needs to develop and
implement Boiler MACT rules that will deliver the intended benefits to
public health and our environment without devastating our economy.
There is no need for a choice--it is not the environment versus jobs.
With carefully crafted regulations, we can protect the environment and
preserve jobs.
There are several factors that reinforce the continuing need for this
legislation.
First, the overall capital cost to manufacturers of the Boiler MACT
rules remains a staggering $14 billion and threatens more than 200,000
critically needed, good jobs. Think about that. The revised rules have
an estimated cost of $14 billion, and 200,000 jobs would be lost.
Second, following the January 9 court decision that overturned the
EPA's stay of the March 2011 rules--and this was a stay that the EPA,
to its credit, requested but unfortunately was denied--businesses are
facing serious and ongoing legal and regulatory uncertainty.
Third, the revised rules still do not allow companies adequate time
to comply with the new standards and install the required equipment.
Fourth, important biomass materials are still not listed as fuels.
That makes no sense at all. We are trying to reduce the use of fossil
fuels. We should be encouraging the use of biomass in boilers. In fact,
the Department of Energy is doing just that while the EPA is doing the
opposite through these rules. It makes no sense to force mills to use
fossil fuels while landfilling renewable biomass material. That makes
no sense whatsoever.

Finally, the EPA's current schedule for finalizing the rules is
inadequate for fully analyzing the comments and data that will be
received during the comment period. The EPA recognizes that, and that
is why it asked for this stay.
So I would ask of my colleagues, do not be deceived by the EPA's
hollow promises that somehow, some way, everything will be fixed and
that we don't need this legislation. The fact is that the EPA
regulations are a moving target. Who knows what they ultimately will
propose? Some of the materials of the biomass boilers are still being
considered as solid waste and treated as an incinerator with far more
costly and onerous regulations, but then again, this is the same EPA
that initially proposed that we no longer treat biomass and wood as
carbon neutral, overturning years of treating wood as carbon neutral.
That makes no sense either. Under tremendous pressure, the EPA finally
backed off on that for 3 years, but we don't know what is going to
happen.
Let me say that the EPA does perform some vital functions in helping
to protect public health by ensuring that the air we breathe is clean
and the water we drink is safe. I have opposed many attempts to delay
or overturn EPA regulations, but we need to make sure that as EPA
issues new regulations, it does not create so many roadblocks to
economic growth that it discourages private investment, which is the
key to maintaining and creating jobs. We need to make sure the EPA both
protects the environment and protects our economy and does not impose
billions of dollars of new costs on manufacturers, leading to an
estimated loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing at a
time when our economy can least afford it and when there are
alternatives.
I am not saying there should not be Boiler MACT regulations. I am
saying we need more time for the EPA to get it right, to work with the
industry, to get real-life emission standards. I am saying we need more
time for compliance so that we are not imposing these huge costs at a
time when our manufacturers are struggling and thus jeopardizing jobs.
A coalition of 380 companies and organizations--I don't think I have
ever offered an amendment with more support. And this has so many
companies so upset about what this is going to do to the much needed
jobs they are providing. There are 380 companies and organizations,
including the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the
American Forest and Paper Association, and those are just a few of the
380 companies and organizations that have called for passage of my
amendment. The members of this coalition are committed to working with
the EPA, to being good stewards and supporting the development and
implementation of achievable Boiler MACT rules, not rules that don't
classify biomass, that force people to use fossil fuels instead of
biomass. How is that good for our environment? It is essential that the
EPA produce final rules that are guided by the same commitment.
The EPA is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a
more practical approach to the Boiler MACT rules, but we have no idea
where they are going to end up. They are a moving target, and we have
had promises not fulfilled by the EPA before.
I believe we can achieve the health benefits we all desire. And I
know we are going to hear on the floor that somehow I am trying to harm
children or delay health benefits, and that is not true. I am trying to
allow the time the EPA says it needs to get this right. We can achieve
health benefits we desire without putting thousands of people out of
work and stifling the economic recovery. The bipartisan dilemma that is
before us will help ensure that result, and I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting this commonsense amendment to preserve jobs and
strengthen our environmental protections.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just for the people who are watching this
debate, we are talking about the Transportation bill. We are talking
about preserving the jobs that go with that, 1.8 million jobs, and an
additional 1 million that will be created. But we are hearing a debate
about whether we should roll back a proposed rule that controls the
following poisons: mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium, benzene, and toxic
soot, just to name a few.

[[Page S1510]]

If anyone believes all this legislation is about is delay, then they
don't know because this amendment, which has been called the EPA
Regulatory Relief Act, would forever change the current standards
allowed for mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium, benzene, toxic soot, and
other dangerous pollutants. So it not only delays a rule that is
critical--and I will tell my colleagues the numbers of lives that will
be saved because of it--but it changes the standards for these toxins
forever.
I don't know about the Senator from Maine, but I have never had one
constituent come up to me and say: Senator Boxer, there is one thing
you can do for me. I beg you. Increase the arsenic in the air. I need
more mercury. Oh, I am desperately in need of more benzene, chromium,
and lead.
I have never heard one say: I am willing to risk the fact that my
grandchild, who is going to be born in a few months--I am willing to
risk the fact that they may have brain damage. Oh, repeal the Clean Air
Act. Repeal the rules.
I hope we will vote down this amendment. This amendment is described
as being nothing but a delay when it actually changes the standards for
the most poisonous pollution known to humankind. Instead of the EPA
Regulatory Relief Act, I would call it the Increased Poisonous
Pollution in America Act.
My friend read names supporting her amendment. Let me tell my
colleagues who opposes it--people from her own State: the National
Association of County and City Health Officials; the American Lung
Association; the American Public Health Association; the American
Thoracic Society; and the Asthma and Algae Foundation of America. That
is just a partial list.
We need to vote this down. My friend makes a number of points about
biomass--and we have the great Senator from Oregon here who actually
took this issue on in the beginning, and he is going to have some time
to talk about it--and resolved a lot of our problems with this. He is
to be credited for a compromise with EPA that will work.
I just want to say--and everything I say is fact; it is peer-reviewed
fact--these toxins cause cancer, heart disease, and premature death.
The Senator from Maine said all this amendment does is give EPA
another year because they are not ready anyway.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the EPA saying they are ready by spring.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

United States Environmental

Protection Agency,

Washington, DC, March 5, 2012.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden: Thank you for your continuing interest
in the air toxics standards for boilers. We are currently in
the process of developing final standards and responding to
additional, useful information we received during the public
comment period on the reconsidered standards we proposed last
December. We intend to finalize the standards this spring. In
the proposal, EPA proposed to ``reset'' the three year
compliance clock to give entities the full amount of time
available under the Clean Air Act upon finalization of the
rule, and, subject to the formal rulemaking process, expects
to do so in the final rule. The Act also gives state and
local permitting authorities the ability to provide up to a
one-year extension of that deadline, on a case-by-case basis,
as necessary, for the installation of controls.
While EPA believes facilities can meet compliance
requirements within the four years described above, I commit
to you that EPA will handle each situation on a case-by-case
basis, and work with facilities to determine the appropriate
response and resolution. We have authority available to us to
resolve concerns that might arise at individual facilities as
long as appropriate and timely steps are being taken towards
compliance.
Additionally, as required by the Clean Air Act, we proposed
and will finalize air toxic standards for boilers based on
real-life data that industry has provided to us about the
level of emissions from their facilities. As EPA reviews the
public comments and data as we finalize these standards, we
will pay close attention to their achievability. We intend to
set standards that can be met by plants operating in the real
world.
Again, thank you for your continued attention to this
matter. It is important to ensure that we achieve these key
public health standards in a way that is sensitive to
legitimate needs of business interests. If you have
additional questions, please feel free to contact me or have
your staff contact Arvin Ganesan, Associate Administrator for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564
5200.
Sincerely,
Lisa P. Jackson.

Mrs. BOXER. My friend says EPA needs more time. They have had 20
years--20 years--on this in terms of regulating these pollutants.
Senator Carper from Delaware, who is a very moderate Member of this
body, has stood in front of our caucus and made a passionate plea: We
don't need any more delays. We need action, and we need wise action.
EPA has said they will work with our States, State by State; they will
work with the polluters, polluter by polluter. Because of the
leadership of the Senator from Oregon, they have written letters to
many of us who are concerned saying they will work on this.
I am not going to talk too long because I want to leave time for my
friend, but I must put in the Record the following facts: If we vote
for the Collins amendment and if it were to become the law, A, it
doesn't belong on a transportation bill. We should be debating the
Clean Air Act for weeks on end if we are going to start repealing
standards for these pollutants. So just on that issue alone we should
vote against it. If it were to pass, which I don't believe it will,
300,000 newborns each year may well have increased risk of learning
disabilities from toxic mercury exposure in the womb.
We know because of peer-reviewed science, if this were to pass and we
would not have this rule go into effect, for every year it is delayed
we would see 8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks per year, and
52,000 cases of aggravated asthma. I wish to show my colleagues a
picture of what it looks like when a child has asthma. What does it
look like when a child has asthma and they are gasping for air? Too
many of our children have asthma. I don't know about my colleagues, but
when I go to the schools I ask the kids: How many of you have asthma or
know someone who has asthma? About 50 percent of the kids raise their
hands. I suggest my colleagues do that.
This is our legacy--these kids. They are who we live for. They are
why we are here, to make life better for them.
People say we are going to save jobs. First of all, let me tell my
colleagues something: If you had a heart attack that you didn't need to
have, you are not going to be working. I think there are also 400,000
lost workdays per year--scientifically peer-reviewed. If this is
delayed, for every year--and it has been 20 years in the making,
control of these pollutants--400,000 lost workdays per year.
Here is another fact: We talk about the cost. Yes, it will cost $1.5
billion per year to clean up this poison. The annual benefits are $67
billion. I would say to my friends, that is a heck of a good ratio--a
good ratio.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the American Boiler Manufacturers Association.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

ABMA,

Vienna, VA, January 27, 2012.
Re Manufacturer Opposition to the EPA Regulatory Relief Act
of 2011.

To Members of the United States Senate: In the considered
technical judgment of the American Boiler Manufacturers
Association (ABMA), and contrary to popular talking points
distributed by those less interested in their technical
practicality and more interested in killing them outright,
the Industrial Boiler MACT Reconsideration Rules proposed by
EPA in December 2011 are technically achievable by real-world
boilers--the only kind of boiler and combustion equipment the
ABMA membership designs and makes.
Compliance can be achieved using existing, state-of-the-
art, technologically-advanced and fuel-flexible products
along with innovatively-designed and engineered application
solutions to meet the exigent needs of a host of varied
individual boiler facilities.
And, contrary to what some too-frequently-cited, yet flawed
and discredited [Congressional Research Service, 7 5700,

www.crs.gov
, R41459], studies would have you believe, these
proposed rules are not job-killers--in fact, for the boiler,
combustion, pollution-control and for other compliance-
related industries, they will be job generators; clearly lob
generators for those small businesses on main streets across
this country that install, repair and tune-up boilers and
boiler systems.
As for compliance resources, please be confident that the
U.S. boiler and combustion equipment industry--with decades
of experience and expertise in meeting tough, state,

[[Page S1511]]

local, regional and national air-quality codes, standards and
regulations with innovative, and real-world design
solutions--stands ready and able right now to help those
affected by these rules to comply with them in a timely and
affordable manner. Arguments that there are insufficient
resources available for use in compliance within the time
period specified by the rules are specious and uninformed in
the extreme. In fact, delay in rule finalization, as
envisioned by the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, will
only exacerbate future compliance issues and costs; labor and
materials costs and availability are currently stable and
domestic boiler and combustion equipment manufacturing
capacity is available now to service the full range of
compliance options available under the new, more flexible
rules as proposed by EPA in December. My manufacturer and
supplier members make things and they make them here in the
United States--providing high-wage jobs and contributing to
tax bases across this country--in states like California,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, and Wisconsin--and they are prepared to meet any
compliance challenge that these or any other air quality
rules might generate (alone or in tandem)--affordably, and
well within any arbitrary compliance time frame.
Any small number of remaining technical issues can be well
addressed and resolved by stakeholders and EPA during the
new, currently on-going 60-day public review and comment
period provided by EPA's December 2011 Reconsideration
proposals. At this point in time and after more than a decade
of information gathering, proposal, and debate, there is no
reason for Congressional intervention or for Congressionally-
mandated delay in the existing, on-going rulemaking process.
Besides fostering continued unreasonable uncertainty,
additional delay at this point will only serve as a
disincentive to stakeholders to promptly address remaining
issues.
Therefore, with over 100 small-business domestic
manufacturer and supplier members, the American Boiler
Manufacturers Association (ABMA)--the companies that actually
design, manufacture and supply the commercial, institutional,
industrial boilers and combustion equipment in question--
strongly urges you to oppose S. 1392 and H.R. 2250, the EPA
Regulatory Relief Act of 2011--or any similar legislation--
and to resist adding the language of either as part of any
payroll tax holiday extension, tax-extender or as part of any
appropriations bills coming before the Senate this year We
encourage you to let the existing rulemaking process within
EPA as envisioned by the December-proposed Reconsideration
Rules go forward without Congressional interference.
Further delays in the rulemaking process--as mandated by S.
1392 and H.R. 2250--will not result in improved rules or
insulate the rules from future litigation; further delay of
15 or more months only means continued uncertainty and will
yield no new jobs, no economic growth, no cleaner air or any
more affordable ultimate compliance options than are now
feasible and readily available from existing sources.
The types of clean, efficient, fuel-flexible, affordable
and technologically-advanced products and equipment that can
be supplied by the U.S. boiler manufacturing industry are
critically important for long-term public health,
environmental quality and business stability.
Don't let the Preoccupation by some with the inadequacies
of past rulemaking efforts lead you into delaying the current
December initiated rulemaking process--propsals and a process
that provide a flexible, affordable, and achievable pathway
to air quality, greater efficiency and the types of long-term
boiler room upgrades and modernizations that will lead to
sustainable competiveness and bottom line stability.
[For a list of the membership of the American Boiler
Manufacturers Association and their respective products and
services, go to
http://boilermactfacts.com
, and for
questions, please contact me directly via email at

[email protected]
or at 703/356 7172.]
Sincerely,
W. Randall Rawson,
President/Chief Executive Officer.

Mrs. BOXER. The letter from ABMA strongly says the following: ``We
urge Senators to oppose the EPA Regulatory Relief Act.''
This is business. This is American business, made in America. The
American Boiler Manufacturers Association: ``We encourage Senators to
vote it down.''
I have that letter, and that is what they say. My friend from Maine
said it is not technically feasible to clean up these poisons. They
said anyone who tells you it is not technically achievable by real
world boilers ``doesn't know what they are talking about.'' This is not
me speaking. I didn't say that. This is what the American Boiler
Manufacturers Association said.
So everywhere we look, when it comes to this vote, it says: Vote no,
vote no, vote no. At a minimum, we should do no harm to our people's
health. We have it in our hands now to stop a permanent rollback not
just of the rule--that is a delay--but a permanent rollback of
standards for the most poisonous pollutants there are: chromium,
arsenic, mercury, lead, benzene, toxic soot. I would say all the
arguments we have heard do not hold water.
In closing, let me say this: The polls on this are as clear as they
can be. The people want us to get out of the way and allow the
Environmental Protection Agency to do its work. Lisa Jackson is not a
radical person. She is one of the most--how can I say--she is a
coalition-building type of person. She is someone who reaches out. When
Senator Wyden called her and said he was very upset about the way this
rule was going, she sat down with him and, I think, rose to the
occasion. When other Senators met with her--and I was in the room with
several--she said: We can deal with your problems.
So let's vote no. This rollback of the Clean Air Act standards for
the most poisonous pollutants doesn't belong on this bill. There is no
way it belongs on this bill. That is No. 1.
No. 2, it is opposed by every health entity we know. It is opposed by
our local county health officials and city health officials. I would
say to my colleagues, when we look at the polls, it is opposed by 70
percent of the American people. That is the last poll I saw. They want
to be able to breathe clean air. They know their people suffer when the
air is filled with soot, and particularly toxic soot, which results in
devastation for our families in very, very, very large numbers.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I hope we will vote no on the
Collins amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to fight for a
paper company in western Maryland called Luke Mill. I am fighting for
the jobs it creates in western Maryland, and I am fighting to make sure
its workers have a government on their side.
I have worked with the leadership at Luke Mill for decades. It is one
of the last large employers in western Maryland. These jobs provide
good wages and good benefits for Maryland workers and their families.
When it was owned by the Luke family, I was in frequent contact with
John Luke about challenges the company was facing. We talked about ways
the Federal Government could help his business and where it should just
stay out of the way.
When unfair trade practices of China were threatening the viability
of Luke Mill and the jobs of its workers, I was on the side of Luke
Mill. I contacted the Department of Commerce and represented Luke Mill
before the International Trade Commission to make sure China and other
countries had to play by the rules in trade. As a result, we saved the
jobs of American workers who were threatened by an uneven trade playing
field.
When the management at Luke Mill called me about EPA's Boiler MACT
rule, I took their concerns to the highest levels of EPA. Luke Mill
told me that the regulations were too expensive to implement companies
needed more time to comply and EPA needed to use accurate data to set
emissions standards.
I heard these concerns and took them directly to EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson. Here is what we accomplished: No. 1, EPA produced more
targeted emissions limits under the regulation; No. 2, EPA reduced the
cost of compliance for businesses by 50 percent; and No. 3, companies
could have as much as 4 years to comply.
EPA's compromise rule is not perfect, but it is significantly better
than the first draft. From the day I heard about EPA's Boiler MACT
rule, my priorities have been the same. I am fighting to protect the
jobs in western Maryland, and I am working with EPA to reach a
compromise that gives flexibility to businesses to comply without
abandoning my environmental principles. But I also will not abandon
western Maryland or the jobs that depend on Luke Mill's viability.
I will continue to fight for American jobs and the viability of
American business.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 1738

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be set
aside to call up amendment No. 1738.

[[Page S1512]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 1738.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prevent the creation of duplicative and overlapping
Federal programs)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. CONSOLIDATING UNNECESSARY DUPLICATIVE AND
OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law and not later
than 150 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
coordinate with the heads of the relevant department and
agencies to--
(1) use available administrative authority to eliminate,
consolidate, or streamline Government programs and agencies
with duplicative and overlapping missions identified in the--
(A) March 2011 Government Accountability Office report to
Congress entitled ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential
Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and
Enhance Revenue'' (GAO 11 318SP); and
(B) February 2012 Government Accountability Office report
to Congress entitled ``2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to
Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax
Dollars, and Enhance Revenue'' (GAO 12 342SP);
(2) identify and report to Congress any legislative changes
required to further eliminate, consolidate, or streamline
Government programs and agencies with duplicative and
overlapping missions identified in the--
(A) March 2011 Government Accountability Office report to
Congress entitled ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential
Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and
Enhance Revenue'' (GAO 11 318SP); and
(B) February 2012 Government Accountability Office report
to Congress entitled ``2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to
Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax
Dollars, and Enhance Revenue'' (GAO 12 342SP);
(3) determine the total cost savings that shall result to
each agency, office, and department from the actions
described in paragraph (1); and
(4) rescind from the appropriate accounts and apply the
savings towards deficit reduction the amount greater of--
(A) $10,000,000,000; or
(B) the total amount of cost savings estimated by paragraph
(3).

