Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 59, to designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National

Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside,

California;

S. 155, to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as

Denali;

S. 156, to allow for the harvest of gull eggs by the Huna

Tlingit people within Glacier Bay National Park in the State

of Alaska;

S. 219, to establish the Susquehanna Gateway National

Heritage Area in the State of Pennsylvania, and for other

purposes;

S. 225, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and

interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early

years of the National Parks, and for other purposes;

S. 228, to establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

National Heritage Area, California;

S. 285, to designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve

as a unit of the National Park System, and for other

purposes;

S. 305, to authorize the acquisition of core battlefield

land at Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and Raymond for addition

to Vicksburg National Military Park;

S. 349, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate a segment of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and

Pawcatuck Rivers in the States of Connecticut and Rhode

Island for study for potential addition to the National Wild

and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes;

S. 371, to establish the Blackstone River Valley National

Historical Park, to dedicate the Park to John H. Chafee, and

for other purposes;

S. 476, to amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development

Act to extend to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National

Historical Park Commission;

S. 486, to authorize pedestrian and motorized vehicular

access in Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area,

and for other purposes;

S. 507, to establish the Manhattan Project National

Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New

Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, and for other purposes, and;

S. 615, to establish Coltsville National Historical Park in

the State of Connecticut, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following legislation:

S. 306, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower

Development and Rural Jobs Act;

S. 545, the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2013 and H.R.

267, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013; and,

A bill to promote energy savings in residential and

commercial buildings and industry, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to lauren_goldschmidt @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224- 6224, Dan Adamson at (202) 224-2871, or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 9, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Ernest J. Moniz to be the Secretary of Energy.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 for the Forest Service.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact please contact Meghan Conklin (202) 224-8046 or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing will be to hear testimony on the following measures:

S. 211, the Provo River Project Transfer Act;

S. 284, the Fort Sumner Project Title Conveyance Act;

S. 510, the Scofield Land Transfer Act;

S. 659, to reauthorize the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991;

S.J. Res. 12, A joint resolution to consent to certain amendments enacted by the legislature of the State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission, Act, 1920; and,

H.R. 316 and S. Amdt. 579, the Collinsville Renewable Energy Promotion Act.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 18, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the U.S. Department of Energy's budget for fiscal year 2014.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to lauren_goldschmidt @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. President, the Durbin-Enzi amendment forgets that we are in a global economy. This measure does not and cannot reach foreign retailers. A small business, for example, in Montana is sacked with the burdens of this bill. It is an administrative nightmare, which Senator Baucus and Senator Ayotte have outlined. Some businesses are just going to say: Why not do business in Canada or Mexico or even China. Now, I know my colleagues who are advocating this don't intend this result, but their legislation really ought to be called the shop Mexico bill or the shop Canada bill or the shop China bill. I don't think that makes any sense.

Chairman Baucus handles these global economic kinds of questions in the Finance Committee, and that is the place we ought to look at it, and that is why we ought to reject this amendment today.

I yield the floor and reserve my time.

I will be very brief. Under this amendment, we could not touch an online retailer that is wholly overseas shipping into the United States with UPS. We could not touch them.

What the Senator from North Dakota is talking about is obviously foreign corporations, people with physical presence. But if you are wholly overseas, an online Internet retailer shipping into this country, you get a free ride under this legislation. That is why it is going to create an incentive to take American jobs from here and locate overseas where they get a free ride.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus.

Senator Durbin is right. Things have changed. The Internet now is the shipping lane of the 21st century, and foreign retailers are going to get an advantage.

Colleagues, if this were enforceable as Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi are saying, Europe would go out and put it in place tomorrow and do it to our sellers.

It is not enforceable. It violates the World Trade Organization. It advantages foreign retailers at our expense. I hope my colleagues will reject the amendment.

Mr. President, very briefly, I think this is an opportunity to update our laws, particularly looking at environmental protection, labor rights, and digital trade. So I urge all colleagues to support this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 526

Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes today on the importance of reauthorizing the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act.

This past year was the warmest on record and we are witnessing more climate-driven events, including drought. Over 60 percent of the nation experienced some form of drought during 2012. In my home State of Oregon, serious drought is likely to persist in the southeastern part of the State.

Last summer marked the Nation's most widespread drought in 60 years, stretching across 29 States and threatening crop production and power plant operations. The levels in many lakes and reservoirs have declined putting at risk a crucial part of our Nation's drinking water supplies. The impacts of the drought are profound and the outlook for this summer isn't any better.

