Floor Statements

I do.

Mr. President, I thought I could give Senators and those who may be following this very elongated debate on the highway bill an update as to where we are. We have a managers' package we are hoping to approve momentarily. It is a bipartisan package. We continue to work across the aisle. Under the consent, we want to move forward with that. We had, I believe, a holdup yesterday. We are working to find out why. But we are very hopeful that will move forward. Then we have a series of votes on amendments, beginning at about noon. So at 11:30 or so, we will be back on the bill.

I want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and to my friends on this side of the aisle that we are making great progress. This is a jobs bill. This is a major jobs bill. This is the biggest jobs bill.

They passed an IPO bill over there in the House. Eric Cantor is saying it is a jobs bill. I do not know how many jobs it will create. It is an investor bill. It is good; I am for it. But it does not come anywhere close to the bill we are working on today. Because on March 31, if we do not act on this transportation bill, everything will come to a screeching halt, if I might use that analogy. Because there will not be a gas tax anymore going into the Federal highway trust fund, there will not be any funds going from the Federal Government to the various planning organizations in all of our States and communities.

All of us know that since the days of President Eisenhower we have had a national system for roads, bridges, highways, and so on. So we have a lot of work to do here. I want to say, we are very close to the day when everything will stop. So I think we are making great progress.

I know the majority leader and the minority leader talked about finishing this bill today. That means a lot of cooperation because we have to get through about 20 amendments plus a managers' package. I think we can do it. I know we can do it.

Then, frankly, we can actually go home and tell our people we voted on a huge jobs bill. How huge? We are going to protect 1.8 million jobs, and a lot of construction jobs. I have often told people that the unemployment rate among construction workers is way higher than the general population. Our unemployment rate is about 8.3 percent. We have a 15-, 16-, 17-percent unemployment rate among construction workers.

And God bless this President. He has worked so hard on making sure we have set the table for job growth. We have had terrific job growth, but even with those 200,000-plus jobs created last month, construction jobs actually went down.

So we are looking at an industry that is in a great deal of trouble. It is because of the housing market. It is still not stabilized. Until we solve our housing crisis--and, again, the administration and the Congress are trying to do everything to allow people to stay in their homes so we don't keep having defaults, houses on the market, short sales, and all the rest. Once that is behind us, we will see a whole new day for construction. But that day isn't here.

It would be a dereliction of our duty if we fail to pass this bill because we will save 1.8 million jobs. That is how many people are working as a result of our ongoing transportation action. We have to save that. Then because of some very good work done in my home State, particularly in Los Angeles, we have come up with a new way to create an additional 1 million jobs by leveraging a program called the TIFIA Program, transportation infrastructure financing. It means as our State and our local areas pass, say, a sales tax to build transit or roads or highways, we, the Federal Government, can front that money at virtually zero risk and leverage these funds threefold.

In this bill we would be protecting 1.8 million jobs and creating up to 1 million new jobs because of the TIFIA Program. I want to say this bill is a bipartisan effort--hugely bipartisan.

I just talked to Senator Inhofe late last evening. We talked about the fact that we don't want to have it held up anymore. We want to move it through, and we are going to move it through. We are very pleased.

Anyone who follows politics knows Senator Inhofe is one of the most conservative Members of the Senate, and I am one of the most liberal Members of

the Senate. We are both very proud of who we are and comfortable with who we are. We know when it comes to some things we don't see eye to eye. There will be many more opportunities to see how we disagree on issues, such as clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, superfund, climate change, and all that. But we are on the highway bill. We hope this will become a template for us in the Senate and the House to find a sweet spot where we can work together. We are right there. A little bit more work and we know we have done our jobs. It could come today--I hope it will come today--but it will come late today because there are many amendments to get through.

I want to make my last comment about what is happening in the House. The House passed an IPO bill, initial public offering. I support that approach. I think it would be a great way to get more capital into the hands of businesses and enable them to hire people. It is a good bill. We are going to work on it. But the House has done nothing about the Transportation bill. Speaker Boehner has tried. He has had many efforts to bring people to the table. But the trouble is he has only brought to the table one political party. We have to work together. Senator Inhofe and I could never have gotten this bill to where it is if we stood in our corners and concentrated on the areas where we had disagreement. There were plenty of those, but we set those aside.

