Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 45 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 45 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2048-S2052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mr. Alexander):
S. 695. A bill to require the use of electronic on-board recording
devices in motor carriers to improve compliance with hours of service
regulations; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce
legislation with Senator Alexander of Tennessee that I believe will
have a dramatic impact on the safety of our Nation's highways and
interstates, called the Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act.
This bill will require the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration FMCSA, to implement regulations requiring
the use of electronic on-board recording devices, EOBRs, for motor
carriers in order to improve compliance with Hours-of-Service, HOS,
regulations. Requiring the use of these technologies in motor carriers
will not only improve compliance with HOS regulations, but it will also
reduce the number of fatigued commercial motor vehicle drivers on the
road. This will have a profound impact on highway safety and reduce
accidents and fatalities on our highways and interstates.
Hours-of-Service regulations place limits on when and how long
commercial motor vehicle drivers may drive. These regulations are based
on an exhaustive scientific review and are designed to ensure truck
drivers get the necessary rest to drive safely. In developing HOS
rules, the FMCSA reviewed existing fatigue research and worked with
nongovernmental organizations like the Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies and the National Institute for Occupational
Safety. HOS regulations are designed to continue the downward trend in
truck driving fatalities and maintain motor carrier operational
efficiencies.
Unfortunately, compliance with HOS regulations is often spotty due to
inaccurate reporting by drivers as they are only required to fill out a
paper log, a tracking method that dates back to the 1930s. Inaccurate
reporting may result from an honest mistake or an intentional error by
a driver seeking to extend his work day. These inaccuracies can lead to
too much time on the road, leaving the driver fatigued and placing
other drivers at risk. After listening to the many interest groups and
experts on this issue in meetings and Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee hearings, I have come to learn that there is
an available and affordable twenty-first-century technology that can
ensure accurate logs, enhance compliance, and reduce the number of
fatigued drivers on the road. They are being used today, and they are
producing results. I believe that widespread utilization of these
devices as soon as possible will significantly reduce further loss of
life resulting from driver fatigue.
Our legislation will require motor carriers to install in their
trucks an electronic device that performs multiple tasks to ensure
compliance with HOS regulations. These devices must be engaged to the
truck engine control module and capable of identifying the driver
operating the truck, recording a driver's duty status, and monitoring
the location and movement of the vehicle. Requiring electronic log
books that are integrally connected to the vehicle engine as this bill
requires will dramatically increase the accuracy of information
submitted for hours of service compliance. Our bill will also require
these recording devices to be tamper resistant and fully accessible by
law enforcement personnel and Federal safety regulators only for
purposes of enforcement and compliance reviews.

While I understand that some drivers may be reluctant to transition
to electronic logging devices, I strongly believe that the safety
benefits of the use of these devices far outweigh the costs. I don't
want to see more lives lost due to driver fatigue resulting from log
book manipulation. I also believe that with the rapid development of
electronic technology, especially in the wireless telecommunications
area, we will see strong competition among EOBR manufacturers and
reduced costs for these technologies. In addition, the price of these
products should go down as the demand increases through regulatory
requirement to utilize this equipment.
Senator Alexander and I are not alone in calling for this technology
to be more widely used by commercial vehicles. There are a number of
Senators, including Senator Lautenberg, who have long been strong
proponents of implementing the use of this technology. In addition,
multiple Federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations have
recognized the benefits of this technology and called for its
widespread use.
For example, Mr. Francis France of the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance stated at the April 28, 2010, Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation hearing on Oversight of Motor Carrier
Safety Efforts that,

All motor vehicles should be equipped with EOBRs to better
comply with Hours of Service laws . . . CVSA has been working
with a broad partnership to help provide guidance to achieve
uniform performance standards for EOBRs.

Similarly, the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board,
the Honorable Deborah Hersman, stated at the same hearing that,

For the past 30 years, the NTSB has advocated the use of
onboard data recorders to increase Hours of Service
compliance . . . the NTSB recommended that they be required
on all commercial vehicles.

During the same hearing, Ms. Jacqueline S. Gillan, with the Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety, stated that,

We regard the mandatory, universal installation and use of
EOBRs as crucial to stopping the epidemic of hours of service
violations that produce fatigued, sleep-deprived commercial
drivers . . . at very high risk of serious injury and fatal
crashes.

