Access to Capital for Job Creators Act

Mr. President, it has now been more than 890 days since the last long-term surface transportation bill, SAFETEA LU, expired. And what has Congress accomplished since September 30, 2009, when it comes to crafting a new Federal policy regime for our roads, bridges, mass transit, and safety programs? Sadly, Congress has managed once again to successfully abandon its responsibility to the American people by adopting a series of eight short-term extensions since 2009. In effect, Congress has placed our national transportation policy on ``Auto-Pilot'' for more than 2 years.

So my question is this: Why has the time for procrastination long since passed and the time for urgent action finally arrived? First, we face the March 31 expiration of the current, eighth short-term highway bill extension. So, it is imperative that the Senate approve a new highway bill promptly in order for us to extricate ourselves from this vicious cycle of robotically approving short-term extension after short-term extension. That is not legislating and it is not fair to the American people. Not at all.

Secondly and more broadly, the Senate faces a larger and more serious deadline: ensuring the solvency of the highway trust fund, which has been the primary funding source for all Federal roads, bridges, mass transit, and safety programs for decades. The trust fund is running out of money, and rapidly.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, reports that the highway trust fund will be bankrupt by October, barring action on a comprehensive highway reauthorization bill. If this looming specter does not signal a clarion call to move a bill, I don't know what does.

The legislation before us, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP 21, is a 2-year highway authorization that takes a modest step in the right direction toward meeting the March expiration deadline as well as the urgency of shoring up the trust fund. Now, is this the bill I wish we were debating? Frankly, I would have preferred a much stronger, 6-year highway bill--the kind of legislation which, I would like to add, is the norm and not the exception. Indeed, Congress has traditionally approved highway and mass transit bills not by limited extensions or quick-fix panaceas but for the long-term. That was true for the 2005 highway bill, it was true for the 1998 highway bill, and it was true for the 1991 highway bill. All of these measures were 6-year authorizations. All of them enjoyed bipartisan consensus. And what was the result?

The longer time frames engendered greater certainty, especially for those States whose expiration dates for construction seasons are much shorter. Now, if only the past were actually prologue in this case. If only today we were actually debating a multiyear authorization and not putting more dents in the can that we are kicking further and further down the road--a road that needs to be repaired, I might add. If only we were deliberating policy that fostered more than a modicum of predictability. But we are not, and that is a problem.

It is a problem for David Bernhardt, Maine's transportation commissioner, who has observed that ``given the choice between a short- term and a long-term extension, the long-term extension is preferable as it provides more certainty and predictability for our construction season.''

It is a problem for the Maine Better Transportation Association, which has stated that ``Maine's rural transportation system--our roads, rail, ports--are woven into the future viability of every Maine business; the uncertainty created with no long-term reauthorization creates uncertainty, impeding job creation and investment.''

What we have as a consolation prize is a ``accept a half a loaf or get nothing'' proposition. So if this venerable Chamber can't muster the will to produce a new long-term highway reauthorization bill--and there is no reason, unfortunately, to think otherwise--then at the very least, can there be any doubt whatsoever that we must break the current cycle of short-term extensions and that a 2-year authorization will have to suffice for now?

As far as the State of Maine is concerned, MAP 21 is a slight improvement over present law. MAP 21's $109 billion in funding for 2012 2013 will provide Maine with $195 million this year and $198 million next year, up from the $192 million Maine received last year. While I would have preferred if Maine were receiving larger increases in funding, because its transportation funding needs are serious, I am nonetheless pleased to see Maine receive an increase in Federal transportation funding.

A strong Federal highway reauthorization bill will help Maine maintain our bridges and roads, while we wait to invest in the future for the demands of the 21st century. We are considering this measure as a stop-gap at a time when my State of Maine contains twice as many miles of poor roads, 548 miles, as we have of very good roads, only 265 miles, and at a time when 369 bridges are currently classified as structurally deficient, which means that 15.4 percent of our bridges require significant repair, well above the 11.4 percent national average.

Indisputably, the 2-year time frame of this bill is woefully short, and in total, this bill fails to make the requisite investments necessary to bolster our transportation infrastructure. That said, working within the strictures of a 2-year authorization bill, there are some elements of MAP 21 that I would like to briefly highlight-- provisions I was particularly pleased to see incorporated.

This bill reduces burdensome redtape and bureaucracy that represent major speed bumps in streamlining. For example, it takes the more than 150 highway infrastructure programs and consolidates them into five core programs that address highway and bridge construction and maintenance, freight improvements, safety, and nonmotorized transportation. These changes will eliminate the bottlenecking emanating from Washington and will allow States to focus on their individual areas of concern rather than Federal mandates. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and one who is fighting tooth and nail to curb meddlesome bureaucratic rigamarole, this undertaking is welcomed indeed.