I say to the Members of the House, there is a secret to success, which is taking your hand and reaching it across the aisle and finding common ground with your colleagues. If you lose a bunch of Republicans and Democrats, you still have enough to get a bill through.

Our bill, though not perfect, does what we have to do. We protect 1.8 million jobs, mostly in construction. We create up to 1 million jobs. We took a bill that had 90 different programs and brought it down to 30 programs. We have a managers' package of very bipartisan issues that we have resolved.

I will probably be back on the floor within an hour to debate the two amendments that will be pending, the Bingaman amendment and the DeMint amendment. I will speak out on those amendments.

I thank the occupant of the chair for his support. He has been a real good friend and has helped us move this bill forward. I know this bill is important to his home State of Delaware, as it is important to Tennessee and to California. I have a list of jobs by State that we would lose if we fail to act. That is the bad news. The good news is we are going to act. I will be back in short order.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I know Senator Bingaman is here, so I will ask a quick unanimous consent that the time until noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, and all votes after the first vote following the recess be 10-minute votes.

I yield the floor.

Amendment 1759

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Did Senator DeMint use his 1 minute he had before the vote?

I ask to have an additional 15 seconds, since he went over by that much.

I am asking for that. Fine.

I think this is so critical. The DeMint amendment is the end of the Federal highway and transportation system. It is a system that has been in place since Republican President Dwight Eisenhower told us how critical it was. He said in the 1950s: The Transportation bill's impact on the American economy--the jobs it would produce in manufacturing, construction, the rural areas it would open--are beyond calculation.

Ronald Reagan said: It has enabled our commerce to thrive, our country to grow, and our people to roam freely.

Senator DeMint is taking on two icons in the Republican Party, President Eisenhower and President Reagan.

Today, the National Association of Manufacturers said they oppose this amendment. They oppose it. It would reduce future revenues, they said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said they are against it, and without this Transportation bill there is no guarantee that States would prioritize transportation investments that support national interests.

The American Road and Transportation Builders Association said they are against this amendment, and it would force your State to raise its own taxes or force cuts elsewhere to offset massive cuts in Federal highway and transit investments.

I respect my friend, but this is a disaster if it were to pass. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this is a killer amendment. Our committee voted 18 to 0 on a bipartisan bill that set out the formulas in a very fair way. What did we do? We didn't want to jolt the States in the middle of a tough economic time, so we kept that funding in place. Again, the distribution is very fair.

In contrast, we have a lot of drafting problems with my friend's amendment. The Department of Transportation says it doesn't even specify that the gas taxes will not be factored in as Federal gas taxes. It just has a flaw in it. It is also very biased because traditionally we have always distributed these funds to States based on numerous factors, need-based factors: lane miles in a State, the cost to repair or replace deficient bridges, the vehicle miles traveled.

So I would say to my friend, I appreciate the spirit with which he offers this amendment. I understand the spirit is one that he can be proud of.

But this, in fact, at the end of the day, ruins the bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

We yield back.

Madam President, could we have order?

First, thank you to all colleagues for your amazing cooperation. I hope we vote this down because we already did vote down a similar amendment.

This is another amendment that would devolve the Federal Aid Highway Program back to the States. In closing, let me quote from the American Road and Transportation Builders. This is what they say:

Allowing States to opt out of the Federal highway program

ignores the role of the U.S. highway network in supporting

the national economy and the reliance of each State's economy

on the ability to ship products efficiently across borders.

This is not good for our economy. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Sure.

This would essentially devolve the whole program, go against what Dwight Eisenhower had in mind when he started the National Highway System.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shaheen amendment No. 1678 be considered following Paul amendment No. 1556.

Mr. President, I hope we will oppose this amendment. It is very controversial. It is opposed by a very broad and diverse group of business and labor organizations.

It would overturn a 60-year prohibition on allowing commercial services at interstate rest areas. The ban was enacted because Congress recognized the importance of supporting businesses and commercial activity along interstates. That decision has resulted in the development of 97,000 businesses that employ over 2 million Americans who provide services to travelers on our Nation's highways.