I have also heard from Administrator Ferro of the FMCSA on her
thoughts of how EOBRs would enhance compliance and improve highway
safety. The FMCSA recently implemented a rule to require that these
devices be mandated for truck drivers and trucking companies that have
been found to be noncompliant with FMCSA rules. These rules will be
effective in June 2012. It is my understanding that the FMCSA is
looking to expand these requirements to include more motor carriers,
and I support those efforts as they reflect the qualities and intent of
this legislation.
Finally, in addition to the support from safety advocates and federal
transportation safety officials, I have also heard from a number of
Arkansas trucking companies currently utilizing this technology. These
companies have

[[Page S2049]]

experienced reductions in driver fatigue, increases in compliance, and
reductions in insurance premiums. The executives of these companies,
which include J.B. Hunt and Maverick U.S.A. among others, support the
expanded use of these devices to increase compliance, improve highway
safety, and level the playing field among the industry. I agree with
their views on the importance of widespread utilization of this safety
and compliance device.
The Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act, if enacted, will
require the Department of Transportation to issue regulations within
eighteen months from enactment to require commercial motor vehicles
used in interstate commerce to be equipped with electronic onboard
recorders for purposes of improving compliance with hours of service
regulations. The regulation will apply to commercial motor carriers,
commercial motor vehicles, and vehicle operators subject to both hours
of service and record of duty status requirements three years after the
date of enactment of this Act. This population represents a vast
majority of drivers and carriers who operate trucks weighing 10,001
pounds or more involved in interstate commerce. It will cover one
hundred percent of over-the-road, long-haul truck drivers.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to recognize the importance of
this technology in saving lives on our nation's highways and
interstates. I also ask for their support for this legislation and help
in moving it to the President as quickly as possible. It is my hope
that we move this legislation through the Senate no later than the
Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation that the Senate will
take up in the near future.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Rockefeller, and
Ms. Murkowski):
S. 699. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to carry out a
program to demonstrate the commercial application of integrated systems
for long-term geological storage of carbon dioxide, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Department of Energy
Carbon Capture and Sequestration Program Amendments Act of 2011, along
with Senators Barrasso, Rockefeller and Murkowski. It is critical that
we work toward reducing our greenhouse gas footprint while producing
safe and secure, clean energy here in America. I believe this bill will
go far to incentivize early project developers to start reducing carbon
dioxide emissions through carbon capture and geologic sequestration.
This bipartisan bill establishes a national program through the
Department of Energy to facilitate up to 10 commercial-scale carbon
capture and sequestration projects. There is a clear need to address
both the issues of liability and adequate project financing for early-
mover projects. The program in this bill is a strong step to building
confidence for project developers demonstrating that the projects will
be conducted safely while addressing the growing concerns of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities, such as coal and
natural gas power plants, cement plants, refineries and other carbon
intensive industrial processes. Such an early movers program will go
far also assisting project developers and regulators to better
understand and characterize any risks which may be associated with
long-term geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide.
In addition, this legislation maps out a clear framework for long-
term assurance for geological storage sites. It is essential to
consider the issue of safe, long-term storage of carbon dioxide and
take the steps needed for site stewardship during the injection phase,
directly after site closure and for long-term preventative maintenance
of the geologic storage facility.
Many stakeholders associate maintenance issues with liability
concerns. In my view, these are two separate issues. Maintenance is
essential for reducing risk and limiting liabilities at a storage site,
and it is critical to have robust monitoring, accounting, and
verification of an injected carbon dioxide plume at each of the storage
sites that would continue well past site closure. With a proper site
maintenance program developed for each project, risk will be minimized
and developers will have greater confidence that liabilities will not
be incurred. This legislation will require science-based monitoring and
verification of the injected carbon dioxide plume throughout the life
of the project to well beyond the closure phase. This bill is
consistent with the current efforts to provide a strong regulatory
framework for safe geologic storage of carbon dioxide through the
Underground Injection Control Program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
As carbon capture and sequestration projects grow in both scale and
number, there will be an increasing need to train qualified regulators
to oversee the permitting, operation, and closure of geologic storage
sites. This bill also creates a grant program whose goal is to train
personnel at State agencies which will oversee the regulatory aspects
of geologic storage of carbon dioxide.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 699