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, the CBO just announced this morning that
February was the largest deficit month in this country. We have run
$690 billion worth of deficits through the first 4\1/2\ months of this
fiscal year. We will have a $1.6 trillion deficit.
This amendment the Senate has voted on before passed with 64 votes
the last time it was voted on. It is a very simple, straightforward
amendment.
Before I get into the details of this amendment--we need a highway
bill. Everybody agrees with that. This is the Senate, and the right to
offer amendments has been secured, finally, after 2 weeks of
negotiation.
Where are we as a country? I think it is interesting to look back
from fiscal years 2011 to 2001. In 2001 the total bill for the Federal
Government was $1.86 trillion. It is now almost $3.61 trillion. In 2001
we had a surplus. Now we have a $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion deficit
coming into this year. I think the American people would like to see us
do something about that. Yet, at every turn, on every occasion, we have
not risen to the challenge of creating an environment where jobs can
flourish. One of the reasons is the Federal Government is squeezing the
jobs out of the economy by taking such a large segment of them.
This amendment is very straightforward and very simple. The GAO,
through two reports now--one released just this last month and a second
in a series of three which will become annual--has told Congress where
the problems are. The problems are in continuing to do the same thing
in multiple programs and multiple agencies. They have outlined
billions, hundreds of billions--I can calculate at least $100 billion
worth of duplication that they have outlined and said we didn't do
anything about it last year when they gave us the first report. Now
they are giving us another report that has probably another $30 billion
or $40 billion worth of savings for the American people because of
duplication.
So this amendment asks--it is very straightforward--it asks OMB to
look at the GAO reports and give recommendations to us on what they
would recommend that allows the executive branch to participate in
terms of $10 billion worth of savings this year on duplication.
Why is that possible? Here is why it is possible. And this is just a
small sample of what GAO has told us. We have 209 different programs
spending $4 billion through eight different agencies to encourage
science, technology, engineering, and math education in the United
States. Can anybody in this body defend the fact that we have 209
different programs? No. Nobody will even stand and defend it.
So we ought to be able to--there is nothing wrong with us wanting to
encourage that, incentivize that, help create that, because we know
that is for a higher powered workforce in the future. But 209 programs?
Why wouldn't we streamline it?
We have 200 separate crime prevention programs. As a matter of fact,
the GAO said you have enough duplication just in the Department of
Justice programs--they spent $30 billion over the last 9\1/2\ years--
that if you would eliminate that duplication, you would find billions
to save.
How do you get rid of a $1.6 trillion deficit? The way you get rid of
it is a million here, a billion there, $10 billion here, $15 billion
there, a billion here. What this amendment would do is save us $10
billion this year through smart government. It does not question the
motivation. It does not even question whether it is our authority. But
it says: Let's do this.
The Senate voted 64 to 36 when this was brought up in April of last
year--the same amendment. They thought it was a good idea. The reason
they voted for it was because it was fresh on their minds, what the GAO
had told us.
Let's take some others.
The Surface Transportation Program. Here we have the highway bill.
They did, thankfully, eliminate a few programs. We still are going to
have 100 programs involved in surface transportation even when this
highway bill is completed. We did not do what we needed to do. We can
do better and we can save money. Even if the same amount of money gets
out to the American public, the administrative cost will shrink
dramatically.
Private sector green buildings. We have 94 separate programs, 16
different agencies to incentivize green buildings, and not one of them
has ever been tested to see if it has an effect, whether it is
positive, whether it is efficient, whether it is effective--not one.
Never. Why would we have 94 separate programs for green buildings?
We have 88 different economic development programs. Why? Nobody can
answer the question ``Why?'' As a matter of fact, 2 months ago, I
offered an amendment on this floor that asked of us to have the CRS
tell us before we pass a new bill whether we are adding another
duplicative program. Because that was a rule change, it required 67
votes, and 40 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: We
do not want to know whether we are creating another duplicative
program, so it only got 60 votes. It required 67 and, therefore, we are
not doing it.
So we are going to ignore the brains, we are going to ignore the
knowledge, and we are going to continue to produce and create duplicate
programs.
Teacher quality. This is one of my favorites. We have 82 separate
teacher training programs run by the Federal Government, not for
Federal teachers, for State teachers.
Eighty-two separate programs, and not one of them has been tested to
see if it is effective or efficient, whether it has value, whether we
actually get anything out of it, whether there is some teacher
improvement coming out of it--and that is run from seven different
agencies.
First of all, why would you have any teacher programs other than at
the Department of Education? Yet we have 82. Nobody can tell me why.
Nobody will stand on the floor and defend the fact that we have 82.
Because they realize it is the height of stupidity. It is stupid to do
multiple programs in multiple directions and waste the overhead. We are
not talking about not sending money.
We have 47 job training programs. We are in the midst of releasing a
report on all the job training programs as to

[[Page S1513]]

how they affect Oklahoma, and I will tell you it is not a pretty
picture.
There is so much waste, so much ineffectiveness through those 47
different job training programs. We are spending $19 billion of
Americans' money every year and we are not getting a billion dollars'
worth of benefit out of it. But nobody wants to do the hard work,
nobody wants to stand and defend those 47 job training programs, but
nobody wants to eliminate them either.
We have a real problem. This is a first step, a first amendment,
where we can make this bill--by the way, we are having trouble paying
for the highway bill. We are going to pay for it--2 years' worth of
highway spending--with 10 years' worth of reductions. This amendment
alone, if we pass it, will pay for the highway bill differential
between the trust fund and what the EPW Committee says we ought to be
spending on highways--this amendment alone.
So when somebody comes down and says they are not going to vote for
us to eliminate duplication, you have to ask why. Why is it we would
not want to eliminate duplication? Why is it we would not want to
become efficient and effective in terms of how we spend not our money
but our children's money? Because 40 cents--38 cents this year--of
every $1 we spend we are tacking on to a decreased standard of living
for our children in everything we do.
So tell me why somebody would not want to get rid of some of the
duplication, would not want to do the commonsense thing that every one
of the rest of us in our own personal lives does, all our State
governments do, all our personal businesses and all our public
companies are doing: doing more with less every year? The easiest way
to do that is to consolidate and eliminate duplication.
So when you see the vote today, if it does not get 60 votes, what
should the American people learn from that? Here is what they should
learn: It is not about gridlock. It is not about partisanship. It is
about incompetence and a lack of thoughtful consideration for the
people who will follow us. This is easy stuff to do. We have hard stuff
we have to do in our country. We are going to be making tons of hard
decisions over the next 2 or 3 years. Everyone in this body knows it.
They will keep kicking the can down the road, hoping they do not have
to be involved with the very tough decisions we are going to have to
make. This is the easy one. This is easy.
I would ask my colleagues to consider this. If you voted for it in
April of 2011, I would appreciate your vote again. If you do not vote
for it, I would ask you to reconsider why you are here. Are you here to
perpetuate waste? Are you here to perpetuate incompetence? Are you here
to protect some constituency's little small program that does not work
yet wastes your children's future? This is an easy amendment to vote
for.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I come to the floor to speak in
support of Coburn amendment, No. 1738, which I cosponsor. This common
sense amendment would require the Office of Management and Budget--
OMB--and the executive branch agencies to reduce at least $10 billion
by eliminating, consolidating, or streamlining government programs and
agencies with duplicative and overlapping missions.
Thankfully, the Government Accountability Office--GAO--has given
Congress and the administration a blueprint to reduce duplication and
eliminate failing programs by releasing two detailed reports that
highlight 132 areas within the Federal Government that are duplicative
and if consolidated could save billions. With our Nation facing a $15.4
trillion debt, eliminating inefficiency and waste in the Federal
Government to save taxpayer dollars is absolutely imperative and the
American people expect us to do so.
In the most recent report issued by GAO on February 28, 2012, they
identified 32 areas of duplication, overlap and fragmentation
throughout the Federal Government, as well as 19 additional areas of
cost-saving and revenue-enhancement opportunities in Federal programs,
agencies, offices and initiatives. Of the 32 areas highlighted in the
report, GAO identifies 10 dealing specifically with the Department of
Defense, which include Electronic Warfare programs, Unmanned Aircraft
Systems, Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Efforts, Defense Language
and Culture Training, Stabilization, Reconstruction, and Humanitarian
Assistance Efforts, Health Research Funding, Military and Veterans
Health Care, Information Technology Investment Management, Space Launch
Contract Costs, and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Education--STEM.
In addition to the 10 defense areas mentioned above, GAO also
highlights 6 areas where the Defense Department could reduce its
operating costs or increase revenue collections for the Treasury.
With new, emerging threats to national security arising every day,
the funding needed to support major defense priorities is declining.
For this reason, in my view, the Department must implement each of
GAO's recommendations in this report. Also, implementing these
recommendations may reduce the need for ``catastrophic'' defense cuts
required under ``sequestration''--precipitated by Congress' failure to
enact $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction under the Budget Control Act
of 2011.
I intend to send a letter to Secretary of Defense Panetta asking him
to tell me how the Department plans to address these vitally important
recommendations. I will continue to monitor the Department's
implementation efforts and will take necessary steps, including
legislative action where appropriate, to ensure their implementation.
The Federal Government wastes billions a year on programs with
duplicative and overlapping missions. Congress and the administration
must ensure that the findings in the two GAO reports do not go to
waste. Congress should insist that they are implemented to reduce
spending and eliminate duplicative and failing programs. I urge my
colleagues to support the Coburn's amendment No. 1738.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 1660

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, we had a discussion, a very important
discussion--I know the Presiding Officer cares a great deal about this
topic, as well as Senator Collins and also Senator Boxer--on this issue
about boilers. I want to be clear about what is at issue in this
debate.
The debate about boilers stems from the fact that the EPA did not
originally get the boiler rules right. The agency admitted they did not
get them right, and the agency said they needed 15 months to fix the
boiler rules. But the courts said the agency could not have the time.
They said that EPA could have 30 days to fix the rules.
As colleagues have said, this debate has gone on for so long there is
no way it is going to be turned around in 30 days. So I joined in the
legislation to give the EPA 15 months to rewrite the rules so as to
protect good-paying jobs and communities that are affected by the
boiler rules, while ensuring the health of our people and the
protection of our environment.
That was 15 months ago. EPA got the time it said it needed to rewrite
the rules, and the new final rules will be out within 90 days. I wish
to outline for the Senate what the new rules will do.
First, the new rules, as proposed in the legislation, change what
constitutes solid waste so that boiler fuels, for example, that are
wood waste can be used for fuels such as biomass; and waste from steel
mills, as another example, can be used as a fuel, as they are today,
rather than to be regulated out of existence as a fuel source.
Second, as proposed in the legislation, the new rules will create an
open-to-the-public list of what can and cannot be burned in a boiler.
This is going to provide important predictability and certainty to
American industry, and it will provide new accountability to our
communities. All across the United States, folks are going to be able
to know, as a result of these new rules, what can and cannot be
actually burned in a boiler.
Third, again, just like the legislation, the rules address the fact
that because EPA was unable to get the rules right at the outset, more
time is needed for compliance.
I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has been interested in
this issue as well: the question of compliance and

[[Page S1514]]

the time that would be provided for industries to meet the standards.
In the final rule, the compliance clock is reset with a rule
providing additional time for industry to comply. This is like what was
in the original legislation. So industry will have 4 years to comply,
and Administrator Jackson stated in writing that she will assist any
hard-hit community, any company facing extra duress in terms of
complying. Administrator Jackson has indicated on a case-by-case basis
she will provide additional time to help those communities and to help
those companies.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Administrator's
letter to me be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

United States Environmental

Protection Agency,

Washington, DC, March 5, 2012.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden: Thank you for your continuing interest
in the air toxics standards for boilers. We are currently in
the process of developing final standards and responding to
additional, useful information we received during the public
comment period on the reconsidered standards we proposed last
December. We intend to finalize the standards this spring. In
the proposal, EPA proposed to ``reset'' the three year
compliance clock to give entities the full amount of time
available under the Clean Air Act upon finalization of the
rule, and, subject to the formal rulemaking process, expects
to do so in the final rule. The Act also gives state and
local permitting authorities the ability to provide up to a
one-year extension of that deadline, on a case-by-case basis,
as necessary, for the installation of controls.
While EPA believes facilities can meet compliance
requirements within the four years described above, I commit
to you that EPA will handle each situation on a case-by-case
basis, and work with facilities to determine the appropriate
response and resolution. We have authority available to us to
resolve concerns that might arise at individual facilities as
long as appropriate and timely steps are being taken towards
compliance.
Additionally, as required by the Clean Air Act, we proposed
and will finalize air toxic standards for boilers based on
real-life data that industry has provided to us about the
level of emissions from their facilities. As EPA reviews the
public comments and data as we finalize these standards, we
will pay close attention to their achievability. We intend to
set standards that can be met by plants operating in the real
world.
Again, thank you for your continued attention to this
matter. It is important to ensure that we achieve these key
public health standards in a way that is sensitive to
legitimate needs of business interests. If you have
additional questions, please feel free to contact me or have
your staff contact Arvin Ganesan, Associate Administrator for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564
5200.
Sincerely,
Lisa P. Jackson.

Mr. WYDEN. I want to address the discussion we heard from our
colleagues, particularly Senator Collins and Senator Boxer, on the key
point.
The changes I have described--the fact that we have made the rules
changes so that so many of these materials will be treated as fuels,
which is important in timber country that I and the distinguished
Presiding Officer represent; the fact that we have this new process
that provides predictability and certainty about what can be burned in
a boiler; the fact that there is the additional time--all of this, in
my view, has been spurred by the legislation introduced by the Senator
from Maine, Ms. Collins. We ought to make no mistake about it. The
important rules changes I have outlined this morning that I think are
going to provide certainty and predictability to our businesses--while
at the same time protecting the health of our people, the environment
of our country--have been spurred because Senator Collins was willing
to pick up the challenge and address this issue.
These new rules are going to finally take effect in less than 90
days. But the question I would ask Senators is, who knows what will
happen to these important rules that are just about ready for
implementation if, in effect, we say, as the amendment does, let's go
back to the beginning and talk about addressing this again over 15
months?
If the amendment passes, and the EPA is told--as I have been advised
under the text of the amendment--to take another 15 months, in my view,
what would happen is, the agency would go back to spending this
additional time working to try to get to the point where we are today.
That, in my view, just does not add up. It does not add up for the
industries that have been concerned about this. It does not add up for
the communities. It does not add up for the health of our people and
the protection of our environment.
Let me close with this. Having been involved in the legislation, No.
1, having tried to make clear this afternoon that these important
rules, in my view, have been spurred by the legislation Senator Collins
has talked about, I wished to state that I intend, and I know others in
the Senate will do as well, to watchdog the rules that will be out
shortly every step of the way to ensure that they are fully
implemented, to hold the Environmental Protection Agency to the
commitments that have been made in these rules that are forthcoming,
and to ensure that all our communities--all our communities--can see
that finally this issue is being addressed and it is being addressed in
a way that makes sense for the jobs we are going to need in our
communities and to the public health and the environment.
I hope colleagues will look finally at the letter Administrator
Jackson has sent me. I think it addresses, in particular, the timetable
so many Senators have been concerned about. I have tried to outline
some of the other issues that I think are critical, particularly the
fact that we have the changes in the definition of solid waste that is
so important. A whole host of materials have been added to that list of
fuels. That means we can protect the jobs that stem from countries that
use--the products that use these materials and at the same time protect
the environment.
So this makes sense from the standpoint of a realistic rule on what
constitutes a fuel, openness and transparency, because the American
people will see what actually can be burned in a boiler. To me--and
Senator Boxer has touched on this question of the years that have
already gone into this effort--Administrator Jackson, in my view, has
gone to substantial lengths to address this timetable that industry has
been so concerned about.
In fact, I think it is fair to say that when I add what she has
committed to, it is almost the same timetable as in her original
legislation. So why in the world would we want to set aside those rules
and go back again to the period of starting a new 15-month clock, only
to see, in my view, that after those additional 15 months, we would be
back to the place we are today, in terms of the rules that will be
shortly implemented.
I urge the Senate to reject the amendment. We are going to continue
to watchdog this issue until these rules are fully implemented.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am very happy to see we are making
progress. I still continue to believe that these controversial
amendments did not have to be on this bill. But having said that, we
have our agreement. So our understanding is, I want for all Senators to
say our hope is to begin voting sometime around the 2 to 2:30 timeframe
and to do a great number of votes at that time, maybe as many as 8, 9,
10 votes.
We are waiting for people to come to the floor to speak on different
amendments. We expect that Senator Hoeven will be here shortly to call
up amendment No. 1537. We urge him to do that.
Senator Merkley wants to speak on the underlying bill. Senator Corker
wants to speak for 10 minutes at approximately 12:45. Senator Inouye
would like to address us for 10 minutes about one. Senator Lautenberg
wants to speak about the environmental amendments about 1:15, and
Senator Landrieu wants to talk about a number of things but
particularly the RESTORE Act, I would assume, at 1:15. Senator Sanders
wants to speak on the issue of Keystone. Senator Durbin also has some
comments he wanted to make.
So I would urge colleagues, if you wish to speak before we start
voting, now would be a very good time. We hope you will come over here.
We are making progress. This has been a very convoluted process, a very
difficult process to satisfy everyone. Of course, we cannot satisfy
everyone. But Senator Inhofe and I, when we wrote the

[[Page S1515]]

bill originally, knew he would not get everything he wanted and I
certainly would not get what I wanted. We had to find those sweet spots
where we could come together. That is what happened. The other
committees did a wonderful job in doing the same: The Banking
Committee, unanimous in their part of this bill; Commerce had some
bumps, but they resolved those bumps in the road and now they are
bipartisan; Finance Committee, that is a tough one. They had to raise
funds to put into the trust fund. The trust fund needs some more
dollars in it.
I see Senator Hoeven is here. I am so delighted that he is here to
lay down his amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 1537

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I am waiting for my associate who has
some charts, but I certainly can proceed at this point. I am here to
speak in regard to my amendment No. 1537, which is at the desk. I ask
unanimous consent that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Hoeven], for himself,
Mr. Lugar, Mr. Vitter, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Johanns, and Mr.
Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 1537.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To approve the Keystone XL pipeline project and provide for
environmental protection and government oversight)

On page 469, after line 22, add the following:

SEC. __. APPROVAL OF KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT.

