[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 33 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1179-S1189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the business before 
the Senate now is the surface transportation reauthorization bill; is 
that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Does that need to be reported?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has already been reported.


                      Amendment No. 1730 Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 1730.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 1761

               (Purpose: To make a perfecting amendment)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a first-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1761.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1762 to Amendment No. 1761

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1762 to amendment No. 1761.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1762

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. __. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall become effective 7 days after enactment.


               Motion to Recommit with Amendment No. 1763

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit the bill with 
instructions, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to recommit the 
     bill, S. 1813, to the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works with instructions to report back forthwith with an 
     amendment.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT No. 1763

       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. __.

       This Act shall become effective 6 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1764

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and that 
amendment is to the instructions that we have already set forth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1764 to the instructions (amendment No. 1763) of the 
     motion to recommit.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``6 days'' and insert ``5 days''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on that amendment I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1765 to Amendment No. 1764

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1765 to amendment No. 1764.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``5 days'' and insert ``4 days''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me take a moment where we are in this 
important surface transportation reauthorization bill. No one disputes 
the fact that this is a job creator. Millions of jobs, plural. Today 
with the Senate's vote to dispose of the Blunt amendment, the Senate 
completed an important step to advance this bill. The Republican 
leaders on the Republican side made clear that they would not allow the 
Senate to move forward on this piece of legislation until they got a 
vote on contraception. We waited and waited. It is done. Now we can 
move on to attempting to process other amendments to this important 
piece of legislation.
  Not everything ground to a halt while the Senate was working toward 
processing the Blunt amendment. The bill's able managers have been 
working to clear amendments offered by a number of Senators. As I have 
said before, the managers of this bill--multiple in nature--are 
seasoned and know what is going on legislatively. They worked together, 
Senators Boxer and Inhofe especially, because there is more of what 
they have in this bill than what other committees have. But we have the 
Banking Committee, the Finance Committee, the Commerce Committee, and 
they have all worked together in coming up with a number of cleared 
amendments. All of these Senators have worked closely together. They 
worked so closely even before the work over the past week, and on 
February 9, 85 Senators voted on cloture to proceed to the bill. And as 
I have indicated, over the last several weeks they have continued to 
work together and clear numerous amendments that Senators have filed.
  I offered a revised amendment a few minutes ago. This amendment 
includes the very same consensus that comes from the product of these 
three committees regarding my earlier amendment. It includes matters 
reported unanimously by the Banking Committee, strong bipartisan vote 
with the Finance Committee, matters negotiated between the chairman and 
ranking member of the Commerce Committee.
  What is new in the amendment I just offered is that it now also 
includes 37 additional amendments cleared by the managers of this bill 
and, where appropriate, cleared by other committees, specifically the 
Commerce Committee and the Banking Committee. Thirty-seven amendments. 
So that is now part of my substitute that is now before the Senate.
  I would be very satisfied if the Senate adopted this amendment, and 
provided that it serve as additional text for purpose of further 
amendment. The two managers will work to clear additional amendments.
  We need a path forward on this bill, and we don't have it now. We 
continue to work on an agreement to have votes on a number of 
nongermane amendments which the Republican caucus says they want. And 
our side, if they want amendments, we could have some nongermane 
amendments also. I would rather we disposed of the nongermane 
amendments, and I am thinking seriously of coming to the floor today 
and asking consent that we move forward on this bill with no irrelevant 
or nongermane amendments.
  It is vital that we complete work on this surface transportation 
reauthorization bill. I am determined that the Senate will do so and do 
so as quickly as possible. Doing so will take cooperation from 
different Senators, so we

[[Page S1180]]

need to keep our eye on the road. We need to get this legislation 
passed. Saving or creating up to 2.8 million jobs is the destination of 
this path that we are seeking. Let's work together to get there as soon 
as possible.