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Energy Carbon
Capture and Sequestration Program Amendments Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. LARGE-SCALE CARBON STORAGE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Subtitle F of title IX of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16291 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 963 (42 U.S.C. 16293) the following:

``SEC. 963A. LARGE-SCALE CARBON STORAGE PROGRAM.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Industrial source.--The term `industrial source'
means any source of carbon dioxide that is not naturally
occurring.
``(2) Large-scale.--The term `large-scale' means the
injection of over 1,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year
from industrial sources into a geological formation.
``(3) Secretary concerned.--The term `Secretary concerned'
means--
``(A) the Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the
Chief of the Forest Service), with respect to National Forest
System land; and
``(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to land
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (including land held
for the benefit of an Indian tribe).
``(b) Program.--In addition to the research, development,
and demonstration program authorized by section 963, the
Secretary shall carry out a program to demonstrate the
commercial application of integrated systems for the capture,
injection, monitoring, and long-term geological storage of
carbon dioxide from industrial sources.
``(c) Authorized Assistance.--In carrying out the program,
the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements to
provide financial and technical assistance to up to 10
demonstration projects.
``(d) Project Selection.--The Secretary shall competitively
select recipients of cooperative agreements under this
section from among applicants that--
``(1) provide the Secretary with sufficient geological site
information (including hydrogeological and geophysical
information) to establish that the proposed geological
storage unit is capable of long-term storage of the injected
carbon dioxide, including--
``(A) the location, extent, and storage capacity of the
geological storage unit at the site into which the carbon
dioxide will be injected;
``(B) the principal potential modes of geomechanical
failure in the geological storage unit;
``(C) the ability of the geological storage unit to retain
injected carbon dioxide; and
``(D) the measurement, monitoring, and verification
requirements necessary to ensure adequate information on the
operation of the geological storage unit during and after the
injection of carbon dioxide;
``(2) possess the land or interests in land necessary for--
``(A) the injection and storage of the carbon dioxide at
the proposed geological storage unit; and
``(B) the closure, monitoring, and long-term stewardship of
the geological storage unit;
``(3) possess or have a reasonable expectation of obtaining
all necessary permits and authorizations under applicable
Federal and State laws (including regulations); and
``(4) agree to comply with each requirement of subsection
(e).
``(e) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall condition
receipt of financial assistance pursuant to a cooperative
agreement under this section on the recipient agreeing to--
``(1) comply with all applicable Federal and State laws
(including regulations), including a certification by the
appropriate regulatory authority that the project will comply
with

[[Page S2050]]