The Drought Act was originally reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 1992. Since then it has provided over $74 million in drought assistance activities to States across the West. It not only authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake construction, management and conservation activities that will minimize and mitigate the losses and damages resulting from drought conditions, but it also gives specific considerations to the needs of fish and wildlife.

My proposed legislation would reauthorize the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act, which expired last year, for an additional 5 years. Given the drought last year and the forecast for prolonged drought in parts of this country, it is reasonable to raise the authorization level by $20 million, which this legislation does. As one indication of the associated costs of drought, in 2012 the drought caused an estimated $50 billion in damages.

In closing, I look forward to working with this administration and my colleagues in the Senate to reauthorize this vital program and to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation has the resources it needs to adequately address the drought conditions.

Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes today on the importance of reauthorizing the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act.

This past year was the warmest on record and we are witnessing more climate-driven events, including drought. Over 60 percent of the nation experienced some form of drought during 2012. In my home State of Oregon, serious drought is likely to persist in the southeastern part of the State.

Last summer marked the Nation's most widespread drought in 60 years, stretching across 29 States and threatening crop production and power plant operations. The levels in many lakes and reservoirs have declined putting at risk a crucial part of our Nation's drinking water supplies. The impacts of the drought are profound and the outlook for this summer isn't any better.

The Drought Act was originally reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 1992. Since then it has provided over $74 million in drought assistance activities to States across the West. It not only authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake construction, management and conservation activities that will minimize and mitigate the losses and damages resulting from drought conditions, but it also gives specific considerations to the needs of fish and wildlife.

My proposed legislation would reauthorize the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act, which expired last year, for an additional 5 years. Given the drought last year and the forecast for prolonged drought in parts of this country, it is reasonable to raise the authorization level by $20 million, which this legislation does. As one indication of the associated costs of drought, in 2012 the drought caused an estimated $50 billion in damages.

In closing, I look forward to working with this administration and my colleagues in the Senate to reauthorize this vital program and to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation has the resources it needs to adequately address the drought conditions.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from the Northwest. We worked it out so I could talk a little bit about Medicare and taxes as well.

Before Senator Enzi leaves, I just want to tell him he is someone who gives public service a good name. We have spent a lot of time working together on a variety of issues, such as tax reform, and particularly this idea of transition rules. I just want to tell the Senator how much I appreciate the way he approaches problem solving. I would say to colleagues that what I have not been able to figure out for the 10 years this debate has gone on is how we are going to make this work for America's innovators and small businesses. Let me give just a couple examples and be very brief.

What concerns me most about the bill as it is written today is State revenue collectors, under this legislation, in effect, will be outsourcing their jobs to America's small businesses, America's innovators. If the bill passes in its present form, those small businesses, our innovators, are going to spend their time trying to figure out how to collect all these taxes across the land rather than creating jobs. I don't think that is anything any of us want to do, Democrats or Republicans. That is point No. 1.

Second, I wish to talk about the international implications of this bill. Senator Murray and I and others, including Senator Baucus, are very close to the border. What concerns me, especially after the legal analysis I received from the Congressional Research Service, is I think the way this bill is going to work, people are going to end up calling it the shop Canada bill or maybe the shop Mexico bill or, what is even more ominous, the shop China bill. I wish to describe exactly why that is the case using the legal analysis from the Congressional Research Service.

The proposal, of course, requires American businesses to collect sales taxes on behalf of 45 State revenue collectors, but it imposes no such burden on foreign retailers that sell into the United States. So an Oregon business would have to collect taxes for New York, but Chinese firms wouldn't have to collect taxes for any State. Washington State businesses would have to collect taxes for Idaho, but Canadian firms are under no such obligation. I ask my colleagues: What is fair about sacking these American small businesses, these entrepreneurs, which are adding so much value to the new economy, to make it even more difficult for our small businesses to compete with Canadian sellers and European sellers and Chinese sellers? This bill as written is going to be a huge boon, for example, for the idea of setting up online businesses in Canada.

Small businesses all across the country, especially those that are near the border, in my view, would have every financial incentive to incorporate there. For the life of me, I don't see how that could be good for the American economy or fair to American firms that, for a variety of reasons, are not capable of moving.

