A bill to require the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency to include certain assessments in reports.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss changes needed at the Environmental Protection Agency to rebuild public trust and transparency.

The reviews of this agency are almost unanimous from my constituents in Nebraska. Quite frankly, my constituents are frustrated, and sometimes just plain angry. While the details and specific issues will vary from one industry to another, the theme seems to always be the same: Nebraskans think EPA doesn't understand domestic businesses, nor do they understand job creation--from specific industries, to their employees, to their customers. They think the agency is not transparent, is arrogant, and oftentimes unresponsive. I hear this from ag producers, I hear it from the construction industry, I hear it from electricity providers, I hear it from city managers and mayors.

Do you know what else. These folks don't speak with an R or a D beside their name but, rather, an A for American. Their message is loud, it is very clear, and it is unmistakable: EPA is overreaching, overbearing, and overstepping boundaries that have long existed. The request is always the same. They ask: Senator, what can you do? What can you do to change how they act?

Nebraskans' frustration is driven by both what EPA is trying to do-- meaning the content of their rules and standards--as well as how the agency is making its decisions. So today I will be introducing several proposals to address these two areas.

My first proposal addresses how EPA conducts business by increasing transparency in policy decisions. I am introducing a bill that brings agency guidance documents under the coverage of the Congressional Review Act. As currently written, the CRA covers only substantial agency rules. Meanwhile, EPA has made use of what they call guidance documents to simply circumvent the accountability that comes with the rulemaking process, while still making major policy changes. Using guidance documents also shields the policy change from being reversed by Congress under the Congressional Review Act.

Perhaps, though, the most obvious example was the use of a guidance document to expand the regulatory reach of EPA and the Corps of Engineers over bodies of water not currently covered. They did this by expanding the definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water Act. The changes are extremely controversial, so the agencies chose a path that intentionally minimized oversight and legal responsibility. In other words, they did an end-run around us--they did an end-run around the American people and Congress.

My bill closes this loophole by ensuring that guidance documents are covered by the Congressional Review Act just as similar regulations would be.

Senators Barrasso, Grassley, Paul, Coats, and Fischer have agreed to cosponsor this commonsense change, and I want to say thank you to them for this critical support.

The idea behind this is simple and straightforward: Major policy changes pursued through the use of guidance documents need to come here. They need to have our scrutiny, the scrutiny of the public, and the congressional oversight rules need to apply. It is that straightforward.

My second proposal likewise promotes transparency by addressing how the agency responds to our States. It says simply this: If a State is developing its plan to implement a rule or a standard established by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, any reasonable request that a State makes to the agency for technical support, data, or modeling must be honored.

Here is why this is important: State governments are equal partners in much of the work the EPA does. That is the law. In fact, the law specifically recognizes the prominent role States have. Section 101 of the Clean Air Act, for example, notes that:

. . . air pollution control at its source is the primary

responsibility of States and local governments.

The law further declares that its purpose is, in part:

. . . to provide technical and financial assistance to

State and local governments in connection with the

development and execution of their air pollution prevention

and control programs.

Also, section 101 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares:

It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve,

and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States

to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution . . .

Unfortunately, the EPA is not honoring that language--although it is abundantly clear--and is instead treating State agencies as second- class citizens. For evidence of this, we need look no farther than the text of a recent court opinion.

In a case last year involving the Clean Air Act, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately struck down an EPA rule known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or the transport rule. Here is what the court said:

(t)he Federal Government sets air quality standards for

pollutants. The States have the primary responsibility for

determining how to meet those standards and regulating

sources within their borders.

Well, the trouble, according to the opinion, is that the EPA ignored the law. That is truly what the court ruled: EPA snubbed their nose at us, Congress, and therefore the law. It did not give the States the time needed to develop a plan to meet the standards. Instead, EPA tried to force-feed States the implementation plan EPA developed.

I can say with some certainty that my home State of Nebraska is much better off when allowed to develop a plan tailored to our State, rather than to accept a ``one size fits all,'' ``my way or the highway,'' overreaching Federal plan.

The court explained it this way:

. . . (t)he Clean Air Act affords States the initial

opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the

good neighbor provision. But here, where EPA quantified

States' good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the

States the initial opportunity to implement the required

reductions with respect to sources within their borders.