Federal and State requirements to protect drinking water
supplies;
``(2) in the case of industrial sources subject to the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), inject only carbon
dioxide captured from industrial sources in compliance with
that Act;
``(3) comply with all applicable construction and operating
requirements for deep injection wells;
``(4) measure, monitor, and test to verify that carbon
dioxide injected into the injection zone is not--
``(A) escaping from or migrating beyond the confinement
zone; or
``(B) endangering an underground source of drinking water;
``(5) comply with applicable well-plugging, post-injection
site care, and site closure requirements, including--
``(A)(i) maintaining financial assurances during the post-
injection closure and monitoring phase until a certificate of
closure is issued by the Secretary; and
``(ii) promptly undertaking remediation activities for any
leak from the geological storage unit that would endanger
public health or safety or natural resources; and
``(B) complying with subsection (f);
``(6) comply with applicable long-term care requirements;
``(7) maintain financial protection in a form and in an
amount acceptable to--
``(A) the Secretary;
``(B) the Secretary with jurisdiction over the land; and
``(C) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
``(8) provide the assurances described in section
963(c)(4)(B).
``(f) Post Injection Closure and Monitoring Elements.--In
assessing whether a project complies with site closure
requirements under subsection (e)(5), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall determine whether the recipient of
financial assistance has demonstrated continuous compliance
with each of the following over a period of not less than 10
consecutive years after the plume of carbon dioxide has
stabilized within the geologic formation that comprises the
geologic storage unit following the cessation of injection
activities:
``(1) The estimated location and extent of the project
footprint (including the detectable plume of carbon dioxide
and the area of elevated pressure resulting from the project)
has not substantially changed and is contained within the
geologic storage unit.
``(2) The injection zone formation pressure has ceased to
increase following cessation of carbon dioxide injection into
the geologic storage unit.
``(3) There is no leakage of either carbon dioxide or
displaced formation fluid from the geologic storage unit that
is endangering public health and safety, including
underground sources of drinking water and natural resources.
``(4) The injected or displaced formation fluids are not
expected to migrate in the future in a manner that encounters
a potential leakage pathway.
``(5) The injection wells at the site completed into or
through the injection zone or confining zone are plugged and
abandoned in accordance with the applicable requirements of
Federal or State law governing the wells.
``(g) Indemnification Agreements.--
``(1) Definition of liability.--In this subsection, the
term `liability' means any legal liability for--
``(A) bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death;
``(B) loss of or damage to property, or loss of use of
property; or
``(C) injury to or destruction or loss of natural
resources, including fish, wildlife, and drinking water
supplies.
``(2) Agreements.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the receipt by the Secretary of a completed application for a
demonstration project, the Secretary may agree to indemnify
and hold harmless the recipient of a cooperative agreement
under this section from liability arising out of or resulting
from a demonstration project in excess of the amount of
liability covered by financial protection maintained by the
recipient under subsection (e)(7).
``(3) Exception for gross negligence and intentional
misconduct.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary may
not indemnify the recipient of a cooperative agreement under
this section from liability arising out of conduct of a
recipient that is grossly negligent or that constitutes
intentional misconduct.
``(4) Collection of fees.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall collect a fee from
any person with whom an agreement for indemnification is
executed under this subsection in an amount that is equal to
the net present value of payments made by the United States
to cover liability under the indemnification agreement.
``(B) Amount.--The Secretary shall establish, by
regulation, criteria for determining the amount of the fee,
taking into account--
``(i) the likelihood of an incident resulting in liability
to the United States under the indemnification agreement; and
``(ii) other factors pertaining to the hazard of the
indemnified project.
``(C) Use of fees.--Fees collected under this paragraph
shall be deposited in the Treasury and credited to
miscellaneous receipts.
``(5) Contracts in advance of appropriations.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary The Secretary may enter into agreements of
indemnification under this subsection in advance of
appropriations and incur obligations without regard to
section 1341 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known
as the `Anti-Deficiency Act'), or section 11 of title 41,
United States Code (commonly known as the `Adequacy of
Appropriations Act').
``(B) Limitation.--The amount of indemnification under this
subsection shall not exceed $10,000,000,000 (adjusted not
less than once during each 5-year period following the date
of enactment of this section, in accordance with the
aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index since
the previous adjustment under this subparagraph), in the
aggregate, for all persons indemnified in connection with an
agreement and for each project, including such legal costs as
are approved by the Secretary.
``(6) Conditions of agreements of indemnification.--
``(A) In general.--An agreement of indemnification under
this subsection may contain such terms as the Secretary
considers appropriate to carry out the purposes of this
section.
``(B) Administration.--The agreement shall provide that, if
the Secretary makes a determination the United States will
probably be required to make indemnity payments under the
agreement, the Attorney General--
``(i) shall collaborate with the recipient of an award
under this subsection; and
``(ii) may--

``(I) approve the payment of any claim under the agreement
of indemnification;
``(II) appear on behalf of the recipient;
``(III) take charge of an action; and
``(IV) settle or defend an action.