Furthermore, MAP 21 rightly places a premium on enhancing vehicle safety by making significant, vital changes to vehicle standards. In the 21st century, cars are no longer just mechanical machines, they are high-tech, complex systems with the capacity to diagnose and communicate critical problems and convey that information to drivers. This bill takes this new reality into tremendous account and will codify industry standards for electronic data, providing cars with electronic data recorders that will serve as the black boxes of new cars and help investigators determine the cause of crashes and prevent future accidents.

I am also particularly proud of the leadership of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation evident in its portions of MAP 21, and for that I want to express gratitude to my longtime friend and colleague, our chairman, Senator Rockefeller, who serves with me on both the Senate Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee.

Specifically, I want to recognize Chairman Rockefeller for his collaboration with me and for supporting my antifraud amendment, which is included in the underlying bill. My amendment will ensure that brokers of transportation services have the skills and knowledge required to aid in transportation of shipments within the rules of the law, marking a major reform of the brokering process which will ensure that commercial truck drivers are paid for their work.

I want to publicly thank Barry Pottle, president of Pottle Transportation in Maine, who brought to light that some fraudulent brokers were successfully contracting commercial truck drivers to deliver freight, but then these brokers would not pay the truck drivers for the work they had performed. In effect, these fraudulent brokers were repeatedly taking advantage of truck drivers. When Barry alerted me to this deplorable outrage, I started drafting an amendment to end this scam immediately. I am very pleased this common-sense solution has been included in the MAP 21.

I would also like to thank the bill's managers, Chairman Boxer, and Ranking Member Inhofe for accepting my three amendments to the bill.

The 2005 highway bill provided Maine's Department of Transportation with the flexibility to draw upon Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program funds to cover the operating expenses of The Downeaster, Amtrak's passenger rail service in Maine.

I am pleased that my amendment to continue this policy, which enhances flexibility for States to focus funding on local priorities, was accepted by the bill managers. At issue is an undertaking that curtails congestion and improves air quality in a State that prizes the outdoors for recreation and tourism. We certainly did not want to turn away passengers coming to and from my State who patronized The Downeaster to the tune of half a million trips in 2011--or equivalent to nearly 40 percent of my State's population riding the train once in a single year?

In addition, I was pleased to work with Senators Cardin, Klobuchar, Rubio, Wicker, Rockefeller, and Tester to develop an amendment that has been accepted by the bill managers that will streamline the process for veterans with equivalent military driving experience to acquire commercial driver's licenses, also known as CDLs. I should also thank the many veterans service organizations, including the Air Force Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Fleet Reserve Association, and American Legion, which lent their expertise and support to this effort. Furthermore, I would like to thank Representative Randy Hultgren, whose leadership resulted in a similar provision being included in the House version of this bill, which provided the inspiration for the language before us today.

As my colleagues would undoubtedly agree, it is unconscionable that our Nation's veterans, including those who have most recently returned from service in Iraq and Afghanistan, find themselves facing unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles as they seek to transition into a civilian profession for which they have already received world-class training provided by our Federal Government.

Instead, at a time when job creation is our No. 1 priority, our government should be working to eliminate redtape, delays, costs, and unnecessary testing--where it is prudent to do so--to allow veterans to quickly pursue and secure employment in the private and public sectors.

Indisputably, Congress has made milestone strides over the past year, including the passage of provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act and the VOW to Hire Heroes Act that require the Federal Government to identify equivalencies in military and civilian job skills and to carry out a pilot program to reduce or curb barriers to providing credentials, certifications, and licenses to qualified veterans. These yeoman efforts are vital and timely, and they dovetail with our amendment, which directly addresses one specific opportunity to remove roadblocks to veteran licensing.

Over the past decade, many of our veterans safely drove large trucks on some of the most dangerous roads in the world. They have also safely operated these same vehicles on local, State, and national highways during their service, demonstrating their capabilities and qualifications to operate similar vehicles as civilian commercial drivers. As such, our amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to immediately convene a joint study with the Secretary of Defense, the States, and other stakeholders to assess the barriers to obtaining a CDL faced by our current servicemembers and veterans who possess the proper training and experience to operate commercial vehicles. As part of this study, the Secretary of Transportation must make recommendations for legislative, regulatory, and administrative actions necessary to overcome these challenges, and, most important, upon completion of the study, the Secretary must implement those recommendations for which he has the legal authority.

Although specific CDL requirements are a responsibility of the States, our amendment will ensure that the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Defense take a leadership role in helping States to understand the extraordinary skills and experience driving large vehicles that many of our

veterans bring to the table when they apply for a CDL. As a result, I am very hopeful that our efforts here will soon eliminate unnecessary barriers to CDL licensing for qualified veterans. And, perhaps of equal importance, by adopting our amendment, we will have established a template for legislation that this and future Congresses may follow for streamlining licensing and certification processes for our Nation's veterans.