This amendment would allow commercial activities at existing interstate rest areas, which would lead to devastating losses to those businesses that are located near interstate interchanges.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the small businesses that exist across our country near highway exits. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I send a managers' package to the desk which has been approved by both managers and both leaders. Under the provisions of the previous order, I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to.

Mr. President, I understand that Senator Shaheen no longer intends to offer her amendment, so we can strike that from the list.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I just wanted to go on record tonight as saying we have made just incredible progress on this bill, and I look forward to tomorrow, where we will complete work on it. I think we are showing bipartisan spirit here and bipartisan cooperation. It is important to note that 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance.

So we will see everyone tomorrow. I feel very good we are going to pass our bill, and with that I suggest the absence of a quorum--I withdraw that.

Mr. President, with that, I would say au revoir, and I will see everybody in the morning.

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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

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

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.

Yes, I would.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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.

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.

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1660

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.

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

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.

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.

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

Madam President, I thought I would use this opportunity to inform our colleagues and anyone following this transportation debate as to where we are.

Yesterday, we had an opportunity to stop the filibuster and get right to our bill and get it done and protect 1.8 million jobs and create another 1 million. We didn't do that--pretty much on a party line vote. The filibuster continues.

The hopeful sign we had was right before the vote when the Republican leader said he was open to reaching an agreement. I was hopeful that agreement would not contain extraneous votes. I don't think that is going to happen. I think we are going to face extraneous votes--to repeal Clean Air Act rules, to open our States to drilling that rely on fishing and tourism and recreation when we know the oil companies have millions of acres they can drill on without going to these areas that are so essential to our economic future just as they are to our environmental future. It looks as though we are going to face that and a vote probably on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Again, I am very sad we could not come together when we have a bill that got an 85-to-11 vote to proceed to it. We still have to face a filibuster and still we had to lose two votes to cut off debate. But the Senate, being the Senate, this is it.

So now we have to vote. The two leaders can agree. I hope they can work together to achieve an agreement whereby we would have votes on these extraneous matters, and, hopefully, we would not have a prolonged debate on them because this is a highway bill. Thousands and thousands of businesses are waiting for us to act. By March 31, if we don't act, everything stops. In your State and mine all these highway projects will shut down with no Federal contribution at all, which is most of them.

I am hopeful. I cannot report to the Senate that we have an agreement now, but I hope we will have one at some point today. Once we do have that, we have a path forward; and if we work together in goodwill, we can get this done.

Frankly, I don't think we have a choice but to get it done. Everything, as I said, expires March 31. Here it is March 7 and we have a few days left before this whole thing blows up, and we will have no highway bill and people will be laid off.

In this economic time, that is the last result we need. We need to fix our highways, bridges, and roads.

Madam President, the occupant of the chair is a proud member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She has worked hard to get us to this day. I know she has worked hard to bring this debate to a close and get a path forward. We can all hope that happens today.

I will be back on the floor with Senator Inhofe. I am hopeful the two of us can lead us through this bill and get this bill done. Then I think we can have the House follow our example of Democrats and Republicans working together. If they start that over there, they will have the bill quicker than they think, and we can finally put this behind us and send a message that we are functioning.

This concept of a Federal highway system was brought to us by a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. He understood logistics better than most. He knew we could not have a thriving economy if we could not move goods and people. So I am hopeful. I will be back on the Senate floor when we have an agreement and we can move forward.

I will yield the floor, as I know the Senator from Vermont is here. I always look forward to his comments.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I thank my friend for putting the gas price situation into a larger picture and also note that one other factor playing a role is manipulation due to some of the instability in the world that our President is certainly dealing with, and many of us here, and the instability in Iran; the fact that we have sanctions, the fact that there is also a greater demand coming for this product from China and other very high-growth areas.

I say to my friend, is he aware--I know he is, but because of the rules I have to ask it in a question--that we are producing far more of this resource, oil, in this country than we have done? Since 2008 we have many more rigs out there, and is my colleague also aware that the oil companies are sitting on well over 50 million acres of leases on which they are not drilling when they could? And, my last point, is my friend aware that we are exporting more than we ever have from America? That is also a very important point.

To those who say, ``drill, baby, drill,'' that is not an answer if it is ``export, baby, export.'' The fact is we are drilling more, and more is leaving America.