Senator Alexander was spot on in terms of talking about how we should look to States rights--I am certainly interested in that--but let's not do it so that in a globalized economy, we make it even tougher for American innovators to compete.

At this point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a legal memorandum that was prepared for me by the Congressional Research Service that describes in great detail the unfairness the so- called Marketplace Fairness Act would create for American firms in a global economy.

Mr. President, I will just wrap up with this. As colleagues look at this--and we are going to have plenty of debate-- let's think through the implications of what the administrative water torture is going to be all about for small businesses and why it doesn't make more sense for State tax collectors to do their job, No. 1; and No. 2, let us not make it harder for American small business to compete in tough global markets. It is plenty tough as it is.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when we began the budget debate in Senator Murray's committee last week, I said that Senator Murray's challenge gave new meaning to the idea of playing a tough hand. Many thought her task was essentially ``Mission Impossible.''

The fact is, for all of us who know Senator Murray well, she has spent her whole life coming up with solutions to those matters that people said were ``Mission Impossible.'' She spent her whole life coming up with accomplishments that actually solve problems. I commend Senator Murray for all of her work on this matter. I think it is very clear that when we get the kind of bicameral, bipartisan agreement that addresses the major concerns we are debating here on the floor, it is going to be in no small measure because Senator Murray continued to reach out to all sides. I want her to know how much I appreciate that.

I think we all understand these are complicated issues. At the same time, the challenge of coming up with a bipartisan agreement here is not rocket science in terms of identifying what the issues are. There are two issues here. One of them is taxes and the other is Medicare. The two of them in fact are inextricably linked in many respects, because I have heard some on the other side of the aisle say I will look at ways to reform taxes if colleagues on the Democratic side will look at ways to protect Medicare and at the same time hold down its costs. We have heard other Senators say the reverse. So these issues are inextricably linked.

One of the reasons I support this budget this evening is that I think this budget provides significant space for Democrats and Republicans, as this process goes forward, to produce bipartisan solutions on those two issues, the tax question and the Medicare issue, in the days ahead.

Let me take a few minutes. Senator Coats talked about our bipartisan efforts. I have had a chance for the last 5 years to work with two very thoughtful, conservative Republicans--Senator Coats and our former colleague Senator Gregg. Senator Begich and I have been part of a bipartisan team that is, in effect, seeking to modernize some of the principles that a very big group of Democrats and Ronald Reagan agreed to in the 1980s, which is to clean out some of these outlandish special-interest tax breaks.

I see my good friend Senator Levin tonight. He is going to outline just some of those outlandish tax breaks. We ought to clean them out and use a portion of those dollars to hold down the rates and keep progressivity. In the 2 years after Democrats and Republicans did that in the 1980s, the country created millions of new jobs. No one can say that every one of them was due to that tax reform effort, but it certainly helped.

We had Senator Enzi on the floor earlier this evening. I have been working with him on something that I think has been missed in the tax reform debate, and that is Senator Enzi has said

when are people going to start talking about the transition rules you would need to actually implement the tax reform plan because today in a global economy--and Senator Murray and I come from a part of the world that is so trade sensitive--here we have Senator Enzi talking about something very practical that ought to be very attractive to the most progressive Member of the Senate and the most conservative Member of the Senate. Under the Murray proposal these are the kinds of ideas we should be looking at in the days ahead.

Let me now turn, if I might, to the Medicare issue. Again, we all understand it is right at the heart of this when Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan and all those who are going to be in a bipartisan conference are negotiating. I continue to believe it is critically important to protect the Medicare guarantee, something I have battled for since the days when I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, and we can do it in a way that will hold down costs. This is another area where Senator Murray has given us a chance to look at some of the solutions that could win support on both sides of the aisle. I will touch on them briefly.

For years now we have had advocates on all sides of the political spectrum talk about the value of merging Part A, which is the hospital portion of Medicare, with Part B, the doctors and outpatients part of the program. Here is a chance to save billions of dollars while also helping vulnerable seniors hold down some of their out-of-pocket expenses. It is there for the doing under the Murray budget. I think we can forge bipartisan support for it.

Let me move on now to the question of chronic care. This is where more than 70 percent of Medicare costs go, for those who are suffering from heart and stroke and cancer and diabetes. The accountable care organizations, which are an important part of the Affordable Care Act, are clearly going to help with respect to how we look to treat this population. But it is not going to lift all the boats. There are a lot of very effective plans and group practices around the country that are going to give us the opportunity to put in place integrated, effective plans to help the most sick among us. We ought to pursue it. The Murray budget will give us that opportunity.