Quite simply, our best and bravest deserve nothing less than our Nation's unwavering support and gratitude upon their return home, in order to rightly honor their enormous sacrifices. Frankly, who better for any job than those trained to be the greatest fighting force on the planet?

Mr. President, overall, I will agree that in the case of this highway bill we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good--that a 2- year authorization is preferable to yet another round of extensions. But make no mistake, Congress has failed to do its due diligence in addressing this highway bill over the last 2 years. It is because of that negligence that we have placed ourselves in the unenviable position of having to play beat the clock, as both the House and the Senate must confront a fast-approaching March 31 deadline when the current extension expires.

This bill represents the best we can offer the American people right now, but it is not and I know my colleagues will agree--indicative of the best this institution can offer. The American people deserve better.

Mr. President, we are long overdue to reauthorize our Nation's transportation programs. The last reauthorization, SAFETEA LU, expired in September 2009. Since then there have been seven short-term extensions, and the most current extension expires on March 31. I am pleased the Senate is finally voting on a bill, S. 1831, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP 21. A path forward for action on the House bill is still unclear so we may indeed need another short-term extension.

MAP 21 enjoys the strong support of a broad cross-section of organizations ranging from the AFL CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Public Transportation Association.

This bill will improve the mobility of people and commerce while reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. Investing in the construction and maintenance of our roads, bridges, public transit systems, trails, and rail infrastructure means people and goods move more efficiently and that improves our international competitiveness. And investing in infrastructure will create badly needed jobs. It is one of the most obvious things we can do to help boost the economy as it struggles to emerge from the great recession.

So I will vote yes on final passage of S. 1813. MAP 21 is a bipartisan, 2-year bill that provides level funding with increases to account for inflation. The bill would provide $109 billion over 2 years for surface transportation programs. Given the difficult budget climate this has to be viewed as a victory.

Our State transportation agencies need to be able to do long-term planning and a 2-year bill helps that cause, and is surely better than the short-term extensions we have been living under. Given the negative budget climate and the difficulty we had finding the revenue to offset the highway trust fund shortfall, a 2-year bill is what is possible, though I would have preferred a longer term bill.

Under MAP 21's highway title, Michigan will get more than $1.1 billion per year for 2 years, slightly more than under the current bill. Under the transit formulas, Michigan is projected to get a little over $131.3 million per year for 2 years, a little more than we got last time in formula funds. When it comes to public transit, Michigan is an all-bus State except for the People Mover in Detroit. Whereas the highway title takes great pains to ensure that the distribution of highway revenue among States is largely unchanged, the transit title changes the distribution of transit revenue among States to favor those States with rail transit infrastructure over States like Michigan that do not yet have rail transit. In an effort to keep Michigan whole in terms of transit funding, I cosponsored an amendment to restore funding to both urban and rural bus programs. I am pleased provisions of that amendment have been adopted in the managers' package.

My primary area of concern with this bill is in the formula for distributing funds to States and a lack of true donor equity based on contributions to the highway trust fund. Historically, about 20 States, including Michigan, have been ``donor'' States, sending more gas tax dollars to the trust fund in Washington than are returned in transportation infrastructure spending. Each time the highway bill has been reauthorized, I have joined Members from other donor States to try to correct this inequity in highway funding and we have made progress. In 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents back on our Federal gas tax dollar. That went up to about 80 cents in 1991, 90.5 cents in 1998, and 92 cents in 2005. Unfortunately, there simply isn't enough money this time around to improve the rate of return for donor States without taking funding from donee States, which we don't have the votes to do.

Further undermining donor State efforts is the trend starting in 2008 of nonuser-fee money going into the trust fund. Before that, the trust fund was purely user-fee funded, primarily with gas taxes contributed from each State. When gas tax revenues started declining with increases in fuel economy and people driving less because of the recession, billions of dollars were transferred from the general fund to keep the trust fund solvent. Thus the blurring of the line between what was paid into the trust fund by States versus what is given back to States in Federal highway dollars which is now both gas taxes and general revenue monies. This means when calculated in dollar terms, donor States, including Michigan, are getting back more money than they put into the trust fund, or well more than 100 cents on the dollar. When you look at the percent, or share, contributed to the trust fund versus the percent, or share, paid out compared to other States, an inequity among donor and donee States remains.

Overall, Michigan Department of Transportation, MDOT, officials view the bill favorably, particularly the program consolidation, increased flexibility, realistic performance management, and provisions to expedite project delivery. MDOT's director wrote to me that he is eager to see a long-term transportation authorization bill enacted because it is vital to providing the stability needed to improve transportation planning and project development.