                     St. Croix River Valley Bridge

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I come to the floor today on another topic; that is, 
to thank and congratulate the House of Representatives, which earlier 
handed a great victory to the people of Wisconsin and Minnesota by 
passing legislation that will finally allow construction to begin on a 
stronger, safer bridge in the St. Croix River Valley. After 30 years of 
debate and delay, we have finally gotten it done, and I am proud to say 
it was done with broad support in both Chambers.
  The legislation I introduced in the Senate to allow this bridge to be 
built passed unanimously in January, and our Senate bill has passed the 
House today with the overwhelming backing of 339 Members, making the 
final vote count 339 to 80. This was truly a team effort, and it is an 
inspiring example of what we can accomplish when we are willing to put 
politics aside and come together to do what is right for the people we 
represent.
  I thank my colleagues in the House for their hard work and dedication 
in moving this legislation forward: Representatives Ron Kind, Sean 
Duffy, Michele Bachmann, Chip Cravaack, and Tammy Baldwin. I also thank 
Secretary Ray LaHood and his staff at the Department of Transportation, 
as well as Governors Mark Dayton and Scott Walker for their leadership 
at the State level.
  In both Minnesota and Wisconsin, there is overwhelming consensus 
about the critical need for a new bridge in the St. Croix River Valley. 
There are sometimes disputes on what that bridge should look like, but 
there tends to be consensus that we simply can't have a lift bridge 
built in the 1930s, with 18,000 cars going over it. The current lift 
bridge was built in 1931. Chunks of rusting steel and concrete fall off 
and into the river below. Traffic backs up behind it, especially in the 
summer months, sometimes for a mile. Cars are lined up by houses, cars 
are lined up by businesses, and it is not a desirable situation for 
anyone in the town of Stillwater.
  The Minnesota Department of Transportation has listed the bridge as 
being ``structurally deficient'' and ``fracture critical,'' meaning if 
one component of the bridge fails, the entire structure fails. Simply 
put, the bridge cannot meet the needs of the region either in terms of 
public safety or in supporting traffic caused by a growing population.
  As the bridge has aged, we have seen significant increases in 
congestion. This is an especially big problem in the summer months when 
the bridge lifts frequently to allow watercraft to pass, causing 
traffic to back up on both sides of the bridge, increasing gridlock and 
air pollution, hindering economic activity, and threatening public 
safety, particularly when emergency vehicles are unable to pass 
through.
  Here are the numbers: The current structure was designed to support 
11,200 vehicles a day. It cannot handle the average of 18,400 cars that 
cross it every day, let alone anticipated increases in usage. But with 
this new bridge, 48,000 vehicles will be able to cross safely and 
efficiently every day. This is important from a public safety 
perspective, but it also means new channels for economic growth. 
Without a new bridge, anticipated usage would reach 23,500 by 2030. 
With a new bridge, anticipated usage will meet 43,000 vehicles per day. 
Those 20,000 additional vehicles will mean more opportunity for local 
industry and more customers for local businesses made possible by an 
infrastructure capable of supporting new growth and development.
  When we look at the numbers, it is easy to see why my Senate 
legislation was able to pass not only the Senate without any 
opposition, but it is easy to see why the House passed the bill by such 
a wide bipartisan margin. We are less than an inch away from the finish 
line. Now we need the President of the United States to sign the bill.
  I spoke with Secretary LaHood this morning. I don't anticipate there 
will be an issue. He was very positive about the bridge. But we need a 
prompt signature. The people of Minnesota and Wisconsin have already 
waited 30 years. They cannot afford to wait any longer. We cannot 
afford to delay. It is time to finally get this bridge done.
  I, once again, thank all of my colleagues who worked hard to advance 
this bill. Michele Bachmann in the House led the effort on the 
Minnesota side, and I led the effort in the Senate. I thank the other 
Senators who were so good to support this bill, including Senator 
Franken, Senator Kohl, and Senator Johnson.
  I look forward to standing with all of my colleagues when the 
President signs this bill into law. I look forward to standing with my 
colleagues again on that proud day in the near future when we finally 
break ground on a stronger, safer bridge for the St. Croix River 
Valley.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                      Progress for Deamonte Driver