``(C) Settlement of claims.--
``(i) In general.--The Attorney General shall have final
authority on behalf of the United States to settle or approve
the settlement of any claim under this subsection on a fair
and reasonable basis with due regard for the purposes of this
subsection.
``(ii) Expenses.--The settlement shall not include expenses
in connection with the claim incurred by the recipient.
``(h) Federal Land.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned may authorize
the siting of a project on Federal land under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned in a manner
consistent with applicable laws and land management plans and
subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary
concerned determines to be necessary.
``(2) Framework for geological carbon sequestration on
public land.--In determining whether to authorize a project
on Federal land, the Secretary concerned shall take into
account the framework for geological carbon sequestration on
public land prepared in accordance with section 714 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-
140; 121 Stat. 1715).
``(i) Acceptance of Title and Long-term Monitoring.--
``(1) In general.--As a condition of a cooperative
agreement under this section, the Secretary may accept title
to, or transfer of administrative jurisdiction from another
Federal agency over, any land or interest in land necessary
for the monitoring, remediation, or long-term stewardship of
a project site.
``(2) Long-term monitoring activities.--After accepting
title to, or transfer of, a site closed in accordance with
this section, the Secretary shall monitor the site and
conduct any remediation activities to ensure the geological
integrity of the site and prevent any endangerment of public
health or safety.
``(3) Funding.--There is appropriated to the Secretary, out
of funds of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such
sums as are necessary to carry out paragraph (2).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 963 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
16293) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (a) through (d) as
subsections (b) through (e), respectively;
(B) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Industrial source.--The term `industrial source'
means any source of carbon dioxide that is not naturally
occurring.
``(2) Large-scale.--The term `large-scale' means the
injection of over 1,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide from
industrial sources over the lifetime of the project.'';
(C) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by striking
``In General'' and inserting ``Program'';
(D) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking
``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)''; and
(E) in subsection (d)(3) (as so redesignated), by striking
subparagraph (D).
(2) Sections 703(a)(3) and 704 of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17251(a)(3), 17252) are
amended by striking ``section 963(c)(3) of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16293(c)(3))'' each place it appears
and inserting ``section 963(d)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16293(d)(3))''.

SEC. 3. TRAINING PROGRAM FOR STATE AND TRIBAL AGENCIES.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of Transportation, shall
establish a program to provide grants for employee training
purposes to State and tribal

[[Page S2051]]

agencies involved in permitting, management, inspection, and
oversight of carbon capture, transportation, and storage
projects.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to carry out
this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2020.
______