(a) Approval of Cross-border Facilities.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with section 8 of article 1
of the Constitution (delegating to Congress the power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations), TransCanada Keystone
Pipeline, L.P. is authorized to construct, connect, operate,
and maintain pipeline facilities, subject to subsection (c),
for the import of crude oil and other hydrocarbons at the
United States-Canada Border at Phillips County, Montana, in
accordance with the application filed with the Department of
State on September 19, 2008 (as supplemented and amended).
(2) Permit.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
permit pursuant to Executive Order 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 note)
or any other similar Executive Order regulating construction,
connection, operation, or maintenance of facilities at the
borders of the United States, and no additional environmental
impact statement, shall be required for TransCanada Keystone
Pipeline, L.P. to construct, connect, operate, and maintain
the facilities described in paragraph (1).
(b) Construction and Operation of Keystone XL Pipeline in
United States.--
(1) In general.--The final environmental impact statement
issued by the Department of State on August 26, 2011, shall
be considered to satisfy all requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
any other provision of law that requires Federal agency
consultation or review with respect to the cross-border
facilities described in subsection (a)(1) and the related
facilities in the United States described in the application
filed with the Department of State on September 19, 2008 (as
supplemented and amended).
(2) Permits.--Any Federal permit or authorization issued
before the date of enactment of this Act for the cross-border
facilities described in subsection (a)(1), and the related
facilities in the United States described in the application
filed with the Department of State on September 19, 2008 (as
supplemented and amended), shall remain in effect.
(c) Conditions.--In constructing, connecting, operating,
and maintaining the cross-border facilities described in
subsection (a)(1) and related facilities in the United States
described in the application filed with the Department of
State on September 19, 2008 (as supplemented and amended),
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. shall comply with the
following conditions:
(1) TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. shall comply with
all applicable Federal and State laws (including regulations)
and all applicable industrial codes regarding the
construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of the
facilities.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (a)(2), TransCanada
Keystone Pipeline, L.P. shall comply with all requisite
permits from Canadian authorities and applicable Federal,
State, and local government agencies in the United States.
(3) TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. shall take all
appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate any adverse
environmental impact or disruption of historic properties in
connection with the construction, connection, operation, and
maintenance of the facilities.
(4) The construction, connection, operation, and
maintenance of the facilities shall be--
(A) in all material respects, similar to that described
in--
(i) the application filed with the Department of State on
September 19, 2008 (as supplemented and amended); and
(ii) the final environmental impact statement described in
subsection (b)(1); and
(B) carried out in accordance with--
(i) the construction, mitigation, and reclamation measures
agreed to for the project in the construction mitigation and
reclamation plan contained in appendix B of the final
environmental impact statement described in subsection
(b)(1);
(ii) the special conditions agreed to between the owners
and operators of the project and the Administrator of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the
Department of Transportation, as contained in appendix U of
the final environmental impact statement;
(iii) the measures identified in appendix H of the final
environmental impact statement, if the modified route
submitted by the State of Nebraska to the Secretary of State
crosses the Sand Hills region; and
(iv) the stipulations identified in appendix S of the final
environmental impact statement.
(d) Route in Nebraska.--
(1) In general.--Any route and construction, mitigation,
and reclamation measures for the project in the State of
Nebraska that is identified by the State of Nebraska and
submitted to the Secretary of State under this section is
considered sufficient for the purposes of this section.
(2) Prohibition.--Construction of the facilities in the
United States described in the application filed with the
Department of State on September 19, 2008 (as supplemented
and amended), shall not commence in the State of Nebraska
until the date on which the Secretary of State receives a
route for the project in the State of Nebraska that is
identified by the State of Nebraska.
(3) Receipt.--On the date of receipt of the route described
in paragraph (1) by the Secretary of State, the route for the
project within the State of Nebraska under this section shall
supersede the route for the project in the State specified in
the application filed with the Department of State on
September 19, 2008 (including supplements and amendments).
(4) Cooperation.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the State of Nebraska submits a request to the
Secretary of State or any appropriate Federal official, the
Secretary of State or Federal official shall provide
assistance that is consistent with the law of the State of
Nebraska.
(e) Administration.--
(1) In general.--Any action taken to carry out this section
(including the modification of any route under subsection
(d)) shall not constitute a major Federal action under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
(2) State siting authority.--Nothing in this section alters
any provision of State law relating to the siting of
pipelines.
(3) Private property.--Nothing in this section alters any
Federal, State, or local process or condition in effect on
the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary to secure
access from an owner of private property to construct the
project.
(f) Federal Judicial Review.--The cross-border facilities
described in subsection (a)(1), and the related facilities in
the United States described in the application filed with the
Department of State on September 19, 2008 (as supplemented
and amended), that are approved by this section, and any
permit, right-of-way, or other action taken to construct or
complete the project pursuant to Federal law, shall only be
subject to judicial review on direct appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. HOEVEN. This is an amendment that would provide for approval of
the Keystone Pipeline project. Congress has, under the commerce clause
of the Constitution, express authority to regulate commerce with
foreign countries. That provides the very clear constitutional
authority for Congress to approve the Keystone Pipeline project. That
is something we absolutely need to do.
Today there will be a very clear choice. There will be a very clear
choice for the Members of the Senate. Make no mistake, I do not want to
leave any doubt. This is a clear choice. My amendment provides that the
Keystone Pipeline project will move forward, authorized by Congress. It
is very clear that all the protections, all the environmental
protections are incorporated, as has been provided over 3\1/2\ years--
3\1/2\ years this project has been under review by the EPA, by the
Department of State, by this administration. They have gone through not
one but two environmental impact statement processes.
They have met all the environmental requirements. Our legislation
incorporates all that and in addition provides whatever time is
necessary for rerouting the pipeline through the State of Nebraska.
Here is a schematic of the project. The one issue in terms of the

[[Page S1516]]

routing was through the State of Nebraska. This legislation provides
whatever time is necessary for the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality to work with State, to work with EPA, and reroute the pipeline
through the State of Nebraska.
So my point is, we incorporate all necessary environmental safeguards
into the project. But it authorizes that the project, after 3\1/2\
years, can go forward. So I would like to talk for just a minute about
why that is so important. Because there is another amendment, an
alternative that has been presented by Senator Wyden. That amendment--
let me be clear. That amendment will block this project. That amendment
will block this project. Let there be no confusion.
The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment will advance the project. The
amendment that is being put forward by my esteemed colleague Senator
Wyden as a Democratic alternative, that will block the project. This is
a clear choice. Nobody should be confused.
Gas prices. This chart is a few days old. So it is a little bit
behind the curve. But since this administration took office, gas prices
have gone from $1.85 a gallon--more than doubled--to $3.70 a gallon.
This is a little bit old, so the national average is actually higher.
The last time I checked it was $3.76 a gallon, going up. So it is
probably higher than that today. That is from AAA.
The projections are that gasoline prices will be $4 a gallon by
Memorial Day and possibly more than $5 a gallon later this summer. That
means every American is paying that at the pump. They are paying that
at the pump. That is affecting our American consumers. That is
affecting our businesses. That is affecting our economy.
What is the administration doing about it? What is Congress doing
about it? The Obama administration has said, when it comes to energy,
we are going to have an all-of-the-above strategy. I agree with that.
We should have an all-of-the-above strategy. But the point is, we
cannot just say it. We have to do it. We cannot just say it. We have to
do it. The administration, at this point, not only are they just saying
it and not doing it, they are, in fact, blocking it. I am giving you as
clear an example as I can think of. I do not know how it could be any
clearer that they are blocking energy development in our country.
This pipeline project would bring 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil
to our country. That is more than 700,000 barrels a day from Canada.
That is more than 100,000 barrels a day from my home State of North
Dakota and our sister State Montana--830,000 barrels a day of product
coming to our refineries.
The administration has said no to this project. They continue to say
no to the project. They have approved this portion of it. That does not
bring one single drop of product to our country. So I do not know. They
are kind of confused about exactly what they are doing, but they
continue to block this project. So that means 830,000 barrels a day
that we have to get from the Middle East. Everybody knows what is going
on in the Middle East. They have incredible turmoil. They have
incredible tension in the Middle East. Iran may close the Strait of
Hormuz; they have threatened to do that. As a result, crude oil prices
continue to go up and consumers continue to pay more at the pump.
So in the face of all that, in the face of real hardship to working
Americans, the administration is saying no to this project. They are
saying no to my home State of North Dakota. They are saying no to
Montana. They are saying, no, we are not going to allow them to build
this project that gets that product to market and no to Canada, saying
we are not going to allow them to bring that oil into the United
States, instead they are going to have to send it to China and we are
going to get oil from the Middle East and our consumers are going to
continue to pay higher prices.
Again, make no mistake. This choice today is a choice. It is a choice
whether we vote for an amendment to move forward with this project or
whether we vote for an amendment to block the project. Again, there
should be no confusion about that.
Why would the administration hold up this project? Why in the world,
with gas prices we know going to $4, maybe $5 a gallon, why in the
world would anyone oppose the project? The opponents have put forward
three arguments. So let's go through them. Let's go through them and
see if they hold water. Let's see if they pass muster. Let's see if
they make sense.
The first argument is that somehow this pipeline is going to leak.
Now here is the route. Somehow we will build this pipeline that is
going to leak. But we built a sister project that is working just fine.
There have been no underground leaks in that project. While building
it, there were minimal leaks as they put it together, and that was in
the normal course of construction. But there have been no other ground
leaks from this sister pipeline. It is working fine. So why would this
one be a big concern about leaking? It doesn't make much sense.
If you don't buy that, just look at this chart and the network of
pipelines in this country that carries oil and gas. There are thousands
of pipelines, millions of miles of pipeline right now operating in this
country right through the very region through which the Keystone XL
Pipeline would pass. But somehow this one is a problem and these
thousands are not? That is a reason to say no, after 3\1/2\ years? Come
on. That doesn't pass anybody's test, and it doesn't make any sense.
The second argument that has been put forward is that the crude oil
will come from Canada, and it will be then exported to China; we won't
use it in the United States; and it won't help with gas prices. For
starters, let's use some common sense on that one. I am pretty sure if
we don't build the pipeline, it is for sure going to China. That is
just flat-out common sense, for starters.
Even beyond that, the Department of Energy for this administration
did a study in June of last year. In that study, they said the oil will
be used in this country, and it will--not ``may'' but ``will''--lower
gas prices on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. I had
Secretary Chu in front of me at one of our hearings, and he
acknowledged that, in fact, that is what the Department of Energy of
this administration provided--that the product will be used here, that
we are going to need more crude, and it will lower gas prices. Of
course, that just stands to reason, doesn't it? If we are importing 30
percent of our oil from the Middle East today, obviously, we are going
to continue to need crude from outside our borders.
Let's go to the third argument I have heard against the pipeline
project, which is that Canada should not produce oil in the Canadian
oil sands. The reason: Greenhouse gas emissions are 6 percent higher
than conventional, and that the excavating process has a negative
impact on the boreal forest.
Let's deal with the real situation, the current situation. The
current situation is that 80 percent of the development in the Canadian
oil sands is in situ--80 percent. What does that mean? That means
drilling--not excavating but drilling--like we do in the United States.
So you have about the same footprint in gas emissions as conventional
drilling. Those arguments don't hold muster.
Here we are faced with a very clear choice. Do we go ahead and get
oil from our closest friends and trading partner, Canada, or say no to
them and have them send it to China? Do we reduce our dependence on
Middle Eastern oil and reduce the price of gas for hard-working
American consumers? How about national security? Would you rather rely
on oil from the Middle East or from Canada? Would you rather have oil
produced here, in North Dakota, Montana, and in Canada, or would you
rather get it from the Middle East?
I know how Americans will answer that question. I am looking forward
to seeing how the Senate answers that question and how the
administration answers that question.
Again, this is a clear choice. These amendments are clear. They are
not similar. One is for the project; the other is against the project.
The amendment that my esteemed colleague has put forward, the Democrat
alternative, will block the project. It says after 3\1/2\ years of
study, start over. After 3\1/2\ years of studying this project, start
over.
What does that mean? Another 3\1/2\ years before we build it or
another 5

[[Page S1517]]

years? How long do we have to study vital infrastructure projects
before we can build them?
Do you think that might be one of the problems with our economy? Do
you think that might be one of the problems with energy development?
That is where it starts, by saying: TransCanada, start over, after 3\1/
2\ years.
Then it adds additional impediments. What are they? Well, it says,
for starters, none of the crude and none of the refined product can be
exported from this country--not one drop. We cannot export any of it.
The reality is there are refined products that we don't even use in
this country. You can't. They are some of the coking products, and so
on and so forth. There isn't demand or we cannot use them. If the
refineries cannot sell them, they have to recoup that revenue stream.
How? When they sell gasoline and diesel in our country. That pushes
gasoline prices higher when they are already going higher by the day.
Does that make sense to anybody? I don't think so.
Another impediment in the legislation is that not one penny of the
inputs can come from outside the United States, even though 75 percent
of the steel and 90 percent of all of the other materials in this
multibillion-dollar project, paid for by private enterprise--75 percent
of the steel and 90 percent of the other inputs come from North
America. But that is not good enough. We are going to say every single
penny of the inputs has to be bought in the United States. Of course,
the companies cannot do that because they have already bought a lot of
the steel and other materials. It is just a way to block the project.
Think about that absurd level of protectionism. Are we really going
to grow our economy, create a lot of good jobs with that kind of
protectionism? We cannot import anything and we cannot export anything,
we are going to grow and expand and diversify this American economy and
put people to work, and we are going to raise income with that
approach? I don't think so.
Again, I go back to where I started. We have a clear choice to make,
a very clear choice. We can stand with the people of America, stand
with the workers, with the families, with the small business, and we
can work to grow our economy and create jobs, and we can work to
strengthen our national security or we can choose to say: No, we are
going to continue to rely on oil from the Middle East. We are not going
to increase supply, and we are not only going to turn down Canada, we
are going to turn down our States such as North Dakota and Montana and
say we would rather get that oil from the Middle East.
Today we have a clear choice about building a better energy future
for our country, more jobs, and more security. I ask my colleagues to
vote for the amendment I have put forward, to move the Keystone
Pipeline project authority forward so they can advance the project, and
vote against the amendment offered as a Democratic alternative, which
will block the project.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 1817

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I have filed an alternative to the
amendment offered by my friend from North Dakota. I ask unanimous
consent to call up amendment No. 1817.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 1817.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure the expeditious processing of Keystone XL permit
applications consistent with current law, prohibit the export of crude
oil produced in Canada and transported by the Keystone XL pipeline and
related facilities unless the prohibition is waived by the President,
and require the use of United States iron, steel, and manufactured
goods in the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and related
facilities with certain exceptions)

At the end of subtitle E of title I of division A, add the
following:

SEC. __. KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.

(a) Administration.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise specifically provided
in this section, nothing in this section affects any
applicable Federal requirements in connection with the
Keystone XL pipeline (including facilities for the import of
crude oil and other hydrocarbons at the United States-Canada
Border at Phillips County, Montana).
(2) Expeditious analyses and permit decisions.--In
evaluating any new permit applications that may be submitted
related to the Keystone XL pipeline and facilities described
in paragraph (1) or in carrying out the activities described
in this section, the President or a designee of the President
shall--
(A) act as expeditiously as practicable and, to the maximum
extent practicable and consistent with current law, use
existing analyses relating to those pipeline and facilities,
including the environmental impact statement issued by the
Department of State regarding the Keystone XL pipeline on
August 26, 2011; and
(B) issue a decision on any permit application not later
than 90 days after the date on which all analyses and other
actions required by current law and applicable Executive
Orders are completed.
(b) Prohibition on Exports.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), no crude oil
produced in Canada and transported by the Keystone XL
pipeline or facilities described in subsection (a)(1), or
petroleum products derived from the crude oil, may be
exported from the United States.
(2) Waivers.--The President may grant a waiver from the
application of paragraph (1) if the President--
(A) determines that the waiver is necessary as the result
of--
(i) national security; or
(ii) a natural or manmade disaster; or
(B) makes an express finding that the exports described in
paragraph (1)--
(i) will not diminish the total quantity or quality of
petroleum available in the United States; and
(ii) are in the national interest of the United States.
(c) Use of United States Iron, Steel, and Manufactured
Goods.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (4), the
construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of the
Keystone XL pipeline and facilities described in subsection
(a)(1) shall not be permitted unless all of the iron, steel,
and manufactured goods used for the pipeline and facilities
are produced in the United States.
(2) Nonapplication.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the
President or a delegate finds that--
(A) applying paragraph (1) would be inconsistent with the
public interest;
(B) iron, steel, and the applicable manufactured goods are
not produced in the United States in sufficient and
reasonably available quantities with a satisfactory quality;
or
(C) inclusion of iron, steel, and manufactured goods
produced in the United States will increase the cost of the
overall pipeline and facilities by more than 25 percent.
(3) Rationale.--If the President or a delegate determines
that it is necessary to waive the application of paragraph
(1) based on a finding under paragraph (2), the President or
delegate shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed
written justification for the waiver.
(4) International agreements.--This subsection shall be
applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations
under international agreements.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to speak about the highway bill.
I want to start by first thanking the chairmen and ranking members of
the EPW Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Banking Committee,
all of whom worked to put in place some reforms this bill reflects.
There is a component of this bill, though, where work has not been done
in a satisfactory manner, and that is actually paying for this bill.
The Senator from North Carolina, who is in the chair, has been
involved in many discussions about deficit reduction. We have had, ad
nauseam, meetings about how to get our spending under control. Last
year, after Erskine Bowles, from her State, and Alan Simpson came
together with the Bowles-Simpson report, there was a pretty big effort
in this body to try to adopt the principles laid out therein. As a
matter of fact, 32 Republicans and 32 Democrats sent a letter to the
President asking him to embrace those principles.
Later on there was another effort by a supercommittee that was put in
place. Numbers of people on both sides of the aisle wrote letters
asking that this supercommittee do something outstanding for our
country and reduce the deficit by $4 trillion, if possible.
My point is that there has been a lot of bipartisan effort toward
reducing the deficit. Yet the only thing we have done thus far--the
only thing that had any meat on it at all was the Budget Control Act,
which was passed on August 2. The Budget Control Act was passed in a
trade, if you will. At that time, the country's debt was beyond the
debt ceiling that was allowed by law. So in order to raise the debt
ceiling, there was an agreement reached by

[[Page S1518]]

this body to lower the amount of spending that was going to take place
over the next 2 years by an equal amount.
We passed on August 2 of last year the Budget Control Act. That act
laid out specifically what we were supposed to do to be responsible in
reducing our spending. Again, this is something that was passed in a
very bipartisan way.
As part of that process, because we have not passed a budget in some
time, there was a budget resolution--there was a deeming process that
was put into place as part of the Budget Control Act. Chairman Conrad
laid that down right after the fact, and we are governed by that deemed
resolution in this body.
Unbelievably, we have this very popular program. The highway bill is
something people on both sides of the aisle strongly support. I want to
see a highway bill. I was the mayor of a city, and I understand and
know how important highway infrastructure and transit spending is to
this country. Unbelievably, with a very highly supported bill, what
this body is doing is already violating the spending levels that were
deemed by virtue of the Budget Control Act passing and a budget
resolution that came thereafter.

What I say is that this body already--7 months after this Nation, and
actually the world, watched as we wrestled with our debt ceiling--they
watched us pass the Budget Control Act. They knew it had a deeming
process that took place, where a budget resolution was deemed. We are
already in violation of that.
All I am doing is asking the Members of this body--so many of us, in
a bipartisan way, have risen and said we have to do these things to get
our spending under control, to control deficits. So many of us took
tremendous heat in voting for this debt ceiling that took place last
August. Yet to this body, in passing a very popular bill that we would
think would cause us to want to prioritize and say: OK, we do need to
spend money on highways, so therefore let's spend less on something
else, this is a very important piece of legislation. I thank the
chairman of the EPW Committee for the reforms that have been put in
place and the way their committee worked in a bipartisan way. These
comments this morning have nothing to do with the work the EPW
Committee did.