So I say to my friend, is he aware of all of these factors, and is he as concerned as I am about the other side playing more politics with this because ``drill, baby, drill'' is not the answer? We are drilling more than ever. We only have 2 percent of the world's proven supply of oil.

I wonder if my friend could comment on those points.

What is the order at this time?

Mr. President, we are back in our fourth week trying to get a transportation bill through this body. To me, it is a very sad statement about the dysfunction of this body that we spent approximately 3 weeks dithering over a contraception amendment that has nothing to do with the highway bill and other threats to offer foreign policy amendments, and so on.

We have a chance today to vote to end this dithering, and the Chamber of Commerce is asking us to do that. The AFL CIO is asking us to do that. One thousand organizations are asking us to do that because they know thousands of businesses and well over 1 million jobs are at stake.

I wish to say I heard the tail end of Senator Boozman's talk about the Keystone Pipeline. I wanted to make sure it was on the record--this is from a conversation I had with Senator Durbin--that under this President we are drilling now more than we have ever drilled. Anyone who says ``drill, baby, drill'' doesn't understand that the number of rigs that are now moving are four times as many as in 2008. They don't understand we are now exporting oil. They don't understand the fact that we are importing less. Does that mean we are done? No. The oil companies have more than 50 million acres of approved leases. They ought to drill there and hands off my coast because my coast is an economic gold mine the way it is because we have tourism and recreation and fishing. Those jobs far outweigh any jobs that would come from oil drilling, which would tend to undermine the very economy of my great State. If we have to vote on Keystone, we will. If we have to vote on offshore drilling, we will. But I will be here to point out that if we care about jobs and about making sure the price of gasoline goes down, when we have Keystone, let's make sure the oil stays here, that oil is made in America and stays in America. These issues are not one- dimensional; they are many sided, as my friend knows. He and I have agreed on much and we have disagreed on some.

What we need is the kind of balance President Obama brings to the table when it comes to energy. He says we will do ``all of the above,'' but we will do it wisely. Interestingly, on the Keystone Pipeline--we now have the tea party talking about property rights and the fact that they have to be respected as well when we build a new pipeline such as this. So we will have votes.

May I make a plea to my colleagues. At noon, just about 50 minutes from now, we can have a clean vote; 60 of us can vote to move to this Transportation bill, to get rid of, as my friend Olympia Snowe has said, polarizing amendments. Why not move to something that was voted unanimously out of our committee, 18 to zero--Republicans and Democrats, all together; Senator Inhofe and myself, together; Senator Shelby and Senator Johnson, together on the bill; Senator Baucus, working in a bipartisan way with his committee; and Senator Rockefeller, once they got rid of some bumps, working with Senator Hutchison. We now have pending an agreed-upon bill, plus we have added to the package 37 bipartisan amendments.

What more do my friends want? We have a bipartisan bill. We have added more bipartisan amendments to it. All these jobs are at stake, and today we can end all this dithering and wasting time. The people of America look at us and wonder what we are about. Vote yes for cloture.

I wish to talk about what is at stake if we don't invoke cloture and don't wind up with a bill. That is not just hyperbole; these are facts. All our transportation programs expire on March 31.

My friend in the chair served as a great Governor of his State of West Virginia. He knows how important the highway bill is. We work together with the States and with the planning organizations, and we get those funds out there. On March 31, we are done. This bill reauthorizes that program, and 1.8 million jobs are at stake. As soon as we fail, there is no more program. There is no more authority to collect the Federal gas tax that supports the highway program. There is no more authority to spend any money on transportation.

Again, 1.8 million jobs are at stake. Let's go to the next chart. I did a breakdown of the various States. In this time, I am going to highlight a few of the States. These charts will be available for everybody.

In Alabama, we are talking about only 27,000 jobs; in Alaska, 18,000 jobs--I am skipping; in California, 164,000 jobs; in Florida, 76,000 jobs; right here in DC, 18,000 jobs; in Georgia, almost 50,000 jobs; in Illinois, 65,000; in Indiana, 34,000; in Iowa, 17,000; in Louisiana, 25,000; in Maine, almost 7,000.