The court's conclusion in turn was absolutely and abundantly clear:

. . . EPA's Transport Rule violates federal law. Therefore,

the rule must be vacated.

That is the holding of the court.

My bill targets the relationship between EPA and the States, and takes steps to restore the equal footing that has been eroded over the past several years by the EPA. My bill says, very simply, if a State has a question about the data or the modeling driving a standard, the EPA cannot shut them out or slow-walk their request. They have to be responsive. So no more hiding the ball, as the saying goes, just simple transparency and a true partner working relationship.

The third good government bill I am introducing addresses broad frustration with what I would call the EPA bombshells. By that I mean the agency's failure to obey current law directing them to publish regulatory agendas. This is remarkable. It is remarkable that EPA continues to struggle with telling the public what rules are coming. But they do.

As a child, I always enjoyed birthday parties and all the surprises. But EPA regulations are no party for people, and they shouldn't come as a surprise.

Well, it turns out that several executive orders and existing statutes instruct EPA to tell the public what exactly is on its regulatory agenda. Section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, for example, requires the agencies to publish:

During the months of October and April of each year . . . a

regulatory flexibility agenda which shall contain a brief

description of the subject area of any rule which the agency

expects to propose . . .

Also, Executive Order 12866 requires the EPA to update its regulatory agenda twice a year.

These updates are supposed to be published in a document known as the Unified Agenda. It seems clear to me; unfortunately, not clear to EPA. EPA has ignored these requirements. It failed to publish an agenda in the spring of 2012, it published nothing in October, and then waited until December 2012 to publish anything at all. That is not acceptable. The administration simply played hide-the-ball until after the election.

My bill instructs the EPA Office of Inspector General--known as EPA's OIG--to assess whether EPA obeys the law and publishes its regulatory agenda according to deadlines. The OIG is tasked with reviewing what EPA does and reporting on problems, abuses, and efficiencies. My legislation simply directs the OIG to include in its reports a tally of whether EPA has met its legal requirements to publish planned regulations.

My point here is that EPA simply needs to meet its legal requirements. It needs to be transparent, which means simply to be honest with the American people about new regulations it is planning.

My fourth and final EPA bill puts some teeth behind my request that the agency deal with the American people in an honest way. It shouldn't be needed, but it is. It simply says we will reduce EPA's budget if the agency fails to meet its legal deadlines for regulatory agenda setting. If a deadline passes and the agency has not published its agenda, then the Office of the Administrator loses $20,000 per week until the deadline is met. If this approach sounds familiar, that is because this bill is modeled after a provision in the highway bill that passed with substantial bipartisan margins in both the Senate and the House last year. Section 1306 of the highway bill authorizes the rescission of $20,000 per week from agencies that fail to complete documents required by transportation projects. The rationale is straightforward and accepted by Congress: If an agency does not complete its work according to reasonable schedules, then the budget gets decreased.

I have outlined four commonsense solutions designed to respond to reasonable concerns of real people and to respond to their heartfelt frustration with this agency. But, above all, they promote transparency and they promote responsible government.

I urge my colleagues to assist and cosponsor these proposals that bring transparency and a dose of reality to an out-of-control Federal agency.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss changes needed at the Environmental Protection Agency to rebuild public trust and transparency.

The reviews of this agency are almost unanimous from my constituents in Nebraska. Quite frankly, my constituents are frustrated, and sometimes just plain angry. While the details and specific issues will vary from one industry to another, the theme seems to always be the same: Nebraskans think EPA doesn't understand domestic businesses, nor do they understand job creation--from specific industries, to their employees, to their customers. They think the agency is not transparent, is arrogant, and oftentimes unresponsive. I hear this from ag producers, I hear it from the construction industry, I hear it from electricity providers, I hear it from city managers and mayors.

Do you know what else. These folks don't speak with an R or a D beside their name but, rather, an A for American. Their message is loud, it is very clear, and it is unmistakable: EPA is overreaching, overbearing, and overstepping boundaries that have long existed. The request is always the same. They ask: Senator, what can you do? What can you do to change how they act?