The fact is, we are not paying for this piece of legislation in the
appropriate way, per the guidelines we laid down as a part of the
process put in place by the Budget Control Act. To me, that is
absolutely irresponsible, especially when you look at the spending
levels that are above that deemed budget resolution. So at this time I
want to offer a point of order. I know the chairman is back, and I have
been filibustering slightly until she got here.
Madam President, the pending measure, S. 1813, as amended, will
exceed the aggregate level of budget authority and outlays for fiscal
year 2012 as set out in the most recent budget resolution deemed by the
Budget Control Act of 2011; therefore, I raise a point of order under
section 311(a)2(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, with great respect to my friend, and I
appreciate his opinion on this, this bill is paid for. It is paid for
through the highway trust fund, and it is paid for through bipartisan
work in the Finance Committee, which has worked overtime to come up
with a plan to ensure this trust fund has enough in it to support the
work we need to do to fix our bridges and our highways and to support
1.8 million jobs and more than 11,000 businesses out there, as well as
the real possibility of creating an additional 1 million jobs with an
enhanced program we call TIFIA, which leverages Federal funds.
So, Madam President, with due respect but pursuant to section 904 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of
applicable budget resolutions, 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 and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

Amendment No. 1785

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment of the junior Senator from
Tennessee would lower the nondefense discretionary cap established in
the Budget Control Act by $20 billion in order to offset transfers from
the general fund necessary to replenish the highway trust fund. This
amendment is a clear violation of the Budget Control Act we agreed on
less than a year ago. In simple terms, the amendment would impose a 4-
percent cut to nondefense discretionary spending in order to pay for a
shortfall in mandatory spending.
I wish to remind my colleagues that discretionary spending will rise
at a rate less than the rate of inflation over the next decade, and
that is according to CBO. Mandatory spending, on the other hand, is
slated to rise at three times the rate of inflation. Clearly, if there
is a desire to offset one area of mandatory spending, the place to find
such an offset should be on the very same mandatory side of the
spending ledger.
In an op-ed published in the Washington Post yesterday, Senator
Corker said that finding an offset for the highway trust fund was a
small step toward fiscal responsibility and that we should all support
this amendment. But in the opening portion of the editorial, the
Senator noted the solid bipartisan support in the Senate for a balanced
approach to real deficit reduction. This balanced approach would
include revenues, mandatory spending, and discretionary spending.
I agree with the Senator that only a balanced approach would truly
solve our long-term challenges. Yet, in this amendment, what do we
find? Cuts. Nothing but cuts to nondefense discretionary spending. No
revenues, no mandatory spending, just the same approach we have seen
again and again from our Republican colleagues--cut discretionary now,
and we will do other things at a time to be determined later. Even the
Ryan budget did nothing to Social Security or Medicare for 10 years.
But the cuts to discretionary spending and to Medicaid Programs that
save the lives of hundreds of thousands of elderly and children living
in poverty took effect immediately, not in 10 years. And that is the
approach of this amendment.
Clearly, there was an opportunity here to present a balanced
approach. The Senator could have proposed modest cuts to spending, with
increased revenue and changes in the rules that would lead to a fully
funded highway trust fund for years to come. But that would require
hard work and compromise, and this amendment requires neither.
Across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending are easy. This
amendment is one page. Change one number, and that is it--we can all go
home and say what a great job we have done cutting down. But the truth
is, when it comes time to implement these cuts, agencies will be forced
to look at reductions in force, at deferring desperately needed
maintenance and repairs, and if you were considering upgrading your
technology to better serve the American people, you can forget about
it. Four percent is no small matter, coming on top of flat budgets for
the past 2 years and with no increase for inflation or population
growth.
As with so many amendments we have seen this past year, nondefense
spending is again targeted not because it is good policy but because it
is an easy policy. As I have done on each of these past occasions, I
once again urge my colleagues to reject these unreasonable and reckless
cuts and to vote no on the Corker amendment.
Madam President, if I may, I would like to speak on another
amendment.

Amendment No. 1738

Madam President, in September of 2011, this Senate rejected an
amendment very similar to the one offered today by the junior Senator
from Oklahoma. At that time, Members saw this amendment as a backdoor
attempt to remove more from discretionary accounts than had been agreed
through the deficit reduction deal. Nothing has changed in the
intervening 6 months, and we should again reject this amendment for the
same reason: It violates

[[Page S1519]]

the deficit reduction agreement reached last fall.
Senator Coburn claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce
duplicative programs. In reality, the amendment would require a $10
billion reduction in existing discretionary caps regardless of whether
there is actually $10 billion in discretionary savings from
consolidating duplicative programs that can be identified only by the
OMB. Further, the $10 billion figure is completely arbitrary and almost
certainly will not be reached. In fact, there is no methodology or
specificity that verifies that there is, in fact, $10 billion in
discretionary savings to be found.
The Senator's amendment cites two reports from the Government
Accountability Office--the GAO--on how programs that may be duplicative
or somewhat duplicative could be streamlined or eliminated. What the
Senator fails to mention is that the GAO, in its recent report, notes
that on 81 issues it raised last year, the Congress or the executive
branch has begun to respond to all but 17 of the issues raised. This
amendment also ignores the fact that the majority of the items on which
no action has been taken are unrelated to discretionary spending but
cover revenues and mandatory spending.

Moreover, in reviewing the details of the tens of billions that GAO
indicates might be saved by eliminating duplication, it is apparent in
those areas in which GAO has provided somewhat auditable estimates that
the bulk of the savings are in three categories. These categories are
raising revenues, cutting mandatory spending, and cutting defense. For
example, 18 recommendations in 2 reports would come by cutting defense
programs, including military retirement, health care, and military
compensation. Furthermore, $2.5 billion in annual savings would come
from Social Security and at least $10 billion from eliminating tax
expenditures or making other changes to the Tax Code.
Madam President, my colleagues on the other side have not
demonstrated any zeal for cutting defense or raising revenues. Frankly,
neither side has expressed much willingness to cut mandatory spending.
Instead of targeting tax increases or mandatory spending, this
amendment once again goes after the easy target, which is domestic
discretionary spending--the same target that is attacked time after
time even though it only represents 15 percent of Federal spending.
So we have once again an amendment offered by the Senator from
Oklahoma which has become a familiar pattern in the Senate. On its
face, the amendment might seem to have some value, but the details of
the amendment show that the amendment is a Trojan horse--a disguise
with a goal of indiscriminate cutting of discretionary spending without
any real base or justification. In other words, this is simply another
attempt to circumvent the deal we reached less than a year ago on
spending cuts for fiscal year 2013. Understanding that Senator Coburn
doesn't believe those cuts went deep enough into discretionary
spending, I and many of my colleagues believe they went too far. But in
the end, a deal is a deal. We must honor the agreement reached by
leadership and signed into law by the President. Is it really in the
best interests of the American people or this institution to force vote
after vote on discretionary spending levels because one side did not
get everything they wanted in the Budget Control Act?

Clearly, the duplicate programs targeted in this amendment are merely
the frosting on the cake of spending cuts to any number of programs of
which the Senator does not approve. But let's be clear--the objective
here is not better government, it is cutting discretionary funding to
programs that Congress supports, hiding under the guise of good
government.
Setting aside the real intent of this amendment, the irony of the
Coburn amendment is that the amendment itself is redundant and
duplicative of existing rescission authority which has been in the law
since 1974, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974. This act has been successful in addressing this very situation.
Setting aside this irony, the problem with this amendment is that by
circumventing a well-thought-out process that recognizes the checks and
balances between the executive branch and the legislative branch, it
simply turns over all decisionmaking in terms of which programs are
duplicative to the Office of Management and Budget with absolutely no
deference to Congress and the programs authorized by Congress.
The Senator from Oklahoma is constant in his efforts to weaken
Congress's power by shifting our responsibilities to the executive
branch, and I will remain constant in pointing out to my colleagues why
this is a bad idea. The power of the purse is the single most important
check on the power of the executive branch. Every time we chip away at
that power, we chip away at the Founding Fathers' vision of how our
government should operate. In addition, we are also disregarding our
accountability to the American public. The Congress should be held
accountable for the tax dollars we appropriate and the tax dollars we
rescind.
In closing, we should reject this amendment because it makes no sense
to reinvent the wheel--and in this case, an inferior one--when we are
trying to address duplication in government missions. And we should
reject it because it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the
Budget Control Act which was signed into law just 8 months ago.
Finally, we should oppose this amendment because it fails to attack the
real culprits of our economic woes--revenues and mandatory spending.
Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Coburn amendment.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes equally divided prior to each vote; that all after the first
vote be 10-minute votes; that the Baucus amendment relative to rural
schools be listed as No. 1825; further, that if a budget point of order
is raised against the underlying bill and a motion to waive the budget
point of order is made, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the
motion to waive occur today within the sequence of votes this afternoon
at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation
with the Republican leader; that the time until 2 p.m. be equally
divided between the two leaders or their designees; finally, that
Senators on the majority side be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes
each, and they would be in this order: Lautenberg, Landrieu, Wyden,
Stabenow, and Merkley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Indiana is recognized.

Indiana Tornadoes

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today in support of American jobs
and national security.
First, I would like to take a moment to express my condolences to
families who have lost loved ones in the tornadoes that struck Indiana
and other States on March 2.
Last weekend Senator Coats and I toured the damaged areas of southern
Indiana and met with people who are dedicated to a full recovery from
total devastation. I wish to pay special tribute to advanced
preparedness by the schools and many others that prevented an even
greater loss of life. Also, our gratitude goes out to the first
responders who are doing amazing work, in some cases while facing their
own devastating circumstances.
I am returning this weekend to encourage the continuing progress
toward recovery, and I am working closely with Governor Daniels and
other State officials to coordinate Federal assistance that is
appropriate given the level of devastation.

Amendment No. 1537

Madam President, I rise in support of American jobs and national
security in a very strong way and to encourage my colleagues to support
the Keystone XL Pipeline amendment I have offered with Senators Hoeven,
Vitter, and others. The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment No. 1537 mirrors
legislation that 46 Senators from both parties have cosponsored. Let me
give special thanks to John Hoeven for his partnership and his
leadership in this effort.
My own advocacy for the Keystone XL pipeline derives from its
benefits for national security, job creation, and economic growth.
Keystone XL will reduce our vulnerability to oil market

[[Page S1520]]

manipulation by unfriendly foreign regimes, thereby giving our military
and diplomats more flexibility in addressing national security
priorities such as stopping Iran's nuclear weapons capability. Keystone
XL will create thousands of private sector American jobs almost
immediately and without taxpayer subsidy. The more than 7 billion
private sector dollars invested for Keystone XL will benefit American
workers far beyond those installing the pipeline.
Moreover, analysis from the Department of Energy just last year found
that oil supplies coming via Keystone XL would most likely lower gas
prices.
President Obama's denial of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is not in
the national interest. Americans are screaming for more affordable oil
supplies. The irony is that Democratic Senate leadership is calling for
more oil from Saudi Arabia even as they continue to oppose oil from
Canada.
The Obama Administration's failure to approve Keystone XL
detrimentally impacts Americans today. If the State Department had
conducted its review in a timely manner of 18 to 24 months, the
southern half of Keystone XL would already have been in operation,
relieving the bottleneck currently keeping more affordable U.S. oil
away from consumers. The remainder of Keystone XL would have been in
operation any day now, so today's markets, tighter from supply
reductions in Iran and Sudan, would have had reliable sources online
soon. We should not delay needed market liquidity any longer.
The Democratic alternative to our legislation would add more delay to
American jobs, enable a large government overreach into private
industry decisions, and jeopardize the jobs of American refinery
workers.
It is not the normal course of events that Congress would be acting
on a single private sector project. As ranking member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, for months I encouraged timely evaluation
of this the project on the merits, even while sharing my own support
for its completion. Historically, pipeline applications have been
treated in a technocratic matter by both Republican and Democratic
administrations. For that reason, Congress has not generally been
compelled to assert its constitutional authority over border crossings
for oil pipelines as we have for bridges, ports, and immigration.
Regrettably, actions by the Obama Administration to first delay and
then deny the Keystone XL application point to election year politics
overwhelming the need for objective consideration of the national
interest.
In that circumstance, last December 89 Senators voted to pass into
law the Lugar-Hoeven-Vitter legislation, S. 1932, which required
President Obama to conclude more than 3 years of analysis. In other
words, we tried to give President Obama a chance to finish the job.
Immediately upon passage, the White House complained that they did not
have sufficient time to make a decision. In reality, the Obama
Administration issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on August
26, 2011, and pondered the Keystone XL application for 1,217 days
before rejecting it in January.
The lengthy delay in permitting Keystone XL is incongruous with our
country's dire need to diversify oil sources and promote job creation.
The first Keystone pipeline's permit was granted in 693 days. The Obama
Administration approved the Alberta Clipper permit after an 829 day
review.
Incredibly, even after 1,217 days the Obama Administration still was
unable to determine the national interest, even at this time when oil
markets are the tightest they have been in years, gas prices are
soaring, and unemployment remains at 8.3%.
The only reason that has been given for delay is that the Keystone XL
route through Nebraska is being shifted to avoid some sensitive areas.
Benefiting from the diligent efforts of Senator Johanns and his staff,
the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment protects that state process, giving
Nebraskans all the time they need while not unduly holding up
construction in other states. The Federal government need not tell
Nebraskans where to put the pipeline on their territory; our
legislation trusts Nebraskans to do what is best for Nebraska.
Mr. President, it may surprise some colleagues to learn that it is
not the Federal government's role to decide when an oil pipeline should
be built or where it will be placed. The primary Federal role is to
ensure safety and environmental standards are met. Our legislation
contains safety and environmental requirements in excess of current law
and already endorsed by 89 Senators in December. With our bill,
Keystone XL would be perhaps the most advanced oil pipeline in the
country.
It is only by virtue of crossing our international border with Canada
that Keystone XL came into the unfortunate situation of requiring
Presidential permission. Our legislation removes the need for an
international border-crossing permit for Keystone XL, which currently
is required only by Executive Order and not U.S. law. The pipeline
could enter the United States at Phillips County, Montana, and nowhere
else. In doing so, it recognizes not only that trade in reliable and
affordable oil with our closest economic and strategic ally is in the
national interest, it also recognizes that in large part the U.S. and
Canadian energy systems are integrated to our mutual advantage.
The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter bill resets evaluation and permitting for all
portions of the pipeline to where it was before November 11, 2011, when
the President announced he would delay a decision for more than a year
until after the 2012 election. The Final Environmental Impact Statement
issued by the State Department would be reinstated, along with
associated Federal permissions. Keystone XL would still be required to
go through regular order in receiving permits that it had not received
prior to that date, including from the Army Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Land Management.
Importantly, our legislation recognizes the vital role of individual
states in approving oil pipelines. Keystone XL must have all State
permissions required by the States that it proposes to cross. That also
applies to eminent domain, which is the jurisdiction of the States when
it comes to oil pipelines.
I recognize that there is opposition to Keystone XL among certain
segments of the environmental community. I take these concerns
seriously. That is why our legislation contains perhaps the strongest
environmental and safety safeguards for a pipeline ever put into U.S.
law. It reflects work of the State Department, the Transportation
Department, and other Agencies that identified expansive and specific
requirements for pipeline construction and operation. TransCanada has
pledged to follow those guidelines, which would have the force of law
through our legislation.
In the course of debate we will likely hear a number of Democratic
colleagues attest their support for pipelines and for Keystone XL in
particular. Surely more will profess their concern for the thousands of
workers that would earn incomes with Keystone XL, as well as for the
numerous unions that support them. I have no doubt that many Senators,
regardless of party affiliation, share those sentiments. Yet,
sentiments mean little if in the next breath they oppose reasonable
legislation we have offered to make it happen, namely the Hoeven-Lugar-
Vitter bill.
I understand that there can be reasonable questions, even concerns on
a project of this size. I, along with Senator Hoeven and other
cosponsors, have repeatedly offered to Democratic colleagues to hear
any genuine concerns with our legislation and to negotiate changes that
would earn their votes. Those offers have been refused. Instead, the
Democratic leadership has offered a last minute side-by-side amendment
that would add more delay, jeopardize the prospect of any Keystone XL
jobs being created, and undermine the job prospects of American
refinery workers.

I am hopeful that Democratic colleagues will join me in supporting
jobs and energy security by voting in favor the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter
amendment. Voting against the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment while
simultaneously refusing to negotiate is a vote against Keystone XL,
against the private sector jobs it will produce, against the chance it
brings for lower gasoline prices, and against the relief it can provide
from our dangerous dependence on

[[Page S1521]]

oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.
Mr. President, in my judgment, there is no doubt that the Keystone XL
pipeline would benefit United States national security, energy
reliability, economic growth, and job creation. It would be the most
advanced pipeline in the United States, thus minimizing environmental
risks.
United States dependence on foreign oil is one of our foremost
national security vulnerabilities. Iran's threat to shatter global
economic recovery and splinter allied opposition to their nuclear
weapons program by using their oil exports as leverage is just the most
visible example today. The dollars we use to buy oil from autocratic
regimes complicate our own national security policies by entrenching
corruption, financing regional aggression and repression, and inflating
Defense Department costs. Crude oil from Canada, North Dakota, and
Montana delivered by Keystone XL will replace a substantial part of
future imports of heavy oil from Venezuela and the Middle East.
The less we are directly dependent on oil from unstable and
unfriendly regimes, the more flexibility we will have in diplomatic and
defense options. Consider, for example, some of the flashpoints in oil-
rich countries over the more than three years that the Obama
Administration examined the Keystone XL pipeline application: Iran
threats against Israel, the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. Navy;
Venezuelan antagonism; war in Libya; hostilities in Iraq; a stalemate
in Sudan; unrest in Russia; the Arab Spring; strained relations with
Saudi Arabia; violence in Nigeria; and the ongoing threat of terrorism
against energy infrastructure.
In contrast, the only uncertainty in oil trade with Canada has been
the U.S. indecision over Keystone XL. This delay has caused the
Canadian government to openly question whether the U.S. is a reliable
market and whether it should devote new oil capacity to supplying
China's voracious appetite for energy.
No single project or policy is a cure-all, but having more
independence from unstable regimes will give more options to avoid
being drawn into oil-driven conflicts and to diplomatically advance
national security objectives. For example, among the most significant
challenges to enforcing strong sanctions on Iranian oil is concern over
high gas prices driven by a weakening global supply margin. More than 3
years of bureaucratic delay on Keystone XL means that the Obama
Administration has prevented Keystone XL oil from helping Americans hit
by high gas prices today. Approval now would send a strong signal to
markets of coming supply, and with our legislation, Keystone XL would
be in place to help address future emergencies.
Having built-in first access to Canadian crude via pipeline is a
strategic and economic advantage when global oil markets are under
threat of shortage, as powerfully illustrated by Iranian threats
against 20 percent of world oil that traverses the Strait of Hormuz.
The global oil market has fundamentally changed. Booming demand by
China, India, and other emerging economies is quickly absorbing new
supplies. Old oil fields are running low and new ones are expensive and
harder to find. World markets are likely to remain tight for the
foreseeable future, which means that supply disruptions due to
political, terrorist, or weather events can lead to shortages much more
easily than in the past. Tight global oil markets will invite threats
to supplies for years to come, whether by Iran or other hostile actors.
Having oil flow to the United States, instead of to China, via Keystone
XL would give Americans the benefits of first access in times of
trouble.
In Indiana job creation is the number one priority. The situation is
urgent for families struck by our 9 percent unemployment rate, and many
more are underemployed. Having the private sector willing to inject
more than $7 billion into the economy for the Keystone XL pipeline is a
tremendous vehicle for putting people back to work, and it will have a
multiplier effect for economic growth. Moreover, it is estimated that
approximately 90 percent of the money Americans send to Canada for
imports is returned to the United States, thereby encouraging more
trade beyond the energy sector.
Keystone XL is perhaps the largest private infrastructure project
available for construction almost immediately. It is expected to
directly create 20,000 jobs, particularly in the hard-hit construction
and manufacturing sectors. In addition, tens--if not hundreds--of
thousands of other American workers will have their jobs bolstered
through the supply chain. Many of these are small American businesses
that manufacture specialty parts or provide services.
Already Hoosiers working at Koontz-Wagner in South Bend, IN, have
benefited from some of the $800 million that has already been spent for
Keystone XL supplies. As a subcontractor for Siemens, Koontz-Wagner
last week finished the last of 78 equipment shelters for Keystone XL.
The largest of the shelters measures 62 feet long, 14 feet wide, and
weighs about 8,500 pounds. Manufacture of the 78 units for Keystone XL
generated 140,000 ``man hours'' of work, allowing 50 60 new employees
to be hired. It is the single largest contract for that company in
South Bend. The people of Koontz-Wagner are fortunate that they are an
early contractor. Meanwhile, thousands of additional workers are
waiting for their chance.
Other Indiana firms stand to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline. I
visited Endress+Hauser in Greenwood where they already have
manufactured $600,000 worth of flow and temperature devices,
Caterpillar in Lafayette where they manufacture the engines for the
heavy equipment developing the oil sands, and Fairfield Manufacturing
in Lafayette where they manufacture large gears and other components of
the Caterpillar machines, in addition to other industrial machinery.
More than 2,400 American companies in 49 States, including over 100
in Indiana, supply goods and services for oil sands development and
transport, according to industry estimates. Virtually all of these
American companies stand to benefit from robust trade with Canada, and
stand to lose from Canada turning its trade preferences toward Asia.
An important testament to the job-creating opportunities of Keystone
XL is the strong support of several unions, such as the AFL CIO
Building and Construction Trades Department, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of
the U.S. & Canada, International Union of Operating Engineers,
Laborers' International Union of North America, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers.
Private sector job creation must be our top domestic priority. Some
argue that the estimate of 20,000 new jobs from Keystone XL
construction is too high even while they admit that many thousands of
new jobs will be created. Even a smaller number of new private sector
jobs are important gains during this time of 8.3 percent unemployment
nationally and 9 percent in Indiana. Whether it is a pipeline, a road,
or a house, it is the nature of the construction industry that jobs
created are temporary in the sense that once a single project finishes,
another needs to take its place. A benefit of a project as large as
Keystone XL is that the temporary employment is actually quite long and
desperately needed by workers and their families.
Keystone XL is privately financed. No taxpayer money is needed to
bring these jobs--all that is needed is for government to get out of
the way.
In my judgment, further delaying these benefits is not in the
national interest. With the firm go-ahead offered by our legislation,
Americans can get to work almost immediately in manufacturing goods and
in building the pipeline.
Kicking the can down the road is not simply a delay in construction.
Delay opens more rounds of duplicative review with no definite
conclusion that the pipeline will be built. Meanwhile, the Government
of Canada is racing ahead with plans to export crude to China. Recent
high-level agreements between Canada and China demonstrate no
reluctance for oil trade through Puget Sound and across the Pacific.
The national imperative to reduce dependence on foreign oil from
adversarial and unreliable regimes is not a partisan issue. Increased
development

[[Page S1522]]

of domestic energy resources, including domestic oil, alternative
liquid fuels from biomass and coal, and innovation for fuel efficiency
and electrification are all needed. I have offered my Practical Energy
Plan, REFRESH farm bill, and Open Fuels Standard with Senator Cantwell
to aid in those efforts. My legislation, if implemented, would reduce
our need for foreign oil by 6.3 million barrels per day by 2030--more
than two-thirds of current imports.
It is ultimately the expected resilience of higher average global oil
prices and technological breakthroughs that will determine the success
of alternatives, not the presence of oil pipelines. We must be
realistic: Even with rapid improvement in alternatives and efficiency
innovations, oil will continue to be an important part of our economy,
and oil from domestic sources and reliable neighbors will be more
affordable and secure than far-flung imports.
Even if we achieve domestic production and efficiency goals, we
cannot afford to ignore the source of our foreign oil. Canada is our
most reliable and safest oil trading partner. The Keystone XL Pipeline
alone could virtually eliminate the need for oil from Venezuela. Even
if in the future we do not ourselves consume all the Canadian oil
imported, having that crude in the U.S. system would give us tremendous
flexibility to deal with supply shortages caused by conflict, political
manipulation, terrorism, or natural disaster.
But perversely, opponents of the pipeline have thrown up a series of
canards against the project to distract from the overwhelming arguments
in favor of it. One such canard is that Keystone XL is intended to use
American soil to convey Canadian oil to markets abroad. The facts are
otherwise. The United States is a huge net importer of crude oil about
9 million barrels every day. It is that reality that has perverted our
national security policy for decades. Analysis from the Department of
Energy finds the likelihood of crude exports from Keystone XL to be
extremely low because U.S. refinery capacity for heavy oil is expected
to exceed supply from Canada and because transport of oil via Keystone
XL, then tanker would be considerably more expensive than domestic
Canadian export options.
Overall U.S. exports of refined products are running at an unusually
high 15 percent of total production because America's struggling
economy has sapped domestic demand, and those export levels likely will
shrink again as the economy gains steam. Simply put, we are keeping
some of America's 108,000 refinery workers, including about 2,245 in
Indiana, employed by selling at home and overseas.
Moreover, it is especially curious that the prospect of even a small
amount of exports manufactured at U.S. refineries comes under scrutiny
since President Obama has identified the doubling of U.S. exports as a
goal. According to the Department of Commerce, the President already
has the authority to prohibit petroleum exports if he deems it to be in
the national interest.
In my view, exporting a small percentage of refined products to
maintain refinery capacity is not a problem to be solved. In the event
of a global energy crisis, exports from U.S. Gulf refineries could
quickly be diverted back to American gas pumps, providing that their
source is a secure supply from the U.S. or Canada, not overseas.
Even as Democrats seek to block the prospect of even a small amount
of manufactured petroleum products from being exported, they are also
arguing to block the import of products through ``domestic content''
mandates. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a private project and does not
receive taxpayer subsidy. The Federal Government has no place in making
procurement decisions of private companies. According to TransCanada,
of the expected total procurement for Keystone XL, 98 percent is
already under contract. In other words, a domestic content requirement
may force it to violate existing contracts.
In the end, the most vigorous opposition to Keystone XL is not over
the pipeline itself; it is against further development of the Canadian
oil sands in an effort to stem greenhouse gas emissions. In considering
this issue, it is important to understand that extensive investment in
coking capacity at U.S. refineries means that oil from the oil sands
will mostly replace other heavy oil, such as that from Venezuela.
But more to the point, there is no doubt that Canada will continue to
develop the oil sands regardless of U.S. decisionmaking on Keystone XL.
The Canadians have already spent billions of dollars developing this
resource, which they see as an essential national asset and job
producer. The value of this asset will increase over time as the growth
in global populations and living standards increases the demand for
oil. Shipping the oil to the Canadian Pacific or Arctic coasts and
onward via tanker for sale to China would compound environmental risks,
while denying our country the strategic and economic benefits
associated with oil sands production.
The strong majority of American people agree with our support for the
Keystone XL Pipeline. Polling by Rasmussen and United Technologies/
National Journal clearly indicates that a majority of Americans support
the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Pew Research Center released a poll on
February 23, 2012, that found 66 percent of people who have heard about
Keystone XL support its approval, while just 23 percent oppose. These
findings are reinforced by the dozens of Hoosier citizens, mayors, and
retired service personnel who have written in favor of Keystone XL and
the Indiana State Senate that voted in unanimous support.
America's overdependence on oil imports from unstable and hostile
regimes endangers our national security and puts our warfighters and
civilian personnel at risk. It also worsens our national budget
situation, as we spend billions of dollars to ensure safe passage of
oil around the world. But today we have a dramatic opportunity to
change that energy and national security equation by building the
Keystone XL Pipeline to bring oil from Canada, our good friend, to
North Dakota and Montana and then to the gulf refineries.
Better yet, building Keystone XL, a private sector project, will
create thousands of American jobs now. Job creation is the No. 1 issue
in our Nation. The Keystone XL Pipeline is the country's largest
shovel-ready infrastructure project. President Obama had the
opportunity to create thousands of new jobs right away, plus bolster
job prospects for thousands more throughout the manufacturing supply
chain, such as our Hoosiers firms Endress+Hauser, Koontz-Wagner, and
Caterpillar. Allowing $7 billion of private economic activity should be
a no-brainer.
Incredibly, even after reviewing Keystone XL for 1,217 days and in
the midst of Iranian threats against global oil supplies and the U.S.
Navy, President Obama caved to pressure from extreme environmentalists
by rejecting Keystone XL jobs and security. The President ignored
analysis from his own Department of Energy that said oil supplies
coming via Keystone XL would most likely lower gas prices.
President Obama's rejection of Keystone XL implicitly says that the
administration prefers to send billions of dollars to unfriendly
regimes rather than expand trade with Canada. It says that Democratic
leadership prefers going hat-in-hand seeking more oil from Saudi Arabia
rather than taking control of our energy future. It is
incomprehensible. No objective standard of U.S. national security
interest could justify such a decision.
I recognize there is opposition to Keystone XL among certain segments
of the environmental community, and I take those efforts and concerns
seriously. That is why our legislation contains perhaps the strongest
environmental and safety safeguards for a pipeline ever put into U.S.
law. It ensures that the Federal Government will not interfere with
individual property rights or tell Nebraskans what to do in their own
State.
Opponents believe that by blocking the pipeline, they will stop
development of the oil sands in Alberta. That is a false hope. There is
no doubt that Canada will continue to develop the oil sands regardless
of U.S. decisionmaking on Keystone XL. The Government of Canada is
racing ahead with plans to export crude to China. Recent high-level
agreements between Canada and China demonstrate no reluctance for oil
trade through the Puget Sound and across the Pacific.

[[Page S1523]]

Others say we should encourage alternatives to oil, and greater fuel
efficiency, and I agree with that, but even under the most optimistic
scenarios, oil will continue to be an important part of our economy,
and oil from domestic sources and reliable neighbors will be more
affordable and secure than far-flung imports.
Crude oil from Keystone XL will replace heavy oil imports from
Venezuela and the Middle East. The less we depend on oil from
adversarial and unreliable regimes, the more protection Americans will
have from price spikes and shortages and the more flexibility we will
have in diplomatic and defense options in oil-rich lands.
Finally, let me say that Politico reports that President Obama is so
anti-Keystone that he is personally calling Senators to oppose our
bill. The Democratic alternative aligns with President Obama's
rejection of Keystone XL and is a massive overreach into the private
sector. Senator Wyden's bill would ultimately hurt the workers it
claims to help and would penalize America's 108,000 refinery workers
directly.
In sum, the Keystone XL Pipeline will create thousands of private
sector jobs, and it will help protect the national security interests
of the United States. It comes at no taxpayer expense, and it will
strengthen vital ties with our ally Canada. I urge my colleagues to
support the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter Keystone XL amendment.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to speak against three
Republican amendments that pose a grave threat to our health, our
children, and our environment.
The first seeks to delay and weaken new EPA standards that would
reduce the pollution produced by industrial boilers. These boilers emit
dozens of toxins, including lead, which reduces children's intelligence
levels, and dioxins, which can cause birth defects. Boilers also
release mercury, which is brain poison for children. And I ask my
colleagues here to just think for a moment how lucky you are if all of
your children are healthy and feeling good.
Under the Republican amendment, polluters will have at least 6
additional years to continue releasing life-threatening toxins into our
air. We have already waited far too long to see the health benefits
these standards would achieve. Back in 1990, both parties came together
in Congress and told the EPA to set new pollution standards by the year
2000. If we delay these standards another 6 years, our country will
suffer as many as 28,000 premature deaths. We will also see 17,000
heart attacks and more than 180,000 asthma attacks.
This amendment would also fundamentally weaken the Clean Air Act. It
forces the EPA to set the least burdensome standards for industry.
Imagine that. Instead of reducing toxins our children breathe, this
amendment orders the EPA to reduce the burden on polluters. Under this
amendment, children lose and polluters win, and that is inexcusable.
I also wish to express my strong opposition to Senator Hoeven's
Keystone XL amendment, which is nothing more than a rubberstamp for a
project that poses serious risks to our environment and public safety.
The Keystone XL Pipeline will be one of the largest pipelines outside
of Russia and China. It will be 1,700 miles long, cut through six
States, and carry nearly 1 million barrels of tar sands oil each day.
Make no mistake, the Keystone Pipeline is not ready for approval.
The fact is, the people have a right to know the facts about projects
like this. This is one of the reasons I wrote the Pipeline Safety Act,
which President Obama signed into law in January. This law requires the
Transportation Secretary to determine whether we need better rules for
the movement of tar sands oil, which is thicker and more corrosive than
conventional oil.
Keep in mind, the existing Keystone Pipeline has had 12 oilspills in
its first year of operation. So before we take a shot in the dark,
let's get the facts about Keystone XL.
Finally, I want to express my strong opposition to a Vitter amendment
to vastly expand offshore drilling in this country. I will not stand by
while Republicans put New Jersey's coast in the hands of oil companies.
Tourism, fishing, and other coastal activities generate $50 billion a
year in New Jersey and support a half million jobs. Just like with the
Keystone Pipeline, the oil industry is telling us don't worry about the
risks posed by offshore drilling. They say: Trust us; everything will
be fine. But we know how empty the oil industry's promises are.
In 1989, before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon told us their oil
tankers were safe. Two years ago, BP insisted it could handle an
oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. That is fresh in our memories. We
should not forget it.
We do not need any more empty assurances from the industry. We need
to defeat these amendments and pass a clean transportation bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Amendment No. 1826

(Purpose: Of a perfecting nature)

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1826.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] proposes an amendment
numbered 1826.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to ask for support for my
amendment to promote progrowth energy and tax policy, and especially
consistency for the remainder of this year.
My amendment addresses a significant tax policy concern. Within the
Tax Code there is a long list of provisions simply known as tax
extenders. Some might ask why I am offering an amendment on tax
extenders to a bill dealing with the Federal highway program. In a
nutshell, here is why: These provisions are used by millions of
families, individuals, and business taxpayers. But these provisions
expired over 2 months ago, causing utter chaos in regard to--well,
really, what it caused was the lawyer-CPA full employment act. At
present, the Senate leadership has no plans to consider these expired
tax provisions. That is not right.
The base of this amendment includes most if not all of the expired
energy tax incentives addressed in the amendment offered by my friends
on the other side of the aisle. It is your amendment. In my amendment,
however, we increase these energy production incentives. With spiking
gas prices hammering families and businesses, this is precisely, it
seems to me, the time to have a policy which will increase our supply
of energy.
To begin with, addressing the oil supply issues, my amendment would
cut redtape and open more Federal land for more oil and gas exploration
and drilling. We are all painfully aware of the President's rejection
of the Keystone XL Pipeline application. My amendment gives our
Canadian neighbors the green light to send energy our way.
Let me now briefly describe the amendment. This amendment extends
popular and much needed tax relief ranging from tax deductions for
families sending kids to college to the adoption tax credit. By
supporting my amendment today, we can provide much needed tax relief
and certainty to millions of families and businesses for the remainder
of this year.
I highlight this point because uncertainty in business and personal
financial planning is something I think all of us hear about daily when
we go back home and then come back here. Let's take a look at the
deductibility of college tuition. This is a benefit for families who
send their kids to college. By definition, this benefit goes to middle-
income families. A lot of these folks are not low-income, so their kids
do not qualify for Pell grants, but they are not high-income either. A
lot of these folks are paying significant Federal, State, and local
taxes and they get no help in defraying the high cost of their kids'
college education. This tax deduction would make this consistent just
for this year. This helps

[[Page S1524]]

families by increasing access to higher education. This deduction ran
out last year, and if we don't act these families will continue to face
a tax increase.
Another very important expired provision is the deductibility of
State and local sales taxes. Over 10.3 million Americans are paying
more in taxes because this provision has expired.
On the business side, my amendment would address expiring business
provisions, including the research and development tax credit and tax
incentives for leasehold improvements and restaurant depreciation. It
also extends enhanced small business expensing. Many small businesses
use this benefit to buy equipment on an efficient aftertax basis. It is
good for small business. It is good for small business workers. It is
good for our Nation's economic growth.
The amendment closes a tax loophole that ensures that taxpayers
claiming the refundable child tax credit provide proper identification
on their tax returns.
Finally, this amendment includes a special deficit reduction trust
fund. The trust fund would contain the savings from the energy
production incentives, the refundable child tax credit provision, and
an extension of the existing Federal employee pay freeze.
In summary, this amendment does not add to the deficit. It contains
robust energy production incentives and restores expired individual and
business tax relief provisions. Most of all, it promotes economic
growth and provides much needed consistency as these tax extenders
simply do not exist at the present time, and only for this year.
Everybody knows in 2013 we have the obligation and responsibility to
dig into a tax reform plan that will certainly serve to put our Nation
in much better shape in regard to tax policy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 1822

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, let me begin by thanking the almost 15
Members of this body who have been working on this very important
legislation for almost 2 years, since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. I
particularly want to thank Senator Shelby, who has been the lead on the
Republican side, for cosponsoring this important and significant
environmental and economic recovery of the gulf coast. We could not
have done it without Senator Vitter and Senator Sessions, who were on
the authorizing committee where this bill came out with almost
unanimous support. I think we didn't get two votes in the committee.
Everyone else, Republican and Democrat, was supportive.
I particularly thank Senator Whitehouse, who led the effort on the
Democratic side, as we have shaped, with his help, for the gulf coast,
which is represented in this bill, a way to invest in our oceans by
smartly using some of the interest earnings. Of course, we would not be
here on the floor without the extraordinary leadership of Senator Boxer
from California, whose coast gets virtually no benefit from the RESTORE
Act as it was originally introduced, but she was willing to step up
because she knows how important the gulf coast is to the United States.
Let me first remind people what this accident looked like. It has
been 2 years, but we remember the horror that we saw on our televisions
for months about the largest environmental accident in the history of
our country--5 million barrels of oil spilled along the coast of
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and seeped onto the coast of Florida
and caused economic damage in Texas. Let me tell you, 600 miles of the
gulf coastline were oiled, and 86,000 square miles of waters were
closed to fishing, causing a $2.5 billion loss to the fishing industry.
We still have concerns about what that industry will look like.
The U.S. Travel Association estimated a $23 billion impact to tourism
across the gulf coast. So although Texas did not technically get any
oil, they had an impact along their coast with the tourism decline.
Every commission, independent commission--Secretary of the Navy
Commission, the President's commission, the independent commissions
have all advocated that the proper response of the Federal Government
is not to take this penalty money and stuff it in the General Treasury
but, rather, to take a significant portion--our bill says 80 percent--
and send it back to the gulf coast where our people have great needs,
both economically and environmentally.
This is the time to act. Louisiana has lost 1,900 square miles since
1930. If we were the size of Rhode Island--we are not, we are bigger,
but if we were, we would not have 50 States anymore; we would only have
49 because, as the Senator from California knows, we have already lost
the size of Rhode Island. This is a national tragedy, not just for the
4.5 million people who live in our State.
But I would like to put into the record for the few minutes that I
have that we contribute $3 trillion to the national economy every year.
The Gulf Coast States represent 17 percent of the GDP. Nearly 50
percent of the oil and gas that we consume every day in States all over
this country comes from the gulf coast.
We contribute $8 to $10 billion directly every year. All we are
asking in the RESTORE Act--let's put that up here--is to fund, direct
80 percent of the penalty money that BP is going to pay--taxpayers are
not paying this. This does not come out of any program. It does not
come out of any education program, any other program. It is going to be
paid for by BP. Let's do justice to the gulf coast, America's energy
coast and, might I say, the coast that produces the most vibrant
fisheries, the coast that supports, proudly, ecotourism, the coast that
revels in clean beaches.
Please give us the resources we need to restore this great coast.
Again, I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Bingaman, who have joined now
with supporters of this because we have added a portion to the fund,
just for 2 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for the entire
country. We will be sending money to the gulf coast, creating an oceans
trust fund, and fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
2 years.
I think it is a balanced bill; it is a fair bill. Again, to the
chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer, I cannot tell the Senator how
much we appreciate her extraordinary leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask for 30 seconds before we turn to
Senator Vitter. I want to say to the Senator from Louisiana and her
colleague, Senator Vitter, what an honor it has been for me to work
with them. Senator Landrieu is the most passionate person I have ever
met when it comes to fighting for her State. What her State went
through was a disaster manyfold. I was there. I saw it.
Senator Vitter on the committee was eloquent in pointing out the
problems. Senator Sessions worked hard on the committee as well. Every
Democrat supported them.
I would only say to my colleagues who may be watching this debate:
Please vote yes. We need 60 votes. This is going to take funding from
BP directly to fix up the areas they wrecked. It is not costing the
taxpayers any money. Because of the negotiations, every State will now
benefit if it has a coastline.
I was honored to do it. I was excited we got this out of our
committee. But we do not have forever. We have to take care of this
today. Vote aye. This is bipartisan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I certainly join with my two colleagues
and others in strong, passionate support of the RESTORE Act amendment.
As has been mentioned, that will be an upcoming vote, the fifth vote in
line once we start voting very shortly. This approach of dedicating any
percent of the Clean Water Act fines just from the BP disaster to gulf
coast restoration is widely supported on a bipartisan basis. The Obama
administration strongly supports it, outside groups who have looked at
the devastation in the gulf strongly support it all across the
spectrum. This has been a concept that has been building for months,
and there is strong and widespread support for this 80-percent
dedication. That is reflected in the fact that the RESTORE amendment is
a bipartisan push, a bipartisan bill, and now a bipartisan floor
amendment. As Mary Landrieu and Senator

[[Page S1525]]

Boxer mentioned, it had almost unanimous support coming out of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. The cosponsors are fully
bipartisan, so I urge all Members to join together in this effort.