There are no earmarks in this bill and nearly all discretionary grant programs allocated by the Federal Highway Administration would be eliminated. The result is that most funding is allocated to the States by formula.

MAP 21 proposes a new core program intended to direct funds to infrastructure segments that are particularly critical to freight movement. It allows the Wayne County Aerotropolis project to apply for grants under the freight program by specifically identifying as eligible an ``Aerotropolis'' transportation system defined as a planned and coordinated multimodal freight and passenger transportation network providing efficient, sustainable, and intermodal connectivity to a defined region of economic significance centered around a major airport.

MAP 21 makes substantial changes to transportation planning requirements at all levels, including using performance management through the planning process. It requires that State and metropolitan planning organizations, MPOs, include performance measures and targets. Along with these increased technical responsibilities, the bill raises the designation threshold for MPOs from those serving a population of 50,000 to those serving a population of 200,000, unless the Governor certifies certain technical criteria are met.

This could have been a problem for a number of Michigan mid-sized MPOs, including those in Battle Creek, Jackson, Holland, Bay City, and Saginaw. The MPOs in these cities have expressed concern to my office that they could lose their MPO designation. They argue that their organizations are comprised of local elected officials who are in the best position to determine local transportation needs, and this proposal could exclude local officials and their

constituents from participating in the transportation decisionmaking process if the Governor does not certify them.

I agree that this local expertise in the planning process is valuable and that it should be retained. The MDOT officials who work with and rely on these organizations assured my office the State would want the existing mid-sized MPOs in Michigan to retain their MPO designation. I cosponsored an amendment to grandfather in existing MPOs so that they are not at risk of losing their MPO designation and with it the planning funds needed to operate, and I am pleased a modified version of this amendment was accepted.

I am also pleased the bill includes an amendment I authored with Senator Conrad which was adopted by voice vote. It would give Treasury a discretionary power to fight against tax evasions. Under the PATRIOT Act, Congress gave the Treasury the power to 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. This amendment, which is similar to a provision that I introduced as part of a broad offshore tax bill for several Congresses, has been scored as raising over $1 billion over 10 years.

I am pleased the bill managers worked with me to include language regarding the need to fully use the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operating and maintaining our Federal navigation channels, including the 69 Federal harbors and channels in Michigan. These ports and harbors support jobs, advance economic activity, and bolster exports. Maintaining these waterways is not only important for our economy and international competitiveness, but properly maintaining these harbors and ports keeps freight off of our highways and rails, relieving congestion and improving the environment.

Somehow, keeping our ports and harbors in good repair has not been a priority in budgeting and funding decisions. This sense of the Senate on harbor maintenance acknowledges the shortfall, and states that ``the amounts in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should be fully expended to operate and maintain the navigation channels of the United States.'' This affirmative statement puts the Senate on record in supporting full funding for our Federal ports and harbors, and is a good step forward in addressing this unfair situation. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars collected from shippers are deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund but never spent, despite the fact that our Nation has a significant navigational maintenance backlog. Collecting fees from shippers and not using these revenues for their intended purpose is not only unfair, it threatens jobs and economic growth.

Including this important language in the Senate bill is an important first step to correcting our harbor maintenance problem, yet much work remains. I hope the House will take action on a transportation reauthorization bill so that we can work out any differences in conference committee. Along with my colleagues, I will be urging the conferees to retain and strengthen the harbor maintenance language to reflect S. 412, a bill I sponsored and which currently has 35 cosponsors, which would provide an enforcement mechanism to ensure that all of the funds deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are used for their intended purposes: for the operation and maintenance of our Nation's harbors.

This bill takes some important steps to support green automotive technology. I am pleased that the bill supports the expansion of electric vehicle infrastructure by allowing highway funds to be used for new charging stations at existing or new parking facilities funded through the law. It also includes a provision authored by Senator Carper to include vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure improvement projects among the projects eligible to be carried out under the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.

I am proud of the fact that Michigan has two fixed guideway projects under development that will go through the Federal Transit Administration's, FTA, New Starts Program which will provide Federal funding to build them. These projects, one in Grand Rapids and a two- part interconnected project in Detroit, will finally bring light rail and bus rapid transit to Michigan to supplement our current all-bus system. I have worked closely with the Banking Committee to secure changes to the New Starts Program that will benefit Michigan's initiatives. I am pleased to report that this bill modifies the New Starts Program in a way that is favorable to these Michigan projects, including the Detroit project which has a more complex set of circumstances.