Nebraskans' frustration is driven by both what EPA is trying to do-- meaning the content of their rules and standards--as well as how the agency is making its decisions. So today I will be introducing several proposals to address these two areas.

My first proposal addresses how EPA conducts business by increasing transparency in policy decisions. I am introducing a bill that brings agency guidance documents under the coverage of the Congressional Review Act. As currently written, the CRA covers only substantial agency rules. Meanwhile, EPA has made use of what they call guidance documents to simply circumvent the accountability that comes with the rulemaking process, while still making major policy changes. Using guidance documents also shields the policy change from being reversed by Congress under the Congressional Review Act.

Perhaps, though, the most obvious example was the use of a guidance document to expand the regulatory reach of EPA and the Corps of Engineers over bodies of water not currently covered. They did this by expanding the definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water Act. The changes are extremely controversial, so the agencies chose a path that intentionally minimized oversight and legal responsibility. In other words, they did an end-run around us--they did an end-run around the American people and Congress.

My bill closes this loophole by ensuring that guidance documents are covered by the Congressional Review Act just as similar regulations would be.

Senators Barrasso, Grassley, Paul, Coats, and Fischer have agreed to cosponsor this commonsense change, and I want to say thank you to them for this critical support.

The idea behind this is simple and straightforward: Major policy changes pursued through the use of guidance documents need to come here. They need to have our scrutiny, the scrutiny of the public, and the congressional oversight rules need to apply. It is that straightforward.

My second proposal likewise promotes transparency by addressing how the agency responds to our States. It says simply this: If a State is developing its plan to implement a rule or a standard established by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, any reasonable request that a State makes to the agency for technical support, data, or modeling must be honored.

Here is why this is important: State governments are equal partners in much of the work the EPA does. That is the law. In fact, the law specifically recognizes the prominent role States have. Section 101 of the Clean Air Act, for example, notes that:

. . . air pollution control at its source is the primary

responsibility of States and local governments.

The law further declares that its purpose is, in part:

. . . to provide technical and financial assistance to

State and local governments in connection with the

development and execution of their air pollution prevention

and control programs.

Also, section 101 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares:

It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve,

and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States

to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution . . .

Unfortunately, the EPA is not honoring that language--although it is abundantly clear--and is instead treating State agencies as second- class citizens. For evidence of this, we need look no farther than the text of a recent court opinion.

In a case last year involving the Clean Air Act, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately struck down an EPA rule known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or the transport rule. Here is what the court said:

(t)he Federal Government sets air quality standards for

pollutants. The States have the primary responsibility for

determining how to meet those standards and regulating

sources within their borders.

Well, the trouble, according to the opinion, is that the EPA ignored the law. That is truly what the court ruled: EPA snubbed their nose at us, Congress, and therefore the law. It did not give the States the time needed to develop a plan to meet the standards. Instead, EPA tried to force-feed States the implementation plan EPA developed.

I can say with some certainty that my home State of Nebraska is much better off when allowed to develop a plan tailored to our State, rather than to accept a ``one size fits all,'' ``my way or the highway,'' overreaching Federal plan.

The court explained it this way:

. . . (t)he Clean Air Act affords States the initial

opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the

good neighbor provision. But here, where EPA quantified

States' good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the

States the initial opportunity to implement the required

reductions with respect to sources within their borders.

The court's conclusion in turn was absolutely and abundantly clear:

. . . EPA's Transport Rule violates federal law. Therefore,

the rule must be vacated.

That is the holding of the court.

My bill targets the relationship between EPA and the States, and takes steps to restore the equal footing that has been eroded over the past several years by the EPA. My bill says, very simply, if a State has a question about the data or the modeling driving a standard, the EPA cannot shut them out or slow-walk their request. They have to be responsive. So no more hiding the ball, as the saying goes, just simple transparency and a true partner working relationship.

The third good government bill I am introducing addresses broad frustration with what I would call the EPA bombshells. By that I mean the agency's failure to obey current law directing them to publish regulatory agendas. This is remarkable. It is remarkable that EPA continues to struggle with telling the public what rules are coming. But they do.

As a child, I always enjoyed birthday parties and all the surprises. But EPA regulations are no party for people, and they shouldn't come as a surprise.