I will close simply by saying there are some very good ideas for promoting Medicare quality and holding costs down, which cost very little, such as the approach Senator Grassley has given me the chance to partner with him on, that would open for the first time the Medicare database so that we would get a sense of what Medicare was paying various doctors and providers for various services.

I know colleagues are waiting to speak. I will wrap up by saying that on the biggest challenges of our time, which I think come down to two issues, taxes and Medicare, the Murray budget gives us a chance to come together in a bipartisan way. We are not going to get it all done, obviously, this week. But we are going to have a chance to do it and I think in both of these areas, taxes and Medicare, there are Senators on both sides of the aisle who can pick up on this budget and find a way to help Senator Murray and others who are going to participate in these discussions get us to the solutions we need that will strengthen our economy and protect our people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the critical need in today's health care workforce for additional training related to palliative care. Palliative care is an interdisciplinary model of care focused on relieving the pain, stress and other debilitating symptoms of serious illness, such as cancer, cardiac disease, respiratory disease, kidney failure, Alzheimer's, AIDS, ALS, and MS. Its goal is to relieve suffering and provide the best possible quality of life for patients and their families.

Many people mistakenly believe that palliative care is only beneficial when a cure is not possible. Actually, palliative care is not dependent on a life-limiting prognosis and may actually help individuals recover by relieving symptoms such as pain, anxiety or loss of appetite while they are undergoing sometimes difficult medical treatments or procedures, such as surgery or chemotherapy. Palliative care is provided by a team of doctors, nurses, social workers, and other specialists who work with a patient's other health care providers to provide an extra layer of support, including assistance with difficult medical decision-making and coordination of care among specialists. Palliative care is appropriate for people of any age and at any stage in an illness, whether that illness is curable, chronic or life-threatening.

There is a specific type of palliative care, called hospice, for people for whom a cure is no longer possible and who likely have 6 months or less to live. Hospice care can be provided at one's home, a hospice facility, a hospital or a nursing home. Hospice care is about giving patients control, dignity and comfort so they have the best possible quality of life during the time they have. Hospice care also provides support and grief therapy for loved ones whose struggles are often cast aside or forgotten during treatment.

A growing evidence base has demonstrated that palliative care, including hospice, improves quality, controls cost and enhances patient and family satisfaction for the rapidly expanding population of individuals with serious or life-threatening illness. Palliative care may also prolong the lives of some seriously ill patients.

Over the last 10 years, the number of hospital-based palliative care programs has more than doubled due to the increasing number of Americans living with serious, complex and chronic illnesses and the realities of the care responsibilities faced by their families. Studies suggest that in states with more hospital-based palliative care programs, patients are less likely to die in the hospital, are likely to spend fewer days in the ICU, have better pain management and higher satisfaction with their health care.

As usual, Oregon is ahead of the curve and I'm proud to say that in a 2011 report ranking states on their citizens' access to hospital-based palliative care programs, Oregon was among the seven states who earned an ``A'' rating, with 88 percent of Oregon hospitals offering palliative care.

Unfortunately, many seriously ill patients and their families lack the type of access available to Oregonians. Palliative care is a relatively new medical specialty and more must be done to ensure an adequate, well-trained palliative care workforce is available to provide comprehensive symptom management, intensive communication and a level of care coordination that addresses the episodic and long-term nature of serious, chronic illness. I believe that, with Federal support, we can help address the workforce gap between those currently practicing in palliative care and hospice and the number of health care professionals required to care for this expanding patient population. That is why today I am introducing the ``Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act'' or PCHETA. This authoring legislation focuses on three key areas to grow the palliative care and hospice workforce: education centers to expand interdisciplinary training in palliative and hospice care; training of physicians who plan to teach palliative medicine and fellowships to encourage re-training for mid- career physicians; and academic career awards and career incentive awards to support physicians and other health care providers who provide palliative and hospice care training.

With this legislation, patients and families who are facing serious or life-threatening illness will have access to the high-quality palliative care and hospice services that can maximize their quality of life. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the critical need in today's health care workforce for additional training related to palliative care. Palliative care is an interdisciplinary model of care focused on relieving the pain, stress and other debilitating symptoms of serious illness, such as cancer, cardiac disease, respiratory disease, kidney failure, Alzheimer's, AIDS, ALS, and MS. Its goal is to relieve suffering and provide the best possible quality of life for patients and their families.