We will go on and give the rest of the States to give a sense of how many jobs will be lost if we do not act to reauthorize this bill.

In Maryland, 26,000 jobs; in Massachusetts, 31,000; in Michigan, 39,000; in Montana, almost 14,000; in Nebraska, 10,000; in Nevada, almost 14,000 jobs; in New Jersey, 50,000; in New York, 118,000; in North Dakota, 8,000; in Ohio, 50,000; in Oklahoma, 22,000; in Pennsylvania, 68,000; in Rhode Island, 8,000.

I will continue with another chart to show other examples. I will be sure to say what West Virginia is when I get to the Ws. In South Carolina, 22,000; in South Dakota, 9,000; in Tennessee, 30,000; in Texas, 128,000 jobs.

I call on Senators to vote yes to stop debate and get to the bill.

In Vermont, almost 7,000; in Virginia, 41,000; in Washington State, 34,000; in West Virginia, 15,133 jobs; in Wisconsin, 27,000; in Wyoming, 8,400 jobs.

When we talk about this as a jobs bill, this isn't some exercise in our verbiage; this is a fact of life. These jobs add up to 1.8 million. In our bipartisan bill, we have increased a particular program--this is a reform bill, and we have taken 90 programs down to 30. It

is a real reform bill. We have done away with every earmark. One particular program we increased is the TIFIA Program, transportation infrastructure financing. We took it up to $1 billion because it leverages Federal dollars 30 times. So let's say one of our counties voted to tax themselves one-half cent to build a transit system. We would come in--and the Federal Government, you make an application from your State and we would front that money. So you could build it all in 1 or 2 years instead of waiting for the funding over 10. This was an idea that came from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Chamber of Commerce and the labor unions in Los Angeles.

So the bottom line here is not only are we saving 1.8 million jobs, but we have the potential of creating another 1 million jobs. If we fail today to cut off debate and we don't have a path forward--which I hope the leaders will figure out--if we abandon this, 2.8 million jobs are at stake.

Let's look at some other charts of unemployment. Mr. President, you know as well as anyone in your State, and I know in my State, that construction workers have been hit very hard. The national unemployment rate is 8.3 percent. We are hopeful it is on the downtick, but the construction industry unemployment rate as a whole is 17.7 percent. It could be even worse in some areas, but this is an average. So if we add to the unemployment in the construction industry, we are looking at a total crisis, a total disaster. Right now, we have 1.48 million construction workers out of work. If we fail to do this bill, we are adding another 1.8 million. So you could say this would be a depression for construction workers.

It doesn't stop there. The industry is feeling it, the businesses are feeling it, and we have a chart that talks about the thousands of businesses that would be affected. I don't know if you are aware of this, but there are over 11,000 transportation construction companies that would be adversely impacted by a shutdown on March 31. So in addition to the 1.8 million workers who would be laid off, 11,000 transportation construction companies--many of them--would have to shut their doors. And that is a very modest number.

Let me show a picture that I often show when speaking of the construction workers. I am sure you are a Super Bowl fan--we all are, Mr. President--and this is a picture of a stadium during the Super Bowl. Every seat there, about 100,000 seats, is filled. Imagine every one of these seats filled with an unemployed construction worker, and then close your eyes and envision 14 more of these stadiums filled with unemployed construction workers. That is where we are today. Then you would have to envision another 25 or 30 of those. We cannot afford to go down this road. So today, let's vote ``aye'' for cloture.

The last thing I want to show is the strong support for this cloture vote. We received this yesterday from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce:

. . . strongly supports this important legislation. Passing surface transportation reauthorization legislation is a specific action Congress and the administration can take right now to support job growth and economic productivity without adding to the deficit.

Because, as you know, this bill is 100 percent paid for. We also have a history-making group of organizations supporting this, and I will give you a sense of that as well. We have a coalition of 1,075 organizations from all 50 States. They sent us a letter on January 25, 2012, and they said:

In 2011, political leaders--Republican and Democrat, House,

Senate and the administration--stated a multi-year surface

transportation bill is important for job creation and

economic recovery. We urge you to follow words with action.

I want to repeat that: We urge you to follow words with action.