Michigan is developing two connected projects in Detroit: a streetcar circulator that will distribute riders within the downtown core along Woodward Avenue, built mostly with private funds, and a regional bus rapid transit network on multiple corridors leading into downtown Detroit, which will need Federal New Starts funds. Because it is largely privately funded, the streetcar project will be able to advance before everything is in place at both the State and Federal levels to submit the New Starts application for the entire program. FTA officials have told me they interpret the bill's ``Program of Interrelated Projects'' language as providing ample opportunity for the streetcar circulator project in Detroit's Woodward Avenue corridor and the connected bus rapid transit project in the same corridor to meet the New Starts requirements to apply as a single program and that one project can be built before the other project within a reasonable timeframe and still be eligible. This is reassuring as we work to advance this important project through the New Starts Program.

In conclusion, MAP 21 is a consensus, bipartisan bill that represents our best hope to get a longer term transportation bill enacted. I urge my colleagues to support it and I hope the House of Representatives will also adopt it.

Mr. President, given that the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee was unable to mark up the National Rail System Preservation, Expansion, and Development Act of 2012 prior to floor consideration of S. 1813, I wanted to make a quick statement to thank Ranking Member Hutchison for her help in reaching agreement on the bill so the Senate could consider it as part of this measure. In my formal floor statement, I mention the virtues of and the needs for this bill. To provide more clarity about the Committee's intention with the provisions, I ask unanimous consent that this section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, every day tens of millions of Americans take to the roads, board buses, use Amtrak, to get to work, drop off their kids at school, or visit friends and family. Our transportation system binds our vast and diverse Nation together.

All too often, our crumbling and inadequate transportation infrastructure makes all of these daily trips nothing short of unbearable. This issue is more than just a problem of personal inconvenience. Our aging transportation system is costing our economy with lost productivity. It is hurting our ability to export goods. It is precluding us from generating the economic growth necessary to create the jobs our economy needs.

There is no disagreement that we need to improve the efficiency and capacity of our transportation system. We have heard a lot in the debate over this bill about the need to rebuild our crumbling bridges and expand our congested highways. But we also need to make sure that we have the safest transportation system possible.

Safety is not an ancillary part of this debate. Reducing the number of fatalities on our nation's roads and rails must be the focus of this bill as it has been for previous transportation bills. It is one of the most important responsibilities we have in Congress.

That is why I am here.

I am proud that the Commerce Committee plays the central role in improving the safety of not only our transportation system, but the vehicles that travel upon it.

Consider this: More than 90 Americans a day die on the road. This bill aims to bring that number down. Horrific bus crashes, as my colleague from Texas knows all too well, have happened in every State. This bill includes provisions from Senator Hutchison that sets new tough standards for their safety. Hazardous materials, including deadly chemicals and explosives, move alongside minivans and motorcycles. This bill sets standards to improve the safety of their transport to minimize the risks to the public. The rail system has proven to be relatively safe but all too avoidable accidents happen--both in passenger and freight rail. This bill sets higher standards for safety.

The dangers and challenges never stop. And so we need to step up, respond to what is happening and make our transportation system as safe as it can be.

Let me offer some specifics about what exactly is in the Commerce title of bill.

We have the safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, as we call it around here.

NHTSA has led the way in raising safety standards on our roads and highways. Last year, highway deaths fell to their lowest levels in more than 60 years. But by reasonably asking more, we can save more lives.

Some of NHTSA's most visible efforts center on reducing drunk driving fatalities. Last year, they dropped 5 percent, which is good but again we can do more. We can prevent more senseless deaths from drunk driving. We can make sure fewer families have to suffer the agony of a teenager's life cut short by a drunk driver.

This bill recognizes the success and builds on it with new grant programs and help for States to reduce drunk driving and increase seatbelt use.

It has an entire section on distracted driving, a growing crisis in this country that killed 3,000 people last year. Think about that: 3,000 people across the country dead because drivers were not paying attention to the road.

My State, West Virginia, is proactive on this. The General Assembly has tackled the issue and things will get better. This bill follows the same path: it creates grants so that States can fight this just as they have with drunk driving and seatbelt use.

This bill also gives new authority for the government to control imports of defective motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Again, our priority is safety and it is something that I am proud to emphasize.

Let me tell you about another section in this bill. It's the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, which is aimed at reducing truck and bus crashes.

Did you know truck crashes killed 3,675 people on our highways in 2010

alone? The death toll is going up even though overall traffic fatalities are down. We need to reverse this trend.

In this bill, we work towards safer roads through the use of modernized technology and data. For example, we can put electronic on- board recorders on buses and trucks to cut back on fatigue-related accidents. These ``black boxes'' will make our highways safer and we must embrace the technology.

There is more to the Commerce Committee's title than just vehicle safety provisions. Our bill includes the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act, which requires uniform standards for the safe loading and unloading of hazardous materials on and off rail tank cars and cargo tank trucks.

In this bill we make commonsense improvements to safety, such as establishing a program where shippers can electronically share information with carriers, emergency responders and enforcement personnel.