Many people mistakenly believe that palliative care is only beneficial when a cure is not possible. Actually, palliative care is not dependent on a life-limiting prognosis and may actually help individuals recover by relieving symptoms such as pain, anxiety or loss of appetite while they are undergoing sometimes difficult medical treatments or procedures, such as surgery or chemotherapy. Palliative care is provided by a team of doctors, nurses, social workers, and other specialists who work with a patient's other health care providers to provide an extra layer of support, including assistance with difficult medical decision-making and coordination of care among specialists. Palliative care is appropriate for people of any age and at any stage in an illness, whether that illness is curable, chronic or life-threatening.

There is a specific type of palliative care, called hospice, for people for whom a cure is no longer possible and who likely have 6 months or less to live. Hospice care can be provided at one's home, a hospice facility, a hospital or a nursing home. Hospice care is about giving patients control, dignity and comfort so they have the best possible quality of life during the time they have. Hospice care also provides support and grief therapy for loved ones whose struggles are often cast aside or forgotten during treatment.

A growing evidence base has demonstrated that palliative care, including hospice, improves quality, controls cost and enhances patient and family satisfaction for the rapidly expanding population of individuals with serious or life-threatening illness. Palliative care may also prolong the lives of some seriously ill patients.

Over the last 10 years, the number of hospital-based palliative care programs has more than doubled due to the increasing number of Americans living with serious, complex and chronic illnesses and the realities of the care responsibilities faced by their families. Studies suggest that in states with more hospital-based palliative care programs, patients are less likely to die in the hospital, are likely to spend fewer days in the ICU, have better pain management and higher satisfaction with their health care.

As usual, Oregon is ahead of the curve and I'm proud to say that in a 2011 report ranking states on their citizens' access to hospital-based palliative care programs, Oregon was among the seven states who earned an ``A'' rating, with 88 percent of Oregon hospitals offering palliative care.

Unfortunately, many seriously ill patients and their families lack the type of access available to Oregonians. Palliative care is a relatively new medical specialty and more must be done to ensure an adequate, well-trained palliative care workforce is available to provide comprehensive symptom management, intensive communication and a level of care coordination that addresses the episodic and long-term nature of serious, chronic illness. I believe that, with Federal support, we can help address the workforce gap between those currently practicing in palliative care and hospice and the number of health care professionals required to care for this expanding patient population. That is why today I am introducing the ``Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act'' or PCHETA. This authoring legislation focuses on three key areas to grow the palliative care and hospice workforce: education centers to expand interdisciplinary training in palliative and hospice care; training of physicians who plan to teach palliative medicine and fellowships to encourage re-training for mid- career physicians; and academic career awards and career incentive awards to support physicians and other health care providers who provide palliative and hospice care training.

With this legislation, patients and families who are facing serious or life-threatening illness will have access to the high-quality palliative care and hospice services that can maximize their quality of life. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. President, I would like to advise you that the Senate

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, March 21, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider the nomination of Sally Jewell to be the Secretary of the Interior.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I chair the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and in that capacity, I want to take a couple of minutes to speak against the Toomey amendment. That is amendment No. 115 that would slash, in effect, the biofuels program at the Department of Defense.

Of course, we are going to hear that this will save money, that with the sequester and a very tough set of financial circumstances, which the Presiding Officer knows all too well, the argument will be we cannot afford to have this biofuels program in the Department of Defense.

My argument would be, we cannot afford not to have this program, and I am going to take a couple minutes to try to describe why that is the case.

Right now, the Department of Defense is the single largest user of energy in our country, with annual fuel expenditures in excess of $16 billion. So you have this massive need for energy at the Pentagon-- really a thirst for energy at the Pentagon--and fluctuations in global energy prices have, in effect, enormous effects on defense spending. Every $10 increase in a barrel of oil costs the American military annually an extra $1.3 billion.

For some time there has been a recognition among military experts-- and some are in the Presiding Officer's home State of Massachusetts, where they have spent a lot of time looking at these issues--there has been a recognition that the military, particularly the Pentagon, is exactly the place where we ought to be looking for fresh innovative approaches in order to cut energy use and find alternative sources.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how somehow this effort by the Pentagon--let me repeat: by our country's military--has somehow been conflated into some kind of green plot, some kind of plot by those who are obsessed with green energy and are simply interested in promoting programs to satisfy their ideological interests.