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor to mark 
the fifth anniversary of Deamonte Driver's death. Deamonte was a 12-
year-old who lived in Prince George's County, MD, only a few short 
miles from here. He died 5 years ago at the Children's National Medical 
Center in Washington, DC, from a brain infection caused by an untreated 
tooth abscess.
  The Driver family, like many families across the country, lacked 
dental insurance. At one point his family had Medicaid coverage, but 
they lost it because they had moved into a temporary shelter and their 
paperwork fell through the cracks. When advocates for the family tried 
to help, it took more than 20 calls just to find a dentist who would 
treat him.
  Deamonte began to complain about headaches on January 11. Then, an 
evaluation at Children's Hospital led beyond basic dental care to 
emergency brain surgery. He later experienced seizures, and a second 
operation was required. Even though he received additional treatment 
and therapy, and he appeared to be recovering, medical intervention 
came too late. By the end of his treatment, the total cost to our 
health care system exceeded $\1/4\ million--more than 3,000 times the 
$80 it would have cost for a tooth extraction.
  Deamonte Driver passed away on Sunday, February 25, 2007. Deamonte's 
death was a national tragedy. It was a tragedy because it could have 
been prevented if he had received timely and proper basic dental care. 
It was a tragedy because it happened right here in the United States, 
in one of the most affluent States in the Nation. It happened in a 
State with one of the best dental schools in the Nation--the University 
of Maryland's. It happened in Prince George's County, whose border is 
less than 6 miles from where we are standing in the U.S. Capitol.
  I have spoken on the Senate floor about Deamonte Driver several times 
since that tragedy, and in the intervening years, in both my home State 
of Maryland and nationally, we have made progress. When Deamonte's case 
was brought to light, I believe it served as a wake-up call for our 
Nation. It brought home what former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop 
once said: ``There is no health without oral health.''
  Medical researchers have discovered the nexus between tooth plaque 
and heart disease, that chewing stimulates brain cell growth, and that 
gum disease can signal diabetes, liver ailments, and hormone 
imbalances. They have identified the vital connection between oral 
health research and advanced treatments such as gene therapy, which can 
help patients with chronic renal failure. They know investing in basic 
dental care can save money down the road in costly medical 
interventions for other diseases.

  But for all the research findings, without insurance coverage and 
adequate access to providers, we know millions of children and adults 
will have oral health care needs that remain unmet. That is why the 
progress we have made over the past 5 years is so important to 
America's health. So I have come to the floor today to talk about what 
we have achieved and how we can move forward as a nation to ensure 
better access to oral health care.
  The Maryland delegation is proud that Maryland has emerged as a 
national leader in this area, launching a $1.2 million oral health 
literacy campaign, raising Medicaid reimbursement rates for dentists, 
and providing some

[[Page S1181]]