Continuing the quote:

Make transportation job #1 and move immediately in the

House and Senate to invest in the roads, bridges [and]

transit systems that are the backbone of the U.S. Economy,

its businesses, large and small, and communities of all

sizes.

They didn't ask us to take up the Keystone Pipeline, they didn't ask us to take up repealing clean air laws, they didn't ask us to take up drilling off the coast, and they didn't ask us to take up contraception. They didn't. They asked us to take up this transportation bill. And I am saying to colleagues, please, you have had 3 weeks to discuss contraception. We disposed of it. We voted. It is okay. It is tabled. Let's move on. There are other days we can talk about that but not when we are dealing with building the highways and bridges.

You know, the state of our highways and transportation system is not what it should be, with 70,000 bridges deficient. Bridges are falling down. Senator Inhofe is eloquent on the point about a woman taking a walk and having a piece of bridge fall on her and she died. We have seen what happened in Minnesota when bridges start to fall into disrepair.

When I was growing up, my parents always taught me be responsible--be responsible. I am not always living up to their expectations, but I try. And if somebody tells me there is a problem over here, I try to fix it. So when I hear that 70,000 bridges are in trouble and they are deficient, and 50 percent of our roads are not up to standard--I now know this information. If I were ignorant and I didn't know it, that would be one thing. But I now know it--how can I turn my back on this bill? I know how many unemployed construction workers there are. How can I turn my back on them? I know businesses--whether it is gravel companies or cement companies or general contractors--are begging us to do this. These are Republican-leaning groups along with labor and Democratic-leaning groups. Bridges are not partisan. Roads are not partisan.

This is our moment. We can vote yes on cloture. What does that mean? It means we are not going to debate these very difficult, inflammatory amendments, but we are going to stick to the highway bill, stick to the transportation bill. This vote is a very important vote for folks because I think if you don't vote to move to the bill and you vote to prolong this debate, you have to answer to your folks back home and tell them why you are playing Russian roulette with the highway bill, because on March 31 it all stops.

It is true in the past we have had extensions. This is different than usual because the trust fund is short of funds, so you can't just extend. If you extend, there is a price to be paid. Because the trust fund doesn't have the funds it needs--which is repaired in this bill-- you would have an immediate cut of a third--a third--right there, which means 500,000 jobs, if you did an extension. We don't want that. We want a bill that is a reform bill, that takes this from 90 programs to 30, that uses leveraging in a smart way, and that is totally bipartisan.

Let me sum up. In a few minutes we will be voting, and let me say to my friends again, you have all the facts at hand. If you don't know what your State job loss would be if we fail to act, we have that. We will give it to you. But there is no way you can run away from what you know.

We had 85 votes to proceed to this bill. That was a long time ago. It seems like ages ago. Yet we can't get off dead center because people are offering unrelated amendments. So my hope is we will get to 60. My hope is we can, in short order, get this bill done and send a message of hope to the people.

I heard just now that Speaker Boehner has said he is very interested in the Senate bill; that he is going to take a look at the Senate bill because, at this point, they haven't been able to get a bill that they feel has a chance. This bill, I would reiterate for America, is bipartisan, the most bipartisan bill I have ever seen around here, and it unites people who fight and argue on everything else. When Inhofe and Boxer agree on something, you know that is a real good compromise. And we do agree. When Vitter and Baucus come in and agree on the same thing that Inhofe and Boxer have agreed to, it is a good day around here. And that is what we have before us.

So I call on colleagues to vote aye on the cloture vote and let's get on with this. Let's spare the people the untold suffering that will come if we have to lay off 1.8 million workers and hurt more than 11,000 businesses.

I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and 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 ask unanimous consent that the time during these quorum calls be charged to both sides equally.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes, and that Senator Murray conclude our side with 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I have news for the supporters of the Blunt amendment: We were not born yesterday. And no matter how many times they say this is nothing more than a restatement of old laws, the facts are not with them. We have never had a conscience clause for insurance companies. And if you wanted to give them a chance to say no, a lot of them don't have any conscience, so they would take it. And this is what Blunt does. It

allows any insurance company that doesn't want to provide a service-- maybe an expensive service--to say, oh, I meant to tell you, I have a moral objection to this.