I can tell you the reason this is being pursued at the Pentagon is not because this is somehow some sort of green plot, some sort of subversive green plot. This is being pursued at the Pentagon because they have made the judgment that these kinds of alternative fuels and supporting them is a vital national security matter. This is not about some kind of ideological green agenda. This is about national security. Their judgment is we need exactly this kind of effort.

DOD contracts are particularly crucial because they help promote research and development efforts. What we have seen repeatedly is a lot of the most exciting alternative fuels. The biofuels have enormous potential. The challenge is to keep driving down the costs and do it in a cost-effective kind of way. That is exactly what goes on now at the Department of Defense as relates to biofuels. It is exactly what would be undermined if the Toomey amendment, amendment No. 115, was passed and signed into law.

The last point I would make is that Bloomberg, which has a new energy finance unit, a special unit that looks at these issues, their analysts predict that some aviation biofuels are going to be cost competitive with standard jet fuel in just a few years. That will happen if we do not undermine current development rates in this area of biofuels at the Department of Defense.

That is why, colleagues, I feel so strongly about opposing the Toomey amendment on biofuels at the Pentagon. I hope my colleagues will agree.

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

Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from Wyoming, Senator John Barrasso, in introducing a bill essential to enhancing the delivery of mental health services to our senior citizens, The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act.

Currently, there are limitations on the types of mental health practitioners who may be reimbursed for services in the Medicare program. Our legislation permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for their services, and it pays them at the rate of clinical social workers. With this legislation, seniors will have more opportunities as part of their Medicare benefit to access professional mental health counseling assistance.

Throughout the United States there are approximately 77 million older adults living in 3,000 so-called ``mental health profession shortage areas.'' Moreover, 50 percent of rural counties have no practicing psychiatrists or psychologists. Seniors living in these areas will be the primary beneficiaries of our efforts.

Mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists are often the only mental health providers in some communities, and yet presently they are not recognized as covered providers within the Medicare program. These therapists have equivalent or greater training, education and practice rights as some existing provider groups that can bill for their services through Medicare.

Additionally, other government agencies, including The National Health Service Corps, the Veteran's Administration and TRICARE, already recognize these mental health professionals and reimburse for their services. We need to utilize the skills of these providers and ensure that seniors have access to them. These professionals play a critical role in the delivery of our Nation's mental health care.

In Oregon, the passage of this legislation will focus the talents of over 2,000 additional qualified providers on the mental health issues of one of our most vulnerable populations. This represents a commonsense approach to relieving a persistent and chronic healthcare workforce shortage.

Finally, I commend our mental health professionals nationwide, for their dedicated work and efforts, and I encourage passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from Wyoming, Senator John Barrasso, in introducing a bill essential to enhancing the delivery of mental health services to our senior citizens, The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act.

Currently, there are limitations on the types of mental health practitioners who may be reimbursed for services in the Medicare program. Our legislation permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for their services, and it pays them at the rate of clinical social workers. With this legislation, seniors will have more opportunities as part of their Medicare benefit to access professional mental health counseling assistance.

Throughout the United States there are approximately 77 million older adults living in 3,000 so-called ``mental health profession shortage areas.'' Moreover, 50 percent of rural counties have no practicing psychiatrists or psychologists. Seniors living in these areas will be the primary beneficiaries of our efforts.

Mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists are often the only mental health providers in some communities, and yet presently they are not recognized as covered providers within the Medicare program. These therapists have equivalent or greater training, education and practice rights as some existing provider groups that can bill for their services through Medicare.

Additionally, other government agencies, including The National Health Service Corps, the Veteran's Administration and TRICARE, already recognize these mental health professionals and reimburse for their services. We need to utilize the skills of these providers and ensure that seniors have access to them. These professionals play a critical role in the delivery of our Nation's mental health care.

In Oregon, the passage of this legislation will focus the talents of over 2,000 additional qualified providers on the mental health issues of one of our most vulnerable populations. This represents a commonsense approach to relieving a persistent and chronic healthcare workforce shortage.

Finally, I commend our mental health professionals nationwide, for their dedicated work and efforts, and I encourage passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Steve Warren, a U.S. Army officer who is currently serving as a defense legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of consideration of H.R. 933.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to reform the Capital Construction Fund. This legislation would allow fishers to withdraw monies from their CCF accounts without penalty or interest, preventing overfishing and overcapitalization.