Well, it turns out that several executive orders and existing statutes instruct EPA to tell the public what exactly is on its regulatory agenda. Section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, for example, requires the agencies to publish:

During the months of October and April of each year . . . a

regulatory flexibility agenda which shall contain a brief

description of the subject area of any rule which the agency

expects to propose . . .

Also, Executive Order 12866 requires the EPA to update its regulatory agenda twice a year.

These updates are supposed to be published in a document known as the Unified Agenda. It seems clear to me; unfortunately, not clear to EPA. EPA has ignored these requirements. It failed to publish an agenda in the spring of 2012, it published nothing in October, and then waited until December 2012 to publish anything at all. That is not acceptable. The administration simply played hide-the-ball until after the election.

My bill instructs the EPA Office of Inspector General--known as EPA's OIG--to assess whether EPA obeys the law and publishes its regulatory agenda according to deadlines. The OIG is tasked with reviewing what EPA does and reporting on problems, abuses, and efficiencies. My legislation simply directs the OIG to include in its reports a tally of whether EPA has met its legal requirements to publish planned regulations.

My point here is that EPA simply needs to meet its legal requirements. It needs to be transparent, which means simply to be honest with the American people about new regulations it is planning.

My fourth and final EPA bill puts some teeth behind my request that the agency deal with the American people in an honest way. It shouldn't be needed, but it is. It simply says we will reduce EPA's budget if the agency fails to meet its legal deadlines for regulatory agenda setting. If a deadline passes and the agency has not published its agenda, then the Office of the Administrator loses $20,000 per week until the deadline is met. If this approach sounds familiar, that is because this bill is modeled after a provision in the highway bill that passed with substantial bipartisan margins in both the Senate and the House last year. Section 1306 of the highway bill authorizes the rescission of $20,000 per week from agencies that fail to complete documents required by transportation projects. The rationale is straightforward and accepted by Congress: If an agency does not complete its work according to reasonable schedules, then the budget gets decreased.

I have outlined four commonsense solutions designed to respond to reasonable concerns of real people and to respond to their heartfelt frustration with this agency. But, above all, they promote transparency and they promote responsible government.

I urge my colleagues to assist and cosponsor these proposals that bring transparency and a dose of reality to an out-of-control Federal agency.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Uniting American Families Act, UAFA, which grants same-sex bi-national couples the same immigration benefits heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. This is the sixth Congress in which I have introduced this legislation, and I am proud to be joined this year by Senator Collins, a strong champion for American families. She cosponsored this bill last Congress, and I thank her for her leadership as she joins me as an original cosponsor today.

Preserving family unity is central to our immigration policy. President Obama understands that, which is why I was so pleased to see that he included UAFA as a core tenet of the immigration principles he outlined last month.

Even as American attitudes are changing about the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act forces many Americans to choose between the country they love and being with the people they love. This destructive policy tears families apart and forces hardworking Americans to make the heart-wrenching choice no American should have to make. Families from Maine to California experience this hardship. In Vermont, I have seen firsthand the unfairness that couples have endured as a result of our current laws and have spoken at length on their struggles in this Chamber. I have heard from a number of Vermonters who have had to make the difficult decision to leave their work and homes in Vermont in order to be able to live with their spouses in more welcoming countries; some whole spouses are legally in the U.S. temporarily but worry daily when they will be required to leave the U.S.; and some who suffer the heartbreak of a long-distance marriage when their spouses are denied even a visitor visa to spend some time with their spouses in the U.S. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard directly from families like these as well.

Over the past decade, Americans have begun to reject the notion that U.S. citizens who are gay or lesbian should not have their committed relationships recognized by the law and the protections that provides. As of last month, the District of Columbia and nine states, including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, and my home state of Vermont, have legalized same-sex marriage. At the end of the 111th Congress, bipartisan votes in both the Senate and the House reversed the Military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, a 17-year-old stricture that barred gay and lesbian service men and women from openly serving in the military. Consistent with the repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, just last week the Pentagon signaled that it will begin providing benefits to the same-sex spouses of military personnel. As they have many times in our past and will continue in the future, prevailing American attitudes are progressing toward fairness and justice. The Supreme Court is poised to decide the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act and whether that law, which deprives same-sex couples of over 1,000 Federal benefits and responsibilities, is consistent with our constitutional values.