This is completely deficit neutral. We have an offset built into the
bill such that this bill does not increase the deficit in any way,
shape, or form. Let me point out, the money we are using, as has been
said, would not exist but for the BP disaster. There are fines paid by
BP and others, so that money did not exist before the disaster, and yet
we still offset that full amount with an offset. In essence, we are
lowering the deficit compared to what it would have been but for the
disaster and before that revenue created only by the disaster.
In addition, built into the bill in this latest version is
significant funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund which has
significant bipartisan support in the Senate. Again, all of that is
fully offset so we are not increasing the deficit in any way, shape, or
form. This is an offset that has been approved and used before, again,
on a bipartisan basis. One of those previous votes using this same
offset passed 98 to 0.
I urge all Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, to come
together and please do the gulf coast right and do the Nation right in
terms of this vitally important effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senator from North Dakota earlier
offered a proposal to develop the Keystone Pipeline. I rise to speak on
the alternative this afternoon. The alternative ensures expedited
approval of the pipeline once the current environmental requirements
are met. The alternative ensures that the thousands of jobs associated
with building the pipeline go to the workers of the United States. The
alternative says there is to be a ban on the export of all Canadian
crude oil transported on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Obviously there may
be some exceptions, and we have worked out a process to waive that. But
if this oil is intended for Americans, then the export restrictions we
offer in this amendment ought to be very clear, and that is the heart
of the concern reflected by the backers of this amendment.
We believe there is substantial evidence on the Record that this oil
will be for the export market. According to the TransCanada application
to the Canadian Government, the Canadian oil companies expect to reap
as much as $3.9 billion more in annual revenues from the higher prices
they can tap once the oil reaches the gulf coast. Once it reaches the
gulf coast, it competes at the same prices as other oil supplies on the
global market. It will be extremely lucrative for the company and the
incentives clearly are for the export market, and that is why the
TransCanada application to the Canadian Government even admits that.
The fact is U.S. gulf coast refineries are already responsible for 75
percent of U.S. refined products and those exports are rising rapidly.
Gulf coast refineries also have a cost advantage over struggling
refineries along the east coast, and in effect the Keystone XL Pipeline
can accelerate that advantage and likely accelerate the closure of east
coast refining capacity. Less east coast refining capacity means higher
gasoline and heating and oil prices for our country.
Perversely, according to a separate report we received from the
Energy Information Agency, closure of east coast refineries could
result in more imports of gasoline and other petroleum products, some
possibly from as far away as India. That is particularly perverse
because this is the first time since 1949 when we have actually seen
exports of a number of our refined products, such as gasoline, have
that dramatic change compared to previous years when we were always
importing so many of those energy resources.
So contrary to the assertion by the pipeline backers, more supply
from Canada does not automatically mean more U.S. supply and lower
prices for U.S. consumers, especially when the evidence indicates that
that supply is going to be hardwired by the pipeline and world prices
and world markets once it reaches the Gulf of Mexico.
I simply say to Senators: This debate has always been about domestic
energy security. That is the centerpiece of the argument that was made
by my distinguished friend from North Dakota, and we have heard on
television commercials for weeks and weeks. The argument is to build
this pipeline, the energy is going to go for Americans. This amendment
guarantees that will be the case. In effect, this amendment puts teeth
behind all of the debate that this energy is going to be for the
American consumer.
I think the evidence shows, particularly as you look at how you are
going to see refineries bypassed in the Midwest, that it is going to go
to the gulf ports and you are going to see this energy used in the
export market. That may be good for the Chinese, but the evidence could
indicate it would produce higher prices for Americans. In fact, this
trend with respect to putting the export of American energy on auto
pilot--assuming that it is automatically good--is something I think we
ought to look at more carefully. In this amendment we make it clear we
want to protect American workers, American consumers, and we are going
to have expedited approval of the pipeline.
The only point I would make is the Secure Rural Schools legislation--
which we are going to be voting in a few minutes--has always been
bipartisan. I have been working with Chairman Baucus to ensure that it
remains bipartisan. I hope colleagues will keep faith with rural
communities, and when it comes up for a vote here in a few minutes,
support the Baucus amendment and our rural schools and law enforcement
and road programs that are a lifeline to those rural communities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Girl Scouts 100th Anniversary

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise for a very special honor to be
given to the Girl Scouts of the United States of America on their 100th
anniversary. One hundred years ago in Savannah, GA, Juliette Gordon Low
brought together a group of 18 girls from very different backgrounds to
give them opportunities to develop physically, mentally, and
spiritually. From that meeting, Ms. Low came to recognize the need for
an organization that would help girls develop self-reliance and
resourcefulness in the face of a changing society, and in their future
roles as professional women.
From that modest single troop in Savannah, Ms. Low's vision has grown
into the largest organization for girls in the world, with 3.2 million
Girl Scouts and more than 50 million Girl Scout alumnae. Despite their
growth, the Girl Scouts of today have stayed true to Ms. Low's vision,
focusing on topics such as leadership, science and technology, business
and economic literacy, and outdoor and environmental awareness. It is
admirable that the Girl Scouts throughout their 100-year history of
supporting women's leadership have truly been a voice for all girls
regardless of background.
As Girl Scouts, young women develop their leadership potential
through activities that enable them to discover and develop their
values and skills, and to take action to make a difference in the
world. And while we all know about the beloved American institution
that is the Girl Scout cookie sale, it is not just about the cookies.
Scouting also provides girls with the skills and self-confidence to
become leaders in their own lives.
Girl Scouts have an impressive record of success. Former Girl Scouts
make up a majority of women who have served in Congress, and 53 percent
of all women business owners are former Girl Scouts.
We are fortunate that the guidance and opportunities that Girl Scouts
have provided during the last 100 years will remain for the next
generation of women leaders for Georgia as well as for the United
States.
Madam President, I ask our colleagues to join me in congratulating
the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, founded in the great
State of Georgia, on 100 years of supporting female leadership.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 1825

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to address the Baucus amendment

[[Page S1526]]

that maintains the core Federal commitment to our timber counties
through the Secure Rural Schools and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Programs.
Let me give you a sense of what this is all about. This is equivalent
to a farmer who is told by the Federal Government: We have a new set of
rules, and you cannot grow crops on your farm any longer, but we are
going to substitute payments that you would otherwise receive. Well,
the farmer doesn't like it. He would rather grow crops, but what can he
do? Then along comes the government a few years later and says: You
know what. You cannot grow crops and you are not going to get
compensated for our rules that tell you you cannot grow crops. And, of
course, that is outrageous. That is like a taking of property, and yet
that is exactly the situation that exists for our timber counties in
terms of lands affected by the Secure Rural Schools Program.
The timber harvest cannot proceed in its original method, and the
compensation is not guaranteed to be in place, so we have to fix that.
We have to make sure the Federal Government abides by the deals it has
struck. This deal is essential to rural timber counties throughout our
Nation. It is essential to so many counties in Oregon.
Five years ago when my colleague Senator Wyden was working to make
sure this commitment was upheld, I was in the role of a speaker, and in
that role I organized the delegation of Democrats and Republicans to go
out and talk with our county leaders, and there was such mystification
about the fact that the Federal Government was not going to stand by
the deal it had struck. Today, through the amendment that Senator
Baucus, Senator Wyden, and others have been working to put forward, we
have the chance to make sure that the word of the Federal Government is
good. That is why we need to pass this amendment.
I wish to tell you that we are going to put forward an amendment that
secured the word of the government for a good long time to come but,
unfortunately, it is only a minimalist, 1-year agreement, but that is
what we have before us and that is what we must do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. At 2 o'clock we are going to start the votes on a mass
number of amendments. The first one will be on the Outer Continental
Shelf. It is my understanding that I have the right to start the voting
at 2 o'clock; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Madam President, everyone should know--staffs, alert your
Senators--the first vote will be 15 minutes, with 5 minutes for people
to get here. After that, we will have 10-minute votes. I ask unanimous
consent that all subsequent votes be 10 minutes and the first one 15
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all subsequent votes will
be 10 minutes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we are going to enforce that. We have 30
votes to get through today. It is going to be a lot of work on the
clerks to do this, but Senators should stay here rather than wander off
and do other things; otherwise, they are subject to missing votes. I
want to make sure everyone understands that. The only time we would
deviate from that is with votes that are separated with one or two
minutes. Usually we have to take a little longer time on that to make
sure there are no mistakes. But other than that, we will whip through
these votes as quickly as we can.
Has the hour of 2 o'clock arrived yet, Madam Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Amendment No. 1535

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided on the Vitter amendment.
Who yields time?
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, in my one minute, I hope we are going to
vote down this antijobs amendment that threatens our coastal economies.
Many of our coastal States treasure their coasts, and they are an
economic engine of growth because the tourists come there. We have
recreation. We have the fishing industry. Therefore, it is very
important that we vote this down because this amendment is a big
brother amendment. It tells the States what they have to do, what they
must do, even if their value is to protect those coastal-related
economies.
We have 2 percent of the proven oil supplies in the world and we use
20 percent of the world's energy. So we all know we can't drill our way
out of this. Yet the Senator from Louisiana wants to open every area of
our State to drilling when the oil companies are sitting on more than
50 million acres. It is a giveaway to big oil. We should go after the
oil speculators. If we want to bring down gas prices, let's do that.
Let's vote down this bad amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

YEAS -- 44

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Landrieu
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Toomey
Vitter
Webb
Wicker

NAYS -- 54

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING -- 2

Kirk
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Change of Vote

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 28, I voted aye. It
was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I
be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me just explain very briefly. I was
told that the amendment had been modified to accommodate concerns I
have raised, and then the amendment was not so modified. So I wanted to
put in that explanation to explain why the error was made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Change of Vote

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on roll call vote number 28, I too
voted aye and it was my intention to vote no. I ask unanimous consent
that I be permitted to change the vote since it will not affect the
outcome.
It is for exactly the same reason that Senator Collins mentioned. It
was our understanding in coming to the floor that the modification had
been accepted, and it was not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

[[Page S1527]]

Amendment No. 1825

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to the Baucus amendment No. 1825.
The Senator from Montana.

(Purpose: To reauthorize for 1 year the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 and to provide full funding
for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program for 1 year, and for other
purposes)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1825.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Tester, proposes an
amendment numbered 1825.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Crapo and Risch be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It
compensates counties that have the lack of a private land base; that
is, counties that do not have the ability to collect property taxes
because of Federal land. This revenue goes to schools, it goes to jobs
and roads. I might add, in the State of Oregon, 20 percent goes to
highway spending. This is the highway bill. It has been supported
strongly in the past by this body. The offset has been worked out.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. This is a good, solid
program.
I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Oregon, Mr.
Wyden.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Baucus amendment is a lifeline for
rural America, particularly for the West and the South, where the
Federal Government owns so much of our land. This money is absolutely
essential to keep school doors open, to keep cops out there protecting
our people, and to provide for our roads program. This program has
always been bipartisan since the days when our former colleague Senator
Craig and I authored it.
I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Baucus on this amendment to
provide a lifeline to rural America.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in 2008, Congress passed the Emergency
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which established the Troubled
Asset Relief Program. That act also included a historic 5-year program
to fund two important programs that support rural counties across the
country.
The county payments program included increased and more equitably
distributed funding for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act, which provides payments to more than 700 counties in
42 States for public roads, schools, and collaborative forest
restoration projects. In addition and for the first time in many years
it fully funded the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program, which provides
payments to 1,850 local governments in 49 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Both programs have
provided a life line for struggling rural counties around the country
during the recent recession.
In October of 2011, I introduced the County Payment Reauthorization
Act of 2011 to extend the benefits of the county payments programs we
funded in 2008 for another 5 years. That bill, S. 1687, currently has
32 cosponsors, including 8 Republicans and an Independent. Congressman
Heinrich has introduced a companion measure in the House: H.R. 3599.
Today, I would like to express my support for Senator Baucus's
amendment No. 1825 to extend funding for the two programs by 1 year.
Many of us believe that a multiyear extension is critical to provide
the budgetary certainty that our rural counties need, so it is
unfortunate that we could not get sufficient bipartisan support to move
forward with a multiyear extension.
In addition to important funding, the amendment would make a few
improvements to the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act that we have developed on a bipartisan basis.
In fiscal year 2011, it appears that a number of counties in five
States failed to submit elections by the date required by section
102(d)(3)(A) of the act. The result was that approximately $2.5 million
in title II and III funding was returned to the Treasury, as required
by the act. At least some of the counties had compelling reasons for
failing to make a timely election, and the amendment provides $2.5
million to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out projects in those
counties consistent with the purpose of the authorized uses of title II
project funds. Since some counties don't participate in title II
projects, such projects would not be subject to other specific
requirements of title II. However, they are intended to be carried out
consistent with the spirit of title II, which emphasizes collaborative
forest projects. Our expectation is that the Secretary will work
closely and collaboratively with those counties in spending that money
to further the purposes reflected in those counties' untimely
elections.
To avoid such problems going forward, the amendment requires the
Governor of each eligible State as opposed to each of the more than 700
counties to formally submit title I, II, and III elections for all of
their eligible counties by no later than September 30 of each fiscal
year. Our hope is that this change, along with improved outreach by the
Forest Service, will result in timely elections for the remainder of
the Secure Rural Schools Program.
Nevertheless, if a Governor does fail to submit an election for any
county, the amendment provides that the county will be presumed to have
elected to expend 80 percent of its funding through title I. As with
the $2.5 million provided to the counties that missed the fiscal year
2011 deadline, the remainder of the county's payment would go to the
Secretary concerned for the purpose of entering into and implementing
cooperative agreements with willing Federal agencies, State and local
governments, private and nonprofit entities, and landowners for
protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat,
and other resource objectives consistent with the purposes of the act
on Federal land and on non-Federal land in the county where projects
would benefit the resources on Federal land. Again, our expectation is
that the Secretary will work closely and collaboratively with such
counties and, where they exist, their resource advisory committees, in
spending that money.
We also have added a provision to title II to permit resource
advisory committees to expend not more than 10 percent of project funds
on administrative expenses if they so choose. That amendment provides
additional flexibility to allow the committees to operate more
effectively and efficiently.
I would like to thank Senator Baucus for his leadership in putting
together the necessary offsets for this important amendment and Senator
Murkowski for her cooperation in developing the authorizing provisions
that are included in the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CRAPO. I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1825.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 16, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

YEAS--82

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller

[[Page S1528]]

Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--16

Akaka
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carper
Coburn
Corker
DeMint
Harkin
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lieberman
McCain
Mikulski
Moran
Paul
Toomey

NOT VOTING--2

Kirk
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1660

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a
vote in relation to the Collins amendment No. 1660.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Murkowski be added as a cosponsor to the preceding amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is a very modest bipartisan
amendment. It simply gives the EPA more time to get these regulations
right, and our struggling manufacturers will get more time to comply
with them. It is a false choice to say that this is the environment
versus the economy. We can have both.
If this amendment is not adopted and the current regulations go into
effect, the estimates are that they will cost manufacturers $14 billion
to comply, and we will lose 200,000 manufacturing jobs at a time when
we can least afford it. All we are asking is for more time to get these
regulations right.
I urge support for the amendment, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what we do here makes a difference in
people's lives. We have peer-reviewed studies that show if the Collins
amendment passes and we go back to square one, we will see 8,100
premature deaths per year, 5,100 heart attacks per year, 52,000 cases
of aggravated asthma, and--talk about jobs--400,000 lost workdays per
year. Why is that? What the EPA is trying to do under the Clean Air Act
is make sure we don't have too much arsenic in the air or too much
chromium, lead, or mercury. These are devastating toxics, especially to
our children.
The manufacturers of boilers say there will be many jobs created. I
submit this letter for the Record. They say anyone who tells us
otherwise is not a boiler manufacturer and doesn't know what they are
talking about. Senator Wyden, an original cosponsor, is off this bill
because the EPA has worked with him and managed to answer his concerns.
Please vote no on this amendment.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Kirk
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1738

There is now 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in
relation to the Coburn amendment No. 1738.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this amendment is very similar to an
amendment we voted on in the small business bill which passed 64 to 30-
something--I can't remember the exact number. It is very
straightforward. We ask the OMB to look at the two most recent GAO
reports, combine $10 billion worth of savings, and send back to us a
recommendation so that we can, in fact, accomplish that purpose.
The GAO is showing us exactly where we need to go in terms of saving
money. We are involving the executive branch in that. They also have
other plans they are working on and on which I am trying to work with
the administration.
If you want to pick up the difference between what we really need to
do for infrastructure in this country, the best way to do it is to
support this amendment and go for another $10 billion in
infrastructure.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, last September we rightly rejected a
Coburn amendment not much different from this one. Senator Coburn
claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce duplication, but
in reality it would just give a $10 billion reduction in discretionary
caps regardless of whether there actually is $10 billion in
discretionary savings. In addition, there is an existing rescission
authority in place, thus making this amendment on reducing duplication
redundant.
This amendment is a backdoor attempt to lower discretionary spending
caps agreed to by the Budget Control Act. So we should not violate the
BCA, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns

[[Page S1529]]

Johnson (WI)
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--46

Akaka
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Kirk
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Under the previous order
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is
rejected.