By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Thune, Mr. Johnson
of South Dakota, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico):
S. 703. A bill to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703, the
Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of
2011, otherwise known as the HEARTH Act.
For far too long, bureaucratic red tape has prevented Indian tribes
from pursuing economic development and homeownership opportunities on
tribal trust lands. For many years, Indian tribes have expressed
concerns about the Federal laws and regulations governing surface
leases of tribal trust lands.
The delays and uncertainties inherent in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' lease approval process, as well as the restrictions on the
duration of lease terms, create serious barriers to the ability of
tribes to plan and carry out economic development and other land use
activities on tribal lands.
The HEARTH Act would give Indian tribes the discretion to adopt their
own surface leasing regulations and, once those regulations are
approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the authority to enter into
surface leases of tribal lands without any further approval of the
Secretary. The HEARTH Act would provide our nation's Indian tribes with
new tools with which to expedite the productive and beneficial use of
their lands.
In the 111th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs approved a
very similar version of this bill but the full Senate did not act on
the measure.
Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senator Akaka, the
Committee's new Chairman, for his leadership on this issue and for
agreeing to cosponsor this bill with me. I would also like to thank
Senators Thune, Tim Johnson, Tester, and Tom Udall for cosponsoring
this important legislation.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to help us expand economic
opportunity on tribal trust lands by moving S. 703 expeditiously.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today speak as an original cosponsor
of an amendment to the Long Term Leasing Act of 1955. I am pleased to
be an original cosponsor on this legislation which was introduced by my
colleague on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. Barrasso.
The Helping, Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership
Act of 2001, also known as the HEARTH Act of 2011, amends the Long Term
Leasing Act of 1995. That act allows tribes or individual Indians to
lease their lands for up to 25 years for certain purposes, including
economic development, housing, education, agricultural, and natural
resource development. The current act requires the Secretary of the
Interior to approve each individual lease. It can take up to 2 years
for each lease to be approved. Often this bureaucratic delay leads to
the loss of economic development and other opportunities for tribes.
Since the enactment of the Nonintercourse Act of June 30, 1834, and
predecessor statutes, land transactions with Indian tribes were
prohibited unless specifically authorized by Congress. Congress enacted
the act of August 9, 1955, commonly known as the Long-Term Leasing Act
to overcome the prohibitions contained in the Nonintercourse Act. The
Long-Term Leasing Act permitted some land transactions between Indian
tribes and non-Federal parties--specifically, the leasing of Indian
lands. The act required that leases of Indian lands be approved by the
Secretary of the Interior and limited to terms of 25 years.
Today, each individual lease of Indian lands still requires approval
by the Secretary of the Interior. The HEARTH Act of 2011, would allow
each tribe to develop its own leasing regulations. Those regulations
would then be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval.
Thereafter, the tribes would be able to approve their own leases, so
long as they are consistent with their regulations.
This amendment to the Long-Term Leasing Act will have a significant
impact on streamlining the leasing process for tribes. It will reduce
delays in entering into economic development opportunities, providing
housing and developing natural resources on Indian lands.
I thank Mr. Barrasso for his leadership on this critical legislation.
My cosponsors are well aware of the positive impact this legislation
will have economic opportunities for tribes. I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting the passage of this legislation.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Schumer, and Mr. Merkley):
S. 704. A bill to provide for duty-free treatment of certain
recreational performance outerwear, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Outdoor
Act. In the Pacific Northwest, spending time in the great outdoors is a
part of life. Our magnificent mountains, our clear rivers and streams,
and our majestic forests provide for a quality of life that is, in my
view, unparalleled. Unfortunately, the outerwear that enables us to
enjoy these wonderful treasures is more expensive than it needs to be.
This is because under current law, the United States imposes steep
tariffs on outdoor performance outerwear like jackets and pants used
for skiing and snowboarding, mountaineering, hunting, fishing and
dozens of other outdoor activities.
These high tariffs--and let us call them what they are, taxes--were
originally implemented to promote an import substitution policy. They
were imposed to discourage American consumers from buying outerwear
that was manufactured overseas, even if those were superior products.
Today, there is no domestic outerwear industry to really protect with
these tariffs, yet consumers are still paying through the teeth for
products like snow pants and rain jackets. These tariffs are hammering
the pocketbooks of millions of American consumers, and they harm the
businesses that are engaged in promoting enjoyment of the great
outdoors.
But we can fix this in a way that helps American producers better
compete globally in an environmentally sustainable manner, and relieves
consumers of artificially high costs. But it is more than just reducing
costs and promoting innovation.
To me, the Outdoor Act is also about encouraging our kids and members
of our community to get outside, to be active, and to appreciate and
protect our natural treasures. I want to associate myself with the
efforts of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, who is leading an important
initiative to get people--especially kids--moving and eating healthier.
I see the Outdoor Act, which makes getting outside to hike, bike, or
fish more affordable as complementary of the First Lady's efforts.
I am proud that this legislation enjoys support from both sides of
the political aisle and especially pleased that my friend, Senator
Crapo from Idaho, is helping to lead the charge with this initiative.
Furthermore, I am happy that this legislation is supported by domestic
textile and apparel companies as well as the performance outerwear
designers and retailers. This all makes sense given that it will spur
outdoor recreation and consumption of goods to support these
activities. The outdoor recreation industry accounts for $730 billion
dollars and 65 million jobs across the United States, with 73,000 jobs
in Oregon. With this bill, we can potentially create even more jobs by
increasing the purchasing power of consumers of outdoor goods, by
saving them money on unnecessary tariffs.
The U.S. OUTDOOR Act eliminates the import duty for qualifying
recreational performance outerwear, bringing duties that can be as high
as 28 percent down to zero. It also establishes the Sustainable Textile
and Apparel Research, STAR, fund, which invests in U.S. technologies
and jobs that focus on sustainable, environmentally conscious
manufacturing, helping textile and apparel companies work towards
minimizing their energy and

[[Page S2052]]