Also, included is a provision to assist with the data collection that will help DOT make smart investments; this authorizes DOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration, RITA, and enhances its ability to spur innovation in transportation research.

I started my remarks by talking about how often our roads are overlooked. We collectively drive on 90,000 miles of crumbling highways and under and over 70,000 structurally damaged bridges. Our neglected infrastructure costs us $130 billion a year. We deserve better and this bill will get us there.

In closing, I want to make two final points.

First I would like thank all of my colleagues for their good word on this effort. Senator Boxer, Senator Johnson, Senator Baucus, the leadership, we all worked hard to get to this point.

Second, I want to note that the art of legislating is finding compromise and common ground. I know some are unhappy with this bill, there are parts of it I would like to change myself. But the final product is good for West Virginia, good for the American people and an important step forward.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank Chairman Baucus for the work he did on the Finance title of the transportation bill which we have just passed. He and his staff worked with me on a number of amendments both in the committee and on the floor, and their hard work has made this a better bill.

I am particularly pleased that Chairman Baucus chose to include a provision of mine which closes the so-called ``Reverse Morris Trust'' loophole. This provision has allowed many profitable companies engaging in reorganizations to avoid paying tens of millions of dollars in corporate taxes, while loading up companies with debt and laying off hardworking employees. This bill would finally stop that practice.

I also want to thank Senator Stabenow for graciously agreeing to modify her amendment extending expiring energy tax credits and deductions at my request so that the mine safety equipment and mine rescue team training tax incentives I have long championed could be included. These energy-related provisions should be a part of any tax extenders package and Senator Stabenow and her staff worked closely with me to try and advance mine safety through this bill and their efforts are much appreciated. Though her amendment was defeated, we will continue to work together to extend these important credits along with the alternative fuels tax credits--which support coal based fuels--and the refined coal tax credit which were also included in her amendment.

I will also briefly mention two items that were not included in this bill, both of which I filed as amendments at the Finance Committee's mark-up, that I hope to see acted upon this year.

One is the Steel Industry Fuel Tax Credit which expired at the end of 2010. This credit, which I have worked with a number of members of this body to enact and extend over the years, including the Finance Committee's ranking member, Senator Hatch, provides an important incentive to one our Nation's most important sectors, the steel industry. This credit encourages companies engaged in steel production to use a recycling process that both produces reliable energy and makes each plant more environmentally sound. I intend to advocate for this credit's reinstatement and hope that it will be included in a tax extenders package later this year.

Finally, I want to mention an issue of great importance not only to West Virginia but a number of States around the country. Multi-employer pension plans have come under increased hardship in recent years due to a combination of investment losses and business participants exiting the plans. The victims, through no fault of their own, are retirees. Ultimately Congress needs to address pension stability for all retirees, but in the meantime, I have introduced S. 621, the Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act. This legislation would safeguard the pensions of retired mineworkers--the hard working men and women who have helped power this country.

If the government does not work with multi-employer plan participants and employers, these retirees face the risk of reduced benefits down the road, and the Federal Government risks assuming billions of dollars of liabilities. This legislation is important to the people of my State and I will continue to work to prevent these retirees from losing the benefits they worked so hard to earn.

I ask my friend to withdraw the request.

First of all, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Boxer amendment No. 1816, and I ask the clerk report the amendment by number.

Madam President, I just have to say Senator Paul's amendment is a broad overreach that would endanger the health and safety of the people he represents, whom I represent, and every Senator represents. What I have is essentially a side-by-side amendment that encourages and tells the agencies the Senate supports a very speedy process, which is already in the law, to review and approve health and environmental protections when we have to rebuild.

The current law is flexible. If we look at the reconstruction of the bridge in Minnesota, everybody knows what happened there. It collapsed in August

2007, and the bridge was completely replaced by September 2008, without these Draconian types of measures that my friend puts forward. In other words, he is looking for a problem. The fact is we were able to see that bridge rebuilt in 1 year. That is amazing. No environmental laws were waived. People worked and made sure they all were expedited. So there is a difference between expediting a review, which we support. As a matter of fact, the underlying bill is very strong on that. We expedite reviews without giving up anything for the people. They can still make sure their rights are protected.

Let's say a highway is washed away in a flood. If we were to follow Senator Paul's advice on his amendment, we would virtually have no studies to take a look at whether it makes more sense to rebuild it perhaps just a few feet away from where it washed out. It might avoid then the cascade of water that washed away in the first place. We may have a situation where they are rebuilding a bridge and as they put the foundation in they find out, through these studies--because they perhaps were never done before--these bridges are old, that there is a drinking water aquifer right below so if you move that a few feet, you resolve the problem. What is the point in not having information and making a huge mistake and rebuilding?

We had a situation right here from an earthquake where we learned so much after the bridge collapsed; that if we used different materials, for example, it would withstand the next earthquake better. We do have earthquakes all the time, unfortunately, in our great State of California.