What a situation. How many people have struggled with their insurance companies to get them to cover what they have paid for for years and years and years, only to have the insurance company say, sorry, sue us. Now Mr. Blunt is giving insurance companies a way to say, oh, we feel sorry that you have cancer; we are sad you have diabetes; we are torn apart you might have a stroke, but, you know what, we have a moral objection to the kind of therapies that are out there today, so we are sorry.

That is what the Blunt amendment does.

Should anyone think I am making it up, let's look at the words in the Blunt amendment. They are right here. They are right here. So the Senator from Maine can say whatever she wants about it, the Senator from Missouri can talk about what he wants to, but the fact is they say if you deny any coverage from the essential health benefits package or the preventive health package it is fine as long as you hide behind--my words--a moral objection.

This started out with birth control. There was a hearing over in the House, and this iconic picture will last through my lifetime and yours. Here is a photograph of a panel discussing women's health care over in the Republican House. A discussion on women's health care. Do you see one woman there? I don't. They are all men. And these men are waxing eloquent about birth control and the fact that, oh, it is just a moral issue with them and they do not think women should have the right to have it. Not one of them suggested men shouldn't have their Viagra, but we will put that aside. We will put that aside.

Not one woman was called. And when a woman raised her hand in the audience and said, I have a very important story to tell about a friend of mine who lost her ovary because she couldn't afford birth control, which would have controlled the size of the cyst on the ovary, you know what Mr. Issa said over there? He said, you are not qualified. You are not qualified to talk about women's issues. I guess only men are qualified to talk about women's issues. We have men on the other side of the aisle here, for the most part--with a little assist--telling women what their rights should be.

I cannot believe this battle is on a highway bill, on a transportation bill, where 2.8 million jobs are at stake. We have been diverted with this amendment about women's health. Look at the different important benefits that any insurer or any employer could walk away from. Because if this amendment passes, they would have the right to do so. They would no longer have to cover emergency services, hospitalization, maternity care, mental health treatment, pediatric services, rehabilitative services, ambulatory patient services, laboratory services. They would no longer have to offer breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings. All they have to do is say, oh, I am sorry, we believe prayer is the answer. We don't believe in chemotherapy. If someone is heavy and they are obese and they get diabetes, we have a moral objection to helping them because, you know what, they didn't lead a clean life. So they could deny any of these things--flu vaccines, osteoporosis screening, TB testing for children, autism screening.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote down this dangerous amendment. Vote it down. We will have a motion to table, and I urge my colleagues to stand for the women and the families of this Nation and let's get back to the highway bill. Get rid of this thing.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I wish today to pay tribute to 15 servicemembers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since November 15, 2011. This brings to 324 the number of servicemembers either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Afghanistan. This represents 17 percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan.

SPC Sean M. Walsh, 21, of San Jose, CA, died November 16, in Khowst Province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained after encountering indirect fire. Specialist Walsh was assigned to the 185th Military Police Battalion, 49th Military Police Brigade, Pittsburg, CA.

LCpl Joshua D. Corral, 19, of Danville, CA, died November 18 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Corral was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.

Cpl Zachary C. Reiff, 22, of Preston, IA, died November 21 of wounds suffered November 18 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Reiff was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.

SSgt Vincent J. Bell, 28, of Detroit, MI, died November 30 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Bell was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

SFC Clark A. Corley Jr., 35, of Oxnard, CA, died December 3, in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Sergeant First Class Corley was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Bliss, TX.

SPC Thomas J. Mayberry, 21, of Springville, CA, died December 3, in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Specialist Mayberry was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Bliss, TX.

SGT Christopher L. Muniz, 24, of New Cuyama, CA, died December 11, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Sergeant Muniz was assigned to the 3rd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI.

SSG Noah M. Korte, 29, of Lake Elsinore, CA, died December 27, in Paktia, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Staff Sergeant Korte was assigned to the 720th Military Police Battalion, 89th Military Police Brigade, Fort Hood, TX.

PO1 Chad R. Regelin, 24, of Cottonwood, CA, died January 2 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Petty Officer First Class Regelin was assigned as an explosive ordnance disposal technician to Marine Special Operations Company Bravo. Regelin was stationed at Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 3, San Diego,