Amendment No. 1822

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to the
Nelson-Shelby-Landrieu amendment No. 1822.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we are going to divide 1
minute; 15 seconds here, 15 seconds there, and 30 seconds for Senator
Shelby.
I will just say this is the BP fine money to come back and restore
the Gulf of Mexico and people who earn their living from the gulf.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, this money will be shared with all the
States. It is appropriate new money paid by BP--not taxpayer money--to
the Gulf.
Let me thank Senators Boxer, Whitehouse, and Baucus for their
extraordinary help on our side and thank Senator Shelby.
I don't know if Senator Vitter wants to say a word.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I urge support of this amendment. It is
bipartisan.
This concept is supported by multiple outside groups, as well as the
administration, and it is fully offset. It does not increase the
deficit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. REID. I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 22, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]

YEAS--76

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--22

Barrasso
Burr
Coats
Coburn
Corker
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Risch
Rubio
Toomey

NOT VOTING--2

Kirk
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1817

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No.
1817, offered by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this amendment ensures that the Keystone
Pipeline is built by American workers using American steel; that our
priority is reasonably priced energy for American families and American
businesses, rather than their Chinese competitors. It contains an
expedited approval process so that when air and water and environmental
laws are complied with, the pipeline application must be approved
within 90 days. Put simply, when you build a pipeline that is 2,000
miles across the Nation, our challenge is to do it right.
Madam President, there are two alternatives. This one gives us a
chance to do it right for our workers, our businesses, the well-being
of all our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Keystone XL
Pipeline will bring more than 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from
Canada and also from States like mine, such as North Dakota and
Montana. We need that crude oil rather than relying on the Middle East.
This is a vote to block the project. Make no mistake, this not only
requires the TransCanada start-over, it says start over after 3\1/2\
years. What does that mean, another 3\1/2\ years before they can go
forward? And it adds additional impediments to the project. With
gasoline prices going up every day, we need more supply, we need it
from Canada, we need it from North Dakota and Montana, not from the
Middle East.
Please vote no on this amendment and yes on the next one, which will
allow us to move forward for American workers, American consumers, for
our businesses, for our economy, and for national security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1817.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 65, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]

YEAS--33

Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reid
Rockefeller
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Wyden

NAYS--65

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Risch

[[Page S1530]]

Roberts
Rubio
Sanders
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker

NOT VOTING--2

Kirk
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Change of Vote

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 33, the Wyden
amendment No. 1817, I mistakenly voted aye and meant to vote no. It
will not change the outcome. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be
reflected as a no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

Amendment No. 1537

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1537, offered by
the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of this
amendment which would authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline project to
move forward. It provides an authorization after more than 3\1/2\ years
of study. It incorporates all of the safeguards that have been
developed through the environmental impact statement process with both
EPA and the Department of State, and it allows whatever time may be
necessary for rerouting in Nebraska. So it addresses the concerns that
have been raised as far as the environmental impact statement but
authorizes the project to proceed.
This project will bring 830,000 barrels a day of crude to our
refineries, as I mentioned earlier, not only from Canada but from my
home State of North Dakota, as well as from Montana. This is about not
only producing more energy both at home and with our closest friend and
ally, Canada, but it is also about national security. It is about
reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HOEVEN. I urge my colleagues' strong support for this amendment
on behalf of American workers and consumers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I urge opposition to this amendment. I
wish to outline just very briefly why.
First, under this amendment the oil is not going to be going to the
United States. This oil is going to be going to the export market, and
the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government showed this
beyond any question. The Canadian oil companies expect to reap as much
as $3.9 billion more in annual revenue from the higher prices they can
tap once their oil reaches the gulf coast. It competes at the same
price as other oil supplies on the global market--no protection for
workers, no protection on the environment, and, I believe, higher
prices for American businesses and American consumers.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1537.
Mr. HOEVEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Landrieu
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Toomey
Vitter
Webb
Wicker

NAYS--42

Akaka
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Kirk
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is 4:15 p.m. We have a matter that I
believe will be decided by voice in just a few minutes. This will be
the last vote until Tuesday, when we finish this bill. I appreciate
everyone's cooperation. I have talked before about how fortunate we are
to have the two managers we have on this bill--Senators Boxer and
Inhofe. They have done a remarkably good job.
We have a locked-in set of amendments now. There is no reason to work
into the night. We have had a good week. We will have a good week next
week, and I wish everyone a good break.

Motion to Waive

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the vote on the motion to
waive all applicable budget points of order.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, colleagues, we must waive the Budget Act
in order to continue working on this bill. My friend from Tennessee
will tell you otherwise. This bill is 100 percent paid for. The CBO
score actually shows a $5 billion surplus over the next 10 years.
How is it paid for? I can tell you, my friend Jim Inhofe made sure it
would be paid for, and we agreed on it. Through the highway trust fund,
plus the bipartisan work of the Finance Committee, we have filled this
trust fund to cover this bill.
Mr. President, 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance. All the work we
did today hangs in the balance. We need 60 votes. So if one is for the
Transportation bill, please vote aye so we can continue our work next
week.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, let me first say I am a very strong
supporter of a highway bill and of infrastructure but also believe we
should have integrity as it relates to this issue of spending.
Last August, the world and the country watched as our Nation almost
came to a halt, and we agreed, in order to raise the debt ceiling, we
would pass the Budget Control Act, which puts strict limitations on
spending for last year and this year. We are making a mockery of what
happened during that time if we waive this Budget Control Act point of
order that I have put in place.
Basically, what we have said--and we have had all kinds of Senators
on both sides of the aisle who have focused on the deficit issue in
good faith, but what we basically are saying is we cannot make it 7
months without violating the Budget Control Act which we put in place
to create discipline in this body.
I urge a ``no'' vote on waiving this motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have had rankings as the most
conservative Member of this body many times, and I have often said
there are two areas where I am a big spender: one is national defense,
one is infrastructure.

[[Page S1531]]

We desperately need this bill. It is interesting to me that so many
of my good friends--and they are friends, including the Senator from
Tennessee--will vote as they did back in 2008 for $700 billion for a
bailout and then something such as this comes up and somehow this is an
excuse to kill the bill. You can kill the bill and we can go back and
start all over again. I wish and I think the Finance Committee is going
to come up with something that is going to allow us to get this done by
the time we get into conference.
I urge my conservative friends particularly to go ahead and vote for
the highway bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Just 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
The Senator asks for 30 seconds.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the fact is, the amount of money it would
take to not have a budget point of order is so small that we ought to
just offset discretionary caps for this year by the amount we are
spending above that for this highway bill.
It is ludicrous that we cannot set priorities in a way that calls us
to live within the Budget Control Act and break it within 7 months of
passing it and break faith with the American people.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I would note--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. We do not have Senator Thune here, who is doing a great
job in the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, his mother died and he is
not here. We would be able to sit down and solve this problem and not
delay this bill. Right now it is set up so we can have a highway bill.
This could kill it. I hope folks will talk to their people at home.
You cannot do it before this vote, but afterwards I might suggest you
do that.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

YEAS--66

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--31

Ayotte
Barrasso
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Toomey
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Kirk
Paul
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays are
31. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order fails.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. Most of them have
gone, but I feel it is important that the Record reflect this last vote
that we had. Basically, it was a vote to undo everything we worked so
hard on all day. It was basically a backdoor way of killing the
transportation bill--a bill that is fiscally responsible. It is at
current levels plus inflation fully paid for. Senator Inhofe and I
agreed at the outset in the EPW Committee we would only support a bill
that was fully paid for.
I was honored that we got so many Republican votes on that. I am
looking forward to next week when we get this done. I understand the
Senator from Michigan has something he wants to get accomplished by a
voice vote. I ask unanimous consent that he be able to explain that so
that we can continue making progress, and then he will yield the floor
to the Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 1818

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the next item on the unanimous consent
agreement is my amendment No. 1818. It is my understanding now that
this amendment can be adopted by a voice vote. It has been cleared for
that.
I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and I call
up my amendment No. 1818.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr.
Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 1818.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize special measures against foreign jurisdictions,
financial institutions, and others that significantly impede United
States tax enforcement)

At the end, add the following:

TITLE ___--STOP TAX HAVEN ABUSE

SEC. ______. AUTHORIZING SPECIAL MEASURES AGAINST FOREIGN
JURISDICTIONS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, AND
OTHERS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDE UNITED STATES
TAX ENFORCEMENT.

Section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``Sec.  5318A. Special measures for jurisdictions, financial
institutions, or international transactions that are of
primary money laundering concern or significantly impede
United States tax enforcement'';

(2) in subsection (a), by striking the subsection heading
and inserting the following:
``(a) Special Measures to Counter Money Laundering and
Efforts to Significantly Impede United States Tax
Enforcement.--'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking the subsection heading and inserting the
following:
``(c) Consultations and Information to Be Considered in
Finding Jurisdictions, Institutions, Types of Accounts, or
Transactions to Be of Primary Money Laundering Concern or to
Be Significantly Impeding United States Tax Enforcement.--'';
and
(B) by inserting at the end of paragraph (2) thereof the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Other considerations.--The fact that a jurisdiction
or financial institution is cooperating with the United
States on implementing the requirements specified in chapter
4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 may be favorably
considered in evaluating whether such jurisdiction or
financial institution is significantly impeding United States
tax enforcement.'';
(4) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``or is
significantly impeding United States tax enforcement'' after
``primary money laundering concern'';
(5) in subsection (a)(4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``in matters involving money laundering,''
before ``shall consult''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) in matters involving United States tax enforcement,
shall consult with the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue,
the Secretary of State, the Attorney General of the United
States, and in the sole discretion of the Secretary, such
other agencies and interested parties as the Secretary may
find to be appropriate; and'';
(6) in each of paragraphs (1)(A), (2), (3), and (4) of
subsection (b), by inserting ``or to be

[[Page S1532]]

significantly impeding United States tax enforcement'' after
``primary money laundering concern'' each place that term
appears;
(7) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (5) and
inserting the following:
``(5) Prohibitions or conditions on opening or maintaining
certain correspondent or payable-through accounts or
authorizing certain payment cards.--If the Secretary finds a
jurisdiction outside of the United States, 1 or more
financial institutions operating outside of the United
States, or 1 or more classes of transactions within or
involving a jurisdiction outside of the United States to be
of primary money laundering concern or to be significantly
impeding United States tax enforcement, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney
General of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, may prohibit, or
impose conditions upon--
``(A) the opening or maintaining in the United States of a
correspondent account or payable-through account; or
``(B) the authorization, approval, or use in the United
States of a credit card, charge card, debit card, or similar
credit or debit financial instrument by any domestic
financial institution, financial agency, or credit card
company or association, for or on behalf of a foreign banking
institution, if such correspondent account, payable-through
account, credit card, charge card, debit card, or similar
credit or debit financial instrument, involves any such
jurisdiction or institution, or if any such transaction may
be conducted through such correspondent account, payable-
through account, credit card, charge card, debit card, or
similar credit or debit financial instrument.''; and
(8) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``or is
significantly impeding United States tax enforcement'' after
``primary money laundering concern'';
(9) in subsection (c)(2)(A)--
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``bank secrecy or special
regulatory advantages'' and inserting ``bank, tax, corporate,
trust, or financial secrecy or regulatory advantages'';
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``supervisory and counter-
money'' and inserting ``supervisory, international tax
enforcement, and counter-money'';
(C) in clause (v), by striking ``banking or secrecy'' and
inserting ``banking, tax, or secrecy''; and
(D) in clause (vi), by inserting ``, tax treaty, or tax
information exchange agreement'' after ``treaty'';
(10) in subsection (c)(2)(B)--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``or tax evasion'' after
``money laundering''; and
(B) in clause (iii), by inserting ``, tax evasion,'' after
``money laundering''; and
(11) in subsection (d), by inserting ``involving money
laundering, and shall notify, in writing, the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives of any such action involving
United States tax enforcement'' after ``such action''.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this has been on the list for unanimous
consent. I will let the Chair rule on this and see if there is
something else. If not, I will speak for a few minutes afterward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1818) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will use 3 minutes to very briefly
explain.
Under the PATRIOT Act, Congress gave the Treasury the power to take a
range of measures against foreign financial institutions, or
jurisdictions that are defined as being of primary money-laundering
concerns.
The Levin-Conrad amendment just adopted would authorize the Treasury
to impose the same types of measures on the same types of entities if
Treasury finds them to be impeding U.S. tax enforcement. This amendment
had been the subject of a bill for a number of years, and it comes out
of the hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which
I chair. Those investigation show each year the United States loses
tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue from people using offshore
tax havens to dodge U.S. tax obligations, including through hidden
accounts at tax haven banks. We issued a lengthy, bipartisan report in
the subcommittee. We detailed case history involving tax haven banks
that help thousands of U.S. clients dodge their U.S. taxes, banks that
used a long list of secrecy tricks that make it nearly impossible for
U.S. tax authorities to trace funds sent to them offshore.
Our amendment offers one provision from the Cut Unjustified Tax
Loopholes Act, S. 2075, which Senator  Conrad and I introduced some
weeks ago. I continue to hope and believe that momentum is building
behind the idea of real tax reform and in support of legislation like
the CUT Loopholes Act to comprehensively tackle the many tax loopholes
that favor a few taxpayers over ordinary American taxpayers. Closing
tax loopholes is critical to real deficit reduction, and restoring lost
revenue that will allow us to cut the deficit without slashing
important programs. With the threat of sequestration looming at the end
of this year, it is more vital than ever that we find bipartisan
agreement on closing tax loopholes.
Our amendment hopefully will advance that goal. The full CUT
Loopholes Act attacks loopholes in two areas. First is closing offshore
tax loopholes, a subject that the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, which I chair, has explored for years. Second is the
stock-option loophole, a corporate tax giveaway that forces American
taxpayers to subsidize corporations for the stock-options granted to
their executives. The Levin-Conrad amendment takes one provision from
the offshore portion of the CUT Loopholes Act.
Our amendment would give regulators a powerful tool to stop offshore
tax havens and their financial institutions that impede U.S. tax
enforcement from doing business in the United States. The Levin-Conrad
amendment is modeled on the successful provision in the Patriot Act now
used to combat foreign financial institutions and jurisdictions engaged
in money laundering.
Under section 311 of the Patriot Act, Treasury can take a range of
measures against foreign financial institutions or jurisdictions that
it finds to be of ``primary money laundering concern.'' The Levin-
Conrad amendment would authorize Treasury to impose the same types of
measures on the same types of entities if Treasury finds them to be
``significantly impeding U.S. tax enforcement.'' Treasury could, for
example, prohibit U.S. banks from accepting wire transfers or honoring
credit cards from those foreign banks. The provision would not require
Treasury to act; it would give Treasury the authority and discretion to
take action against foreign jurisdictions or banks that are
facilitating U.S. tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Over the last several days, we have worked with the administration
and others to improve our amendment. We have made changes to clarify
that it covers significant impediments to tax enforcement, and that
foreign jurisdictions and financial institutions that are complying
with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act will be viewed favorably
with respect to their level of assistance with our tax enforcement
efforts.
Each year, the United States loses an estimated $100 billion in tax
revenue from U.S. taxpayers using offshore tax havens to dodge their
U.S. tax obligations, including through hidden accounts at tax haven
banks. My Subcommittee has held several hearings and issued a lengthy
bipartisan report showing how some tax haven banks have used an array
of abusive practices to help U.S. clients hide assets and income from
Uncle Sam. We presented detailed case histories involving tax haven
banks that helped thousands of U.S. clients dodge their U.S. taxes,
banks that used a long list of secrecy tricks to make it nearly
impossible for U.S. tax authorities to trace funds sent to them
offshore. Those tricks included using code names for clients to
disguise their identities; directing personnel to use pay phones
instead of business phones to make it harder to trace calls back to the
bank; providing bankers with encrypted computers when travelling to
keep client information out of the reach of U.S. tax authorities;
funneling money through offshore corporations to conceal incriminating
wire transfers and make audits difficult; opening accounts in the names
of offshore shell companies to hide the real owners; and providing
bankers with counter-surveillance training to detect and deflect
inquiries from government officials.
That kind of conduct, which actively facilitates tax evasion, amounts
to a declaration of war by offshore secrecy jurisdictions against
honest, hardworking taxpayers. It's time to fight

[[Page S1533]]

back and end the abuses inflicted on us by those tax havens. Congress
took one step two years ago by requiring foreign banks with U.S
investments to disclose accounts opened by U.S. persons or pay a hefty
tax on their U.S. income. But that law doesn't apply to tax haven banks
that avoid U.S. investments. The United States needs authority to take
special measures against foreign banks that not only refuse to disclose
accounts opened by their U.S. clients, but also significantly impede
U.S. tax enforcement efforts. Our amendment would enable the United
States to fight back by authorizing the Treasury to tell U.S. banks to
stop doing business with those aiders and abettors of U.S. tax evasion.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, we could, by adopting
this amendment, reduce the deficit by $900 million over 10 years. That
is an indication of how closing just one of many loopholes can raise
significant revenue. The CUT Loopholes Act would, conservatively,
reduce the deficit by $155 billion over 10 years. And other tax
loopholes not addressed in the CUT Loopholes Act, such as the carried-
interest and blended-rate loopholes, offer additional opportunities for
deficit reduction.
Mr. President, we face difficult choices in the months ahead. We all
agree that we must reduce the deficit. But the American people also
expect us to make sure that we are protecting national security, that
parents can still send their kids to college, that our citizens still
have health care, that we are repairing roads and bridges. We must do
both--reduce the deficit and protect important priorities. But we
cannot accomplish those twin goals unless we restore revenue lost in
part to the gaping loopholes in our tax law. With this amendment, we
can take a step down the path of closing abusive loopholes, and
continue building momentum for the work we must to in the months ahead.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Conrad, Senator Whitehouse, and many
others who cosponsored this amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I wish to note for the
Record that I agree with Senator Levin on the need to address the
problem of tax havens, and it is certainly true that the provision of
the Bank Secrecy Act that he seeks to amend has been important in
dealing with the matters for which it was intended jurisdictions of
primary anti-money laundering concern--when it was made part of the
PATRIOT Act.
However, neither I, as Banking Committee Chairman, nor other members
of the Committee, were consulted by Senator Levin as this amendment was
being developed, although the Bank Secrecy Act is clearly within the
Committee's core jurisdiction. Consequently, Committee staff have not
had adequate time to review and assess responsibly the amendment and
its possible ramifications, and have had no chance to vet it with
appropriate parts of the Treasury Department, including the Office of
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, and the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network, which administers the Bank Secrecy Act, with the
Nation's tax administrators, with the Department of Justice, or with
other interested parties. That is normally how changes to the Act are
made.
Thus it is impossible for us fully to assess the implications of
these major changes in the law, or to discern any unintended
consequences that may arise from them. Making such significant changes
should not be done on the fly, on the floor, without adequate
consultation and an appropriate regular order process within the
committee of jurisdiction. While I believe we should address the
problem of tax havens, and I understand the urgency of finally, after 4
weeks, getting a unanimous consent agreement that allows this bill to
move forward, I must also insist that we follow a careful, responsible,
deliberative process when making major changes in areas of the law that
are squarely within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee.
As we move to conference on the transit bill, a conference on which I
will play a significant role, I will make sure that we carefully vet
this provision and assess whether this is in fact the best solution to
the tax haven problem identified by Senator Levin, whether it works as
it is intended to, and if so whether the provision requires any further
amendment to make it as effective as possible.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Merkley
amendment relative to farm vehicles listed in the previous order be
changed from No. 1653 to No. 1814.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1669, As Modified