So it is an overreach. It is radical. We don't want to waive all the protective laws that protect the drinking water of our people, that protect the environment. So I hope we will vote against the Paul amendment--I think it is very important to do that--and support my amendment, which basically is very clear and tells agencies they should use the most efficient and speedy process under the law to review and approve health and environmental protections.

The bottom line is our underlying bill already includes significant bipartisan reforms that will ensure accelerated project delivery, including limiting the number of steps needed to clear a project for construction, easy and early coordination between agencies to avoid delays, incentives for accelerating the project delivery decisions. Amendment 1556, this amendment by Rand Paul, walks away from this bipartisan approach. It launches a sweeping attack on Federal and State health and environmental safeguards.

When we need to rebuild a project and it involves toxic materials such as lead and asbestos, they have to be handled and disposed of properly to protect public health. Waiving all these Federal and State reviews endangers our people, and I hope we will vote no on amendment No. 1556 and yes on amendment No. 1816.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to say to the Senator from Vermont, first of all, thank you for all of his hard work on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Senator focuses on jobs like a laser beam.

Yes, the Senator is correct. The intent is that this provision would apply to all open disasters which would include the States which were pummeled by Hurricane Irene last year.

I ask unanimous consent the McCain amendment No. 1669, as modified, be withdrawn and the Shaheen amendment No. 1678 no longer be in order, as these issues were resolved

in the managers' package last evening; further, that the Carper amendment No. 1670 and the Hutchison amendment No. 1568 no longer be in order as they no longer intend to offer these amendments.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote and all after the first vote be 10- minute votes.

Madam President, can I ask, what is the amendment pending before the body?

Amendment No. 1810

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

Madam President, I yield back all time.

Madam President, I just wish to ask if it is possible, by unanimous consent, to permit Senator Carper to speak for 2 minutes to discuss an issue Senator Hutchison addressed before.

I would ask unanimous consent if we could take a break from the voting.

Madam President, we have two choices on how to handle rebuilding and maintaining infrastructure, whether it occurs after an emergency or is just in the stream of regular maintenance.

What we have done in this bill is extraordinary, and I think everyone would admit we have speeded up the approval process for all construction in the underlying bill. This was a hot issue. Senator Inhofe and I were coming from different places, but we reached strong agreement, and what we said in our amendment No. 1816 is that we encourage and support what we have done in the underlying bill and tell the agencies that after a disaster to move as fast as they can while protecting the people.

What Senator Paul does in his amendment, it doesn't apply just after a disaster, it is anytime. So you could be fixing any problem that involves the most toxic materials and all the laws are waived. It is an overreach. It is radical. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the Boxer amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Paul amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Colleagues, I think we are now at the last amendment, so please hear me out. If you care about your constituency, you have to vote no on this amendment. The implication is that the Senator is waiving environmental rules, health and safety rules, after a disaster. It is not true. Read the amendment. It is any kind of reconstruction for any safety purpose.

If you have a bridge in your great State that is over 50 years old, it has lead and it has asbestos. Every health and safety reg that deals with the safe disposal of just those two toxins--let alone PCBs and others--they are waived. One little speck of asbestos in your lungs and you know what could happen.

This is an overreach. In the base bill, in the underlying bill, Senator Inhofe and I have expedited reviews dramatically. We came together on it. It was tough negotiation. Stick with us and please vote no on this dangerous amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Yes. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I simply want to thank both leaders for their kind remarks. Really, I have to say that Senator Inhofe and I and our staffs really became a close family as we worked through this bill. I am so moved by the way we were able to come together, all of us. Even those on the other side and this side who had amendments that were tough, it was difficult, but we got through it.

I urge a resounding ``aye'' vote. I know you will not agree with everything, but we tried to work with each one of you. I urge a strong ``aye'' vote. Let's get the House to pass our bill. This is a jobs bill, and 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance.

Mr. President, I yield back our time, but Senator Inhofe has something to say.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider and to lay that motion on the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I am rising to speak about the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on judicial nominations. This power is enormously important. In no way did the writers of our Constitution envision that this body would use their power of advice and consent as a method of undermining the ability of the other two branches to perform their responsibilities.

Indeed, throughout the history of the United States, Senators from both sides of the aisle have taken this responsibility of advice and consent very seriously. This duty requires us to put aside ideology and partisanship because otherwise our constituents, through our inaction, would be unable to obtain the speedy and public trial that is supposed to be their birthright as Americans.

Americans are not thinking of their district courts in terms of red courts and blue courts. They are not thinking of their circuit courts in terms of red courts and blue courts. No, they are thinking about Lady Justice, about justice being delivered in an evenhanded and swift manner. When they see the obstruction of the judiciary that is emanating from the Senate, they are frustrated. They are frustrated. They recognize that when the judiciary is damaged and justices go unappointed, indeed that means delays for cases and that means their right to a speedy trial is taken away. They are thinking about the chaos that results when a case remains in limbo for too long.