Many of our friends around the world have embraced immigration equality for same-sex families. Today at least 25 nations, including some of our closest allies, offer immigration benefits to same-sex couples. America should join Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom in leading on this issue of civil rights and respect for the dignity of all families. I hope that Senators who supported this important advancement in our military policy will join me in calling for similar fairness and equality in our immigration laws.

Some opponents of the United American Families Act have argued that it would increase the potential for visa fraud. Of course I share the belief that all immigration applications should be screened for fraud, but I am confident that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have no more difficulty identifying fraud in same-sex relationships than they do in heterosexual marriages. The penalties for fraud under this bill would be the same as the penalties for marriage fraud. These are very strict penalties: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the foreign partner. In addition, in order to qualify as a bi-national couple under UAFA, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 years of age and in a committed, lifelong relationship with another adult. The advancement of American ideals that respect human relationships and family bonds need not and should not be impeded by such fears.

Among developed countries with cultures of respect for human rights and fairness, the United States policy in this regard is not living up to our great traditions of equal treatment under the law. We can and should do better. I hope all Senators will agree that the United States should not have a policy that forces Americans to choose between their country and the ones they love, and I urge members of this body to join Senator Collins and me in this effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant Patients Act with my colleague Senator Thad Cochran.

More than 26 million American adults are living with chronic kidney disease. Fortunately, many of these individuals are able to improve their condition through medication and lifestyle change.

But more than half of a million Americans live with irreversible kidney failure or end-stage renal disease. They have only two choices to survive--both of them hard. They can receive regular and frequent dialysis or they can receive a kidney transplant.

In 1972, Congress made a commitment to individuals with end-stage renal disease, or ERSD, to cover the treatment they needed, including possible transplants, under Medicare, regardless of their age.

Organ transplantation is a medical success story. Thousands of kidney transplants are done every year, and for the patients fortunate enough to receive a donated organ, the quality and length of their lives can be dramatically improved.

But not everyone who needs a donated kidney receives one. There are currently more than 100,000 Americans on the waiting list for a kidney transplant.

Last year, 15,000 transplants were performed while more than 30,000 people were added to that waitlist.

Derek Haney is one of the lucky ones who beat those odds and received a kidney transplant.

Derek is a brave young man raised in Effingham, IL, a small city in central Illinois.

In 2008 the unexpected happened. Derek became chronically ill. After regular trips to the hospital, Derek's doctors discovered that his kidneys were only functioning at 10 percent. At the age of 23, Derek was diagnosed with end stage renal disease.

For the next two and a half years of his life, Derek underwent dialysis. Three times a week he would go in a 4-hour dialysis treatment, while he waited for a kidney. The dialysis treatments meant that Derek had to put his college plans on hold, but he continued to work full-time and never gave up hope.

On July 15, 2010, Derek got his new kidney.

Two and a half years later, Derek is still healthy. He is pursuing a degree in business administration at a local community college. He hopes to transfer soon to a university where he can work toward a CPA license.

Fortunate1y for Derek and his family, Medicare covered the expense of dialysis--more than $75,000 a year for 2\1/2\ years. Medicare also paid for Derek's kidney transplant at a cost of about $110,000.

For the last two and a half years, Medicare has covered the expensive immunosuppressive medication Derek must take for the rest of his life to ensure that his body doesn't reject his new kidney.

Here's the problem: Derek's Medicare coverage runs out in July.

Without Medicare coverage, Derek will be burdened with prescription drug costs of roughly $1500 per month--more than he and almost any family could afford.

There is an unfair and unrealistic gap in coverage for people with end stage renal disease who, like Derek, are neither elderly nor disabled.

For those transplant recipients, Medicare coverage, including coverage of immunosuppressive drugs, ends 36 months after transplantation.

If only the need to continue the immunosuppressive drugs also ended 36 months after transplantation. But it doesn't.

Without immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection, many patients find themselves back in a risky and frightening place--in need of a new kidney.