water use, reducing waste and their carbon footprint, and incorporating
efficiencies that help them better compete globally. I urge my
colleagues to take a look at this legislation and to work with me to
move it toward becoming law.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Vitter):
S. 707. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further
protection for puppies; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it might come as a surprise to some to
learn that dog breeders who sell animals directly to consumers over the
internet are not subject to any Federal regulation. Under the Animal
Welfare Act, wholesale dog dealers have to have a Federal license and
are subject to U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection. Wholesale dog
dealers typically sell their puppies to retail pet stores. But the law
exempts any ``retail pet store'' from the same licensing and inspection
requirements, because there was a day when you bought a dog either from
a licensed breeder or from a store, who bought their dogs from a
licensed breeder.
While it is not defined in statute, the exemption for retail pet
stores has been interpreted to mean any outlet that sells dogs directly
to the public. With the advent of the internet, many people buy puppies
and dogs from breeders that are not licensed. There are plenty of
responsible breeders across the country who care about and take great
pains to properly look after the dogs in their care. But this statutory
loophole leaves the door wide open for unscrupulous and negligent
commercial dog breeders.
Today, I am reintroducing the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety, or
PUPS, Act with my colleague Senator Vitter. The PUPS Act would require
breeders who sell more than 50 dogs a year directly to the public to
obtain a license from the USDA.
This licensing process is simple and inexpensive, but it allows for
better oversight of the facilities that keep dogs to ensure that they
are complying with minimum Federal standards.
The media regularly reports stories about dogs rescued from
substandard facilities--where dogs are housed in stacked wire cages and
seriously ill and injured dogs are routinely denied access to
veterinary care. This inhumane treatment has a direct bearing on the
physical and mental health of the dogs. I have heard from veterinarians
in Illinois, who share heart-breaking tales of families who welcomed
new puppies into their homes, only to learn later that the animals had
serious health or behavioral problems. In some cases, these puppies
could be treated, but often at great expense to their owners.
My bill would also require that dogs and puppies housed at all
licensed breeding facilities have space to run around, something we all
know dogs love to do, on a surface that is solid, or at the very least
non-wire.
It is my hope that extending and improving oversight of this industry
through the PUPS Act will help protect the welfare of puppies and dogs
in Illinois and across the country. Americans should feel confident
about the health and well-being of the dog that they welcome into their
family.
______

By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr.
Inhofe):
S. 710. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to direct the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
hazardous waste electronic manifest system; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr.
Thune, in cosponsoring a bill to modernize the tracking of hazardous
waste. The federal waste law requires the tracking of hazardous waste
from ``cradle to grave.'' This tracking system is designed to provide
an enforceable chain of custody for hazardous wastes. The law provides
a strong incentive for transporters to manage the waste in a
responsible fashion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
economic analysis estimates that over 139,000 regulated entities track
between 2.4 and 5.1 million shipments a year.
This system provides for appropriate stewardship of the hazardous
waste products of our modern world. Unfortunately, the tracking system
itself is in serious need of modernization.
Currently, the tracking is handled entirely through a paper manifest
system. The paperwork burden is enormous. Each manifest form has seven
or eight copies, which currently must be manually filled out and signed
with pen and ink signatures, physically carried with waste shipments,
mailed to generators and state agencies, and finally stored among
facility records.
The paperwork burden is so great that 22 States and the EPA do not
even collect copies of the forms. Those that do so get their copies
months after the waste has been shipped. In the vast majority of cases,
the only time regulators look at the manifests is during inspections or
after a disaster to identify the responsible parties.
Under the Thune-Cardin bill, the paper manifest will be replaced by
an electronic manifest. The bill sets up a funding system for the
manifest paid for by the users of the system, the generators, and waste
companies that handle hazardous waste.
An e-manifest system would remove a tremendous paperwork burden,
assist the States in receiving data more readily in a format they can
use, improve the public's access to waste shipment information and save
over $100 million every year. First responders could get data in real-
time. That is why groups as varied as Dow Chemical, Sierra Club and the
Association of State, Territorial, Solid Waste Management Officials
support this bill.
EPA does not have the funding to set up this system, so the bill uses
a unique way to contract for the work. Companies will ``bid'' to set up
the system at their cost and risk. They will be paid back on a per
manifest basis by the users, waste generators, and handlers. This puts
the burden on the private company or companies to meet the needs of the
users of the system. The legislation is needed so that the funds
collected go to the operation of the program rather than go to the
general treasury.
A hearing was held on this issue in 2006 on a similar bill, S. 3871
introduced by Senators Thune, Jeffords, and Inhofe. No serious
objections were made at that time and strong support was expressed by
all the witnesses including EPA.
In September of 2008, an equally similar bill introduced by Senator
Thune was reported favorably out of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee and passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the House did not
take up the measure.
This is legislation that is overdue. I ask members to join us in
supporting this legislation which has garnered the backing of industry,
states, and environmental groups. It is time for the waste manifest
system to move into the 21st century.

____________________