The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, program was developed at a time when American fishers were having a hard time competing with highly efficient foreign fishing vessels. The program was designed to enable fishers to deposit a portion of their fishing-related earnings into a CCF account on a tax-deferred basis. Fishers then make withdrawals from their CCF account to construct, reconstruct, or under limited circumstances, acquire fishing vessels. However, any unauthorized withdrawal from CCF account is subject to severe interest and other penalties.

The program was a success. The CCF program helped U.S. fishers build a modern state-of-the-art fleet. Unfortunately, that U.S. fleet is now overcapitalized. This problem is exacerbated by concerns surrounding overfishing. Fisheries managers have begun to implement catch-share limits to reduce the number of fish that they allow fishers to catch each year. Now, the U.S. commercial fishing fleet has more harvesting capacity than our fisheries can sustainably support. However, the monies fishers put into CCF accounts remain and represent a potential for further overcapitalization. Yet, current CCF regulations penalize withdrawals made for anything other than authorized expenditures.

The resulting situation is problematic for the fishers, the industry and the resource. That is why I am reintroducing legislation today, along with my colleague Senator Murkowski, to address this problem and relieve the pressure to increase further capitalization of the fishing fleet. My legislation will enable CCF accountholders to make a one-time withdrawal from their CCF accounts. Accountholders would be required to pay the taxes due on the monies withdrawn, but without having to pay tax penalties. An income-averaging formula would be applied to the withdrawals in an effort to avoid assessing an excessive tax rate on the one-time withdrawal. Any fisher taking advantage of one-time withdrawal would then be required to close their CCF accounts and would be prohibited from further participation in the program.

This is a win-win-win situation. The fisher gets to take the money out of his CCF without having to pay penalties and interest, but still pays the taxes when due; the government gets taxes on the withdrawals; and the resource and the fishers who remain in the fishery avoid further capitalization of an already over-capitalized industry.

I look forward to working with Senators Murkowski, Murray, Cantwell, Begich and Merkley, the fishing community, and the bill's other supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to reform the Capital Construction Fund. This legislation would allow fishers to withdraw monies from their CCF accounts without penalty or interest, preventing overfishing and overcapitalization.

The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, program was developed at a time when American fishers were having a hard time competing with highly efficient foreign fishing vessels. The program was designed to enable fishers to deposit a portion of their fishing-related earnings into a CCF account on a tax-deferred basis. Fishers then make withdrawals from their CCF account to construct, reconstruct, or under limited circumstances, acquire fishing vessels. However, any unauthorized withdrawal from CCF account is subject to severe interest and other penalties.

The program was a success. The CCF program helped U.S. fishers build a modern state-of-the-art fleet. Unfortunately, that U.S. fleet is now overcapitalized. This problem is exacerbated by concerns surrounding overfishing. Fisheries managers have begun to implement catch-share limits to reduce the number of fish that they allow fishers to catch each year. Now, the U.S. commercial fishing fleet has more harvesting capacity than our fisheries can sustainably support. However, the monies fishers put into CCF accounts remain and represent a potential for further overcapitalization. Yet, current CCF regulations penalize withdrawals made for anything other than authorized expenditures.

The resulting situation is problematic for the fishers, the industry and the resource. That is why I am reintroducing legislation today, along with my colleague Senator Murkowski, to address this problem and relieve the pressure to increase further capitalization of the fishing fleet. My legislation will enable CCF accountholders to make a one-time withdrawal from their CCF accounts. Accountholders would be required to pay the taxes due on the monies withdrawn, but without having to pay tax penalties. An income-averaging formula would be applied to the withdrawals in an effort to avoid assessing an excessive tax rate on the one-time withdrawal. Any fisher taking advantage of one-time withdrawal would then be required to close their CCF accounts and would be prohibited from further participation in the program.

This is a win-win-win situation. The fisher gets to take the money out of his CCF without having to pay penalties and interest, but still pays the taxes when due; the government gets taxes on the withdrawals; and the resource and the fishers who remain in the fishery avoid further capitalization of an already over-capitalized industry.

I look forward to working with Senators Murkowski, Murray, Cantwell, Begich and Merkley, the fishing community, and the bill's other supporters to advance this legislation to the President's desk.

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