So why in the past few years have we allowed partisanship to overtake our duty to maintain a functional judiciary? Simply put: Some Senators in this body, motivated by misguided notions of partisan warfare, have decided to abuse the supermajority power of this Chamber in order to undermine the judiciary.

This bears little resemblance to the Senate of 1976 when I first came here as an intern, when the power of the supermajority was recognized as an exceptional act of conscience to be used only for the most enormous issues, when a Senator would be willing to stand on the floor of the Senate and make his or her case before the American people as to why the simple majority envisioned in the Constitution for this body to act should be obstructed. Now we see Senators exercising their power to obstruct a simple majority and not coming to the floor to defend their position. They are afraid of public reaction to their obstruction of this body because they know the public expects us to be responsible in reviewing and voting on nominees for the executive branch and for the judiciary.

The Senate of 1976 would never have entertained the idea that well- qualified nominees would be routinely subjected to filibusters. Indeed, even throughout most of the last decade, this has not been the case. So imagine my surprise when I came here as a new Senator in 2009, revisiting the Chamber I came to as a youth in 1976, and I discovered the two Senates bore little resemblance to each other; that the reasonably responsive, bipartisan, collaborative body of 1976 had been replaced with a Senate now paralyzed due to the abuse of the filibuster and the supermajority.

Instead of debate and deliberation, followed by up-or-down votes, Senators have even been blocking motions to proceed. In other words, they have been blocking the ability to debate whether to get to a bill in order to debate an issue--two levels removed from actual discussion and decisionmaking.

In contrast to the image Americans have of the filibuster made famous by Jimmy Stewart, who comes to Washington and stands in the well of the Senate and carries on his fight and his argument in front of the American people until he collapses from exhaustion, now the Senator who filibusters can hide from the American people. They object to the simple majority rule, go off and have a fancy wine dinner, while American justice remains unfulfilled. That is not right.

There has been egregious abuse of the filibuster across all areas, but it is particularly destructive in regard to judges. That is because we are often talking about judges everyone agrees are well qualified-- judges who pass out of committee unanimously, and judges who, when they reach a final vote, pass this Chamber with 80 or 90 or 95 Members saying, yes, that person is the right person to fill that judicial vacancy. So why on Earth--why on Earth--are we dragging our feet on these nominees when we have courts in crisis?

Lest my colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply think we are raising this now because we are in the majority and they are in the minority, let us revisit the point in 2004, at the exact same point into the administration of George W. Bush that we are now with this administration.

Here is a chart that compares the two administrations. We have both the circuit court and the district court. This far into the administration of George W. Bush, the time it took to go from committee to being confirmed was 29 days. The time now is 131 days for a circuit court nominee, and getting longer with every delay we have. And for the district court, at this time in the Bush administration, it took 22 days to go from committee to confirmation, whereas now, under the dysfunction of our current Senate, with the abuse of this current Senate, it is taking 93 days.

If these bars were reversed, my colleagues in the minority would come to the floor and say, look what a good job we did previously and what a terrible job is being done now, and I would agree with them, that we have to be able to get folks out of committee and we have to be able to vote on them. We need to work together to change this situation because the result of these delays means there are more and more vacancies, more and more judicial emergencies, and where it has been declared those vacancies are having an emergency impact on the function of the judiciary.

Let's take a look at that issue. Here we have judicial vacancies in recent Presidencies. In March 1996, we had 53 vacancies at that time in one administration. In March 2004, there were 47 vacancies under Bush. Now here we are with 94 vacancies in district and circuit courts, so virtually a doubling of those vacant positions that are preventing speedy and responsive trials across our Nation. That is why our Chief Justice has declared there is a judicial emergency in our country; that justice delayed is justice denied; that we, the Senate, must do a better job of fulfilling our responsibility under the Constitution.

In many cases, the home State Senators for a particular circuit or district court nominee have done their job. They have vetted the candidates, forwarded the names of nominees, and the administration has picked one of them. Often this is a bipartisan deliberation. Yet here we are, even after clearing the Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan fashion, paralyzed on the floor of the Senate. So we have no one else to blame. We can't blame the home State Senators, we can't blame the Judiciary Committee. It is only the floor of this Chamber where there is obstruction by those who are basically taking an arrow and aiming it at the heart of justice across this Nation.

It is time for this body to do its job, and it is time for these nominees to be voted on here on the floor of the Senate. It is time to fill those vacancies and put justices into place in order to fulfill our responsibility to advise and consent and to fulfill the judiciary's responsibility to provide justice across our Nation.

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