A recent New England Journal of Medicine report estimates that extending immunosuppressive drug coverage to people who now lose it after 36 months will save Medicare approximately $200 million a year by helping to prevent kidney rejections.

Extending immunosuppressive drug coverage saves lives and it saves money.

Sadly, Derek isn't alone. It is estimated that over 45,000 successful transplant recipients are at risk of losing their immunosuppressive drug coverage.

This makes no sense morally, medically or economically.

I am pleased to join my Republican colleague, Senator Cochran, in introducing the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant Patients Act.

This bipartisan legislation would allow kidney transplant recipients to continue Medicare coverage for the purpose of immunosuppressive drugs only. All other Medicare coverage would end 36 months after the transplant.

Our legislation will reduce the need for dialysis and repeated kidney transplants. It will provide reliable, sustained access to critically important, life-saving medications for thousands of Americans.

In both moral and economic terms, this is the right decision and I urge our colleagues to join us in passing this reasonable, targeted, lifesaving bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the Lower Mississippi River National Historic Site Study Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating sites in Plaquemines Parish along the Lower Mississippi River Area as units of the National Park System. I know there are several of my colleagues across the aisle that do not want to authorize such studies because they only target one area, or because it potentially will cost the Federal Government a modest amount to conduct such a study. I can appreciate those sentiments, but the good news with this particular study, is that the local government feels this is so important to get done, they are willing to pay for all or some of the study if necessary, because they know these sites deserve Federal recognition as a unit of the National Park Service.

This area in Southeastern Louisiana has contributed much to our Nation's history, and there are many stories that have yet to be preserved for future generations. Unless Congress acts to preserve these historical assets, they will be lost forever. That is why I am again for the fourth time, introducing this legislation. It is important that this legislation become law and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it.

In order to be designated as a unit in the National Park System, the Department of the Interior must first conduct a special resources study to determine whether an area possesses nationally significant natural, cultural or recreational resources to be eligible for favorable consideration.

This is exactly what my bill does--it asks the Department of the Interior to take the first step in determining what I already know-- that the Lower Mississippi River Area would be a suitable and feasible asset to the National Park Service.

As many from Louisiana are already aware, this area has vast historical significance with cultural history. In the 1500s, Spanish explorers traveled along the banks of the river. In 1682, Robert de LaSalle claimed all the land drained by the area. In 1699, the site of the first fortification on the Lower Mississippi river, known as Fort Mississippi. Since then, it has been home to ten different fortifications, including Fort St. Phillip and Fort Jackson.

Fort St. Philip, which was originally built in 1749, played a key role during the Battle of New Orleans when American soldiers blocked the British Navy from going upriver. Fort Jackson was built at the request of General Andrew Jackson and partially constructed by famous local Civil War General, P.G.T. Beauregard. This fort was the site of the famous Civil War battle known as the ``Battle of Forts'' which is also referred to as the ``night the war was lost.'' As you can see, from a historical perspective, this area has many treasures that provide a glimpse into our past. These are treasures that have national significance and they should be maintained and preserved.

In addition, there are many other important and unique attributes to this area. This area is home to the longest continuous river road and levee system in the U.S. It is also home to the ancient Head of Passes site, to the Plaquemines Bend, and to two National Wildlife Refuges.

Finally, this area has a rich cultural heritage. Over the years, many different cultures have made this area home, including Creoles, Europeans, Indians, Yugoslavs, African-Americans and Vietnamese. These cultures have worked together to create the infrastructure for the transport of our Nation's energy, which is being produced by these same people off our shores in the Gulf of Mexico. They have also created a vibrant fishing industry that contributes to Louisiana's economy.

I think it is easy to see why this area would make an excellent addition to the National Park Service. However, the longer Congress takes to act, the greater the opportunity for these treasures and their rich history to erode away. Unfortunately, this area has weathered the passing of several hurricanes, including Katrina and most recently Isaac, and is now suffering from the impacts of the BP oil spill. All of these events threaten to destroy these historical assets, but this need not be the case. These assets need protection and this is the first step in securing it. That is why I am re-introducing this bill-- to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including this area in the system and ultimately to begin the process of adding this area as a unit of the National Park Service. I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this bill.