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 1669, which is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr.
Reid, Mr. Heller, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered
1669, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To enhance the natural quiet and safety of airspace of the
Grand Canyon National Park and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 3(b)(2) of Public Law 100 91 (16
U.S.C. 1a 1 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The plan shall not apply to or otherwise affect
the regulation of flights over the Grand Canyon at altitudes
above the Special Flight Rules Area for the Grand Canyon in
effect as of the date of the enactment of the MAP 21, or as
subsequently modified by mutual agreement of the Secretary
and the Administrator.''.
(b) Savings Provisions.--
(1) Jurisdiction of national airspace.--None of the
recommendations required under section 3(b)(1) of Public Law
100 91 (16 U.S.C. 1a 1 note), including recommendations to
raise the flight-free zone altitude ceilings, shall adversely
affect the national airspace system, as determined by the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. If the
Administrator determines that implementing the
recommendations would adversely affect the national airspace
system, the Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of
the Interior to eliminate the adverse effects.
(2) Effect of nepa determinations.--None of the
environmental thresholds, analyses, impact determinations, or
conditions prepared or used by the Secretary to develop
recommendations regarding the substantial restoration of
natural quiet and experience for the Grand Canyon National
Park required under section 3(b)(1) of Public Law 100 91
shall have broader application or be given deference with
respect to the Administrator's compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act for proposed aviation actions and
decisions. Nothing in this section may be construed to limit
the ability of the National Park Service to use its own
methods of analysis and impact determinations for air tour
management planning within its purview under the National
Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (title VIII of Public
Law 106 181).
(c) Conversion to Quiet Technology Aircraft.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 15 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, all commercial air tour aircraft
operating in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight
Rules Area shall be required to fully convert to quiet
aircraft technology (as determined in accordance with
regulations in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act).
(2) Conversion incentives.--Not later than 60 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
provide incentives for commercial air tour operators that
convert to quiet aircraft technology (as determined in
accordance with the regulations in effect on the day before
the date of the enactment of this Act) before the date
specified in paragraph (1), such as increasing the flight
allocations for such operators on a net basis consistent with
section 804(c) of the National Park Air Tours Management Act
of 2000 (title VIII of Public Law 106 181), provided that the
cumulative impact of such operations does not increase noise
at Grand Canyon National Park.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Amendments Nos. 1785 and 1810, En Bloc

Mr CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendments
Nos. 1785 and 1810 be made pending en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) proposes amendments
numbered 1785 and 1810, en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

[[Page S1534]]

Amendment No. 1785

(Purpose: To lower the FY13 discretionary budget authority cap as set
in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 by
$20,000,000,000 in order to offset the general fund transfers to the
Highway Trust Fund)

At the end of division D, add the following:

SEC. ______. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAP ADJUSTMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2013.

Paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of section 251A of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985(2 U.S.C. 901a) is
amended by striking ``$501,000,000,000'' and inserting
``$481,000,000,000''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1810

Purpose: To ensure that the aggregate amount made available for
transportation projects for a fiscal year does not exceed the estimated
amount available for those projects in the Highway Trust Fund for the
fiscal year)

At the end of subtitle E of title I of division A, add the
following:

SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the
Secretary determines for any fiscal year that the estimated
governmental receipts required to carry out transportation
programs and projects under this Act and amendments made by
this Act (as projected by the Secretary of the Treasury) does
not produce a positive balance in the Highway Trust Fund
available for those programs and projects for the fiscal
year, each amount made available for such a program or
project shall be reduced by the pro rata percentage required
to reduce the aggregate amount required to carry out those
programs and projects to an amount equal to that available
for those programs and projects in the Highway Trust Fund for
the fiscal year.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Amendments Nos. 1736 and 1742, En Bloc

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and I call up amendments Nos. 1736 and 1742 and
ask they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes amendments
numbered 1736 and 1742, en bloc.

The amendment (No. 1742) is as follows:
(The amendment (No. 1736) is printed in the Record of Monday,
February 27, 2012, under ``Text of Amendments.'')

Amendment No. 1742

(Purpose: To allow States to permit nonhighway uses in rest areas along
any highway)

On page 469, after line 22, add the following:

SEC. 15___. NONHIGHWAY USES IN REST AREAS.

(a) In General.--A State may permit any nonhighway use in
any rest area along any highway (as defined in section 101 of
title 23, United States Code), including any commercial
activity that does not impair the highway or interfere with
the full use and safety of the highway.
(b) Private Parties.--A State may permit any private party
to carry out a nonhighway use described in subsection (a).
(c) Revenues Generated by Nonhighway Uses.--A State may use
any revenues generated by a nonhighway use described in
subsection (a) to carry out any project (as defined in
section 101 of title 23, United States Code).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support
these amendments. The first one gives the States the freedom to keep
their gas taxes. For decades, Washington has collected State gas taxes
through its highway program, taken its cut off the top, and then
attached burdensome mandates to the funds before sending them back to
the States.
It hasn't worked. Since 2008, the highway trust fund has been bailed
out three times from the Treasury's general fund to the tune of about
$35 billion. During that time, the Federal Government has required that
10 percent of all surface transportation funds be spent on wasteful
``enhancements,'' which has included archeological planning and
research, transportation museums, and scenic ``beautification'' along
highways, and so on.
The GAO has found that between 2004 and 2008, at a time when our
bridges and roads have been in disrepair and have needed all the help
they could get, the highway trust fund spent $78 billion on projects
not related to the support of our Nation's network of highways and
bridges.
With the economy struggling, we need to provide States with the
ability to move quickly and innovatively to implement their
transportation priorities instead of a one-size-fits-all solution from
Washington.
Ohio's gas taxes should not be watered down, shouldn't be wasted by
costly Federal mandates, regulations, and bureaucracies that Ohio
doesn't think are necessary. Rather, States should have the freedom to
use the revenue collected from highway users within their own States in
the way the State sees fit to get more money into infrastructure.
This amendment will give States the freedom they need to do that,
while ensuring that States maintain the current Interstate State
Highway system in accordance with current standards. We need to pass
this amendment today so that States can get back on track.
Let me give you an example I recently heard about over the weekend.
This comes from Jeff Linkous, who is the Clinton County, OH, engineer.
It is an example of how the Federal Government sometimes gets in the
way and escalates the cost of projects.
Todds Fork there is a local stream. It is crossed by two roads,
Prairie Road and Starbuck Road. For each of the roads, Clinton County
has built a bridge over Todds Fork. The same firm designed both
bridges. They are the same length, but there was one major difference.
The bridge for Prairie Road was built using Federal money, while the
bridge for Starbuck Road was built using Ohio funds.
According to Jeff Linkous, the federally funded bridge cost about 20
percent more than the State-funded bridge. I hear this all over the
State, as I am sure my colleagues do as well. It took more time from
design to bid, so it was more expensive and took more time, and was
more costly in both respects.
The Federal project costs more in a lot of areas, including Federal
bureaucracy, more environmental studies, more historical and
archaeological studies, more right-of-way expenses, more design and
review costs. The stakes have never been higher. The Federal Government
cannot continue the current course of wasting our State's gas taxes.
Since the last transportation authorization bill, called SAFETY-LU,
back in 2005, the outlays have exceeded revenues from the gas taxes
every single year. We have to get back on a fiscally sustainable path,
eliminate the waste, and allow the States the flexibility to maintain
their roads, bridges, and highways. This amendment would do that. It is
an opt-out, not a mandate. States could choose to opt out or not.
The second amendment also is a fiscally responsible one that helps
the taxpayer. It lifts an antiquated one-size-fits-all government
mandate that dates back to 1956, and it would allow the States the
freedom to make their own decisions on how to manage their rest areas,
which the Federal Government forces States to pay to maintain and
improve.
The current approach would set up a patchwork of exemptions,
acceptance, and special permits that allows some States to
commercialize rest areas, while prohibiting other States from doing the
same. Under this amendment, States would have the freedom to
commercialize interstate and noninterstate rest areas, as long as they
don't impair the highway or interfere with the full use and safety of
the highway. At a time when America's core transportation
infrastructure--highways, roads and bridges--needs all the help it can
get, the Ohio Department of Transportation spends $15 million a year on
rest area upkeep in Ohio alone. The high cost of maintaining and
improving these rest areas is handcuffing the ability of Ohio and other
States to spend more money on core infrastructure, roads and bridges.
This is a fiscally conservative pro-taxpayer amendment that would
help States such as Ohio recover some of these losses or maybe even
break even or maybe add some revenue, by allowing restaurants, gas
stations, convenience stores, or other entities to lease spaces at rest
areas. It is a commonsense approach that is supported by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and by a lot
of the private sector as well.
This amendment is a way to give core infrastructure projects more
funding, while enacting a proposal that actually helps the States to be
able to make the decision. In Ohio alone, if you take out $50 million a
year cost for rest areas and calculate it over the

[[Page S1535]]

next 20 years, that is $1 billion that could go into highway
infrastructure.
This amendment doesn't direct or mandate States to commercialize rest
areas or commercialize in any specific way. It leaves it up to the
States, and it gives States the flexibility they want to be able to
make their own decisions on how best to use those rest areas.
I urge colleagues to join me in voting to lift the Federal mandate
and give States the freedom to develop their own underused and
expensive rest areas.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Amendments Nos. 1779, 1589, and 1756, En Bloc

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1779 on behalf of Senator
Alexander, and amendments Nos. 1589 and 1756 on behalf of Senator
DeMint, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for Mr. Alexander,
proposes an amendment numbered 1779, and, for Mr. DeMint,
amendments numbered 1589 and 1756, en bloc.

(The amendment ( No. 1589) is printed in the Record of Tuesday,
February 14, 2012, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(The amendment ( No. 1756) is printed in the Record of Wednesday,
February 29, 2012, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(The amendment ( No. 1779) is printed in the Record of Monday, March
5, 2012, under ``Text of Amendments.'')

Amendment No. 1517

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I now call up my amendment No. 1517, which
is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] for himself and Mr.
Lugar, proposes an amendment numbered 1517.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the apportionment formula to ensure that the
percentage of apportioned funds received by a State is the same as the
percentage of total gas taxes paid by the State)

In section 11005(a), in the amendment to section 104(c)(1)
of title 23, United States Code, strike ``carry out section
134 shall be determined as follows'' and all that follows
through subparagraph (B) and insert the following:
``carry out section 134 shall be a percentage of the total
amount available for apportionment to all States that is
equal to the proportion that--
``(A) the amount of gas taxes paid by the State for a
fiscal year; bears to
``(B) the aggregate amount of gas taxes paid by all States
for the fiscal year.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this amendment No. 1517 is of major
significance to Indiana, as well as to a majority of the States across
this country. Most people are familiar with the fact that when they
pull up to the pump, they are not only paying for the cost of gas, they
are paying the tax on the cost of that gas. The Federal tax on that
gasoline pumped into the tank is then sent to Washington and put into a
so-called Federal gas tax fund--a trust.
The word ``trust'' is somewhat of a misnomer because, like so many
trusts that we create, it doesn't live up to its name. A trust means
that it is safeguarded, and nobody else can touch it or use it. The
trust fund was designed to collect taxes from the sale of gasoline at
the Federal level and then, under a provision, return that tax back to
the State.
The bottom line is that the majority of States in this country are
not getting back what they put in. This amendment is designed to
correct that flaw, or at least that current provision, in terms of the
way the trust fund is operated. My colleague from Ohio, Senator
Portman, just announced an amendment that I think makes a great deal of
sense. I intend to support that. This is somewhat of a similar
amendment, except that what this requires is that a State receives its
fair share of what it puts into the trust fund.
My State, like many across the Nation, draws the short end of the
stick in terms of getting our money back, in that it turns the trust
fund into a distribution fund, based upon the outdated formula and
continuation of the broken earmark process. In reality, many States
receive less than they put in. The interesting part of this is that
there is a formula created by which an average of the amount of money
spent by States is calculated, and States are rewarded on that basis,
and the money is distributed on the basis of how that historical
average is calculated. So States that have had very efficient Members
of Congress creating earmarks and pouring more money into their States
by earmarking end up with a higher historical average. As a result
those States benefit now from the distribution from the trust fund to a
greater degree. In fact, they are called the donee States because they
receive more than what is put in from the donor States.

So those States that have taken more responsible fiscal measures in
terms of how they spend their money and how they spend the taxpayers'
dollars, such as the State of Indiana, end up being shortchanged simply
because we have been more prudent in terms of how we spend our money.
We haven't relied on earmarks over the years in Indiana, which under
the current version of this bill would have raised our historical
average. As a consequence we end up being a donor State donating more
money to Washington than we receive in return.
The Senate has recently passed legislation to end the practice of
earmarking. I think this is a very positive step forward. But we now
have a Federal program that, in a sense, is calculated and based on the
practice of past earmarking. So if we are serious about eliminating
earmarking, we are also going to need to fix the formulas used in
current programs that are rewarding States with more money than they
deserve because these states received more earmarks in previous years.
My amendment fixes this inequity and restores the trust fund to its
original intent--to give taxpayer money back to them in the amount they
deposited.
Under my amendment each State will get back what it put in out of the
total available funds. It is a fairness issue and the trust fund is
truly a trust fund. This amendment will send a message to the American
people and the administration that Congress is serious about changing
the culture in Washington. The American people have rejected
earmarking, and it would be irresponsible for this institution to
reward that practice under this highway bill.
So I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. It takes
a stand for fairness and fiscal integrity. It will be brought up on
Tuesday. I urge my colleagues to support this both from the standpoint
of fairness--which gives back to every State and every taxpayer the
money a fair share of what they put into the trust fund as ending the
practice of rewarding States that benefitted from earmarks and
punishing those that have been fiscally prudent.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Missouri.

Amendment No. 1540

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1540, which is
at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Blunt], for himself and Mr.
Casey, proposes an amendment numbered 1540.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the section relating to off-system bridges)

Beginning on page 94, strike line 6 and all that follows
through page 95, line 7, and insert the following:
``(A) Set-aside.--Of the amounts apportioned to a State for
fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter under this
section, the State shall obligate for activities described in
subsection (c)(2) for off-system bridges an amount that is
not less than 15 percent of the amount of funds apportioned
to the State for the highway bridge program for fiscal year
2009.
``(B) Reduction of expenditures.--The Secretary, after
consultation with State and local officials, may reduce the
requirement for expenditures for off-system bridges under
subparagraph (A) with respect to the State if the Secretary
determines that the State has inadequate needs to justify the
expenditure.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the clerk for reporting.

[[Page S1536]]

Mr. President, this amendment deals with the whole issue of off-
system bridges. These are bridges that are not part of the State
system, are not part of the Federal system, but normally are run by
county governments.
In our State, as in most States near or east of the Mississippi
River, we have lots of counties. We have 115. They have large numbers
of bridges, and for a number of years now they have benefited from 15
percent of the bridge funds that go to States. I think most of us, if
we meet with county commissioners or those responsible for county
government about their highway concerns, this would be an issue we have
all heard about.
The Senator from Pennsylvania Mr. Casey and I have introduced this
amendment. It doesn't change current law. In fact, it just goes forward
with current law in this bill. This bill would eliminate the
requirement of States to give 15 percent to counties if counties have a
use for it, and I think that would be a mistake. So I join Senator
Casey and others in hoping we are able to approve this amendment next
week.
Mr. President, I also would like to speak on another amendment, an
amendment that we apparently will not vote on; that is, amendment No.
1743. This is not at the desk, I don't think, at this moment, and it
doesn't need to be read if it is. But I hope this is an issue that, as
this Transportation bill progresses, we can continue to look at.
This is an amendment I have introduced with the Senator from South
Carolina, Mr. DeMint, and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, on the
commerce portion of the highway bill. Overall, almost every portion of
this bill has gone through the open process of committee hearings, of
markups, and now of floor time. The one part of this bill that hasn't
had a committee markup or even a committee hearing in this Congress is
the rail portion of the bill. In fact, the first time I saw this
version of the bill was just a few weeks ago when the underlying bill
was already pending and it was too late to have the normal process to
look at what could happen and should happen as it relates to railroads.
As a member of the committee of jurisdiction, the Commerce Committee,
I am concerned we haven't done our due diligence, and my amendment
would simply strike this section of the bill in response to this closed
process. I hope that is the final determination of this bill before it
goes to the President's desk.
Since the Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission in
1995, there has been no Federal licensing system for entry or exit of
new rail passenger operators, only Federal requirements to ensure
safety. That meant anybody who wanted to get into this business could,
as long as they met the safety requirements. Currently, State
transportation agencies increasingly use competitive bidding to choose
a contract rail operator who can provide the best value. As a result,
we are starting to see an actual competitive and robust rail passenger
market with more than seven companies--which includes Amtrak but isn't
limited to Amtrak--competing for these contracts.
Unfortunately, the language in the highway bill requires passenger
rail operators, both public agencies and private businesses, to deal
with an expensive and time-consuming licensing process in front of
political employees at the Surface Transportation Board. However, this
new regulation will not apply to Amtrak, putting its competitors at a
distinct disadvantage. The bill, as it stands, would subject the
passenger rail industry to an ever-changing political dynamic at the
discretion of the Surface Transportation Board, likely resulting in a
government-sanctioned passenger rail monopoly. The board would also
hold broad veto powers to prevent a track-owning railroad to make
agreements with any preferred operator other than Amtrak.
This bill would also require passenger rail operators to obtain a new
board license every time a contract operator is replaced. This
requirement appears to be aimed at preventing competitive selection of
private sector contract operators, discouraging the replacement of
operators through competitive bidding.
At a time when we are looking to promote private sector job creation,
I believe this language is simply a step in the wrong direction. If
this language becomes law, it will stifle any kind of private sector
competition and job growth. The seven companies that have been formed
in recent years and that compete actively against each other will no
longer be doing that, and it will promote a government-run, taxpayer
subsidized rail system.
My amendment would take this language out of the bill so that we
could go through the normal process and decide if that is what we want.
If the Congress, through the normal process, decides that is what we
want to do, that is one thing. But putting it in a big bill without
hearings--a bill we all believe to be important--is the wrong step.
The American Public Transportation Association, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the National
Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America all support this
amendment.
We will not be voting on it next week. But I hope as this bill
progresses toward what could be a signature by the President we at some
point take another look at this part of the bill and decide if this is
a step that is in the best interest of the country or of rail
passengers now and in the future. I think the answer to that is no. I
am prepared to live with whatever the answer is, if it is an answer we
arrive at through the normal process.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
changes entered by Senators Murkowski and Collins reflect that the vote
on the Vitter amendment was vote No. 28.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday,
March 13, the Senate resume the sequence of votes remaining under the
previous order at a time to be determined by the majority leader after
consultation with the Republican leader, with all other provisions of
the previous order remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________