allied health professionals and hygienists the opportunity to practice 
outside of clinics. Today, the Deamonte Driver Dental Project Van, 
which was dedicated in front of the U.S. Capitol in May 2010 provides 
services in underserved neighborhoods in Prince George's County, thanks 
to the efforts launched by members of the Robert T. Freeman Dental 
Society. This society, an arm of the National Dental Association, is 
named for Dr. Robert Tanner Freeman, who in 1869 became the first Black 
graduate of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine.
  Congressman Elijah Cummings and I were joined that day by Mrs. Alyce 
Driver and her sons; the project's cofounders Drs. Hazel Harper and 
Belinda Carver-Taylor; and the National Dental Association President, 
Dr. Walter Owens.
  In 2009, 2 years after Deamonte's death, Congress took up the 
reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. In a 
frustrating attempt to locate a dentist for her child, Deamonte 
Driver's mother and her advocates had to contact numerous offices 
before locating one who would treat him.
  For a variety of reasons, it is difficult for Medicaid and CHIP 
enrollees to find dental care, and working parents whose children 
qualify for those programs are likely to be employed at jobs where they 
can't spend 2 hours a day on the phone to find a provider. So part of 
the CHIP reauthorization now requires HHS to include on its Insure Kids 
Now Web site a list of participating dentists and benefit information 
for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
  Also, in 2009, Congress passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America 
Act. That law created the Healthy Futures Corps, which provides grants 
to the States and nonprofit organizations so they can fund national 
service in low-income communities. It will allow us to put into action 
tools that can help us close the gap in health status--prevention and 
health promotion. For too long we have acknowledged health disparities, 
studied them, and written reports about them. With the help of the 
senior Senator from Maryland, my colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski, 
we added language to that law specifying oral health as an area of 
focus.
  Now the Healthy Futures Corps can help recruit young people to work 
in the dental profession, where they can serve in areas that we have 
shortages of providers in urban and rural areas. It will fund the work 
of individuals who can help parents find available oral health services 
for themselves and their children. It will make a difference in the 
lives of the Healthy Futures Corps members who will work in underserved 
communities and in the lives and health of those who get improved 
access to care.
  Then, in 2010, we passed the Affordable Care Act which guarantees 
pediatric oral health care as part of each State's essential benefit 
health care package. The law also establishes an oral health care 
prevention education program at the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention targeted toward key populations, including children and 
pregnant women, and it created demonstration programs to encourage 
innovation in oral health delivery. It also significantly expanded 
workforce training programs for oral health professionals.
  Moving forward, the States have a critical role to play in ensuring 
that the Affordable Care Act benefit is designed to incentivize 
prevention, recognize that some children have greater risks of dental 
disease than others, and deliver care based on their level of risk. 
Among the most cost-effective ways to improve children's health care 
are investments in prevention. Dental sealants--clear plastic coatings 
applied to the chewing surfaces of molars--have been proven to prevent 
60 percent of tooth decay at one-third the cost of filling a cavity. So 
we must make sure prevention is a key part of every State's benefit 
package.
  Further, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
launched its oral health initiative, establishing a coordinated 
multiagency effort to improve access to care across the Nation.
  Yet for all the progress we have made, we know more must be done. In 
2009, the last year for which we have complete data that is available, 
more than 16 million American children went without dental care. That 
is not acceptable.
  Our Nation has made significant progress in improving children's 
dental care in the 5 years since the death of Deamonte Driver, but 
there is still much work to be done.
  Case in point: Last summer, 24-year-old Kyle Willis of Ohio died from 
an untreated tooth infection that spread to his brain. In fact, the 
health of millions of Americans is jeopardized because they cannot get 
treatment for tooth decay.
  The access problem has become so severe that many people are forced 
to seek treatment for tooth pain in the Nation's emergency rooms, 
increasing the overall cost of health care and receiving uncoordinated 
care in the least cost-efficient setting. In fact, more people seek 
treatment in emergency rooms for tooth pain than they do for asthma.
  The Pew Children's Dental Campaign produces report cards that grade 
the States on eight policies that are evidence-based solutions to the 
problem of tooth decay.
  Maryland received an A grade in both reports for meeting or exceeding 
these benchmarks, which include dental sealant programs, community 
water fluoridation, Medicaid reimbursement and enrollment, and 
collection of data on children's dental health.
  This is even more striking because in the late 1990s, Maryland had 
one of the worst records in the Nation regarding oral health care for 
its underserved population. But in 2011, the Pew Center on the States 
ranked Maryland as the top State in the country for oral health.
  However, the access issues remain. As Mrs. Driver's efforts to find 
care for her son showed, low-income families have great difficulty 
obtaining care due to a shortage of dentists willing to treat Medicaid 
patients.
  Nationally, the National Health Service Corps addresses the 
nationwide shortage of primary care oral health providers in dental 
health professional shortage areas by offering incentives in the form 
of scholarships and loan repayments to primary care dentists and 
registered dental hygienists to practice in underserved communities.
  I will continue to work to increase funding for grants to States and 
expand training opportunities for dentists. We do not have enough 
professionals who are trained and available to treat children and 
adults with dental problems, and it is our responsibility to fix that. 
We must improve reimbursement to dental providers in offices and 
clinics so no one who needs dental treatment will be turned away.
  I conclude my remarks with congratulatory wishes to Mrs. Alyce 
Driver. For as painful as Deamonte's passing was for all of us, nothing 
can compare to the loss of one's own child. Yet Mrs. Driver has worked 
hard and she has been awarded a dental tech degree. She is now out 
there helping others with dental care. She will be going back to school 
next month to receive training in radiology. Yes, in Maryland and 
throughout the Nation, there are signs of hope for the future of oral 
health care.
  February is National Children's Dental Health Month, and I wish to 
express my appreciation to the many nonprofit organizations, 
universities, and providers who are also working across the Nation to 
make sure we will never forget Deamonte Driver and never forget our 
responsibility to improving oral health care for America's children.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Gas Prices

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about 
something that is on the minds of people in my home State of Wyoming 
and people across the country, the high cost of

[[Page S1182]]

gasoline. When I filled up on Sunday evening in Wyoming and on Monday 
morning on the way to the airport I noticed that the price of gasoline 
in Wyoming was 10 cents higher per gallon than it was Sunday night when 
I filled the tank. I am heading back this weekend, later today, to 
Wyoming, and we will see what the cost of a gallon of gasoline will be. 
I know absolutely that the price of diesel fuel is much higher, almost 
by a dollar a gallon, than the price of regular unleaded gasoline.
  I think it is something that is happening all across the country 
because even in this morning's New York Times, Thursday, March 1, 2012, 
on the front page, a headline reads ``Tensions Raise Specter of Gas At 
$5 a Gallon.'' That is on the front page of the New York Times. It 
says, ``Gasoline for $5 a gallon? The possibility is hardly far-
fetched.''
  It goes on to say:

       With no clear end to tensions with Iran and Syria and 
     rising demand from countries like China, gas prices are 
     already at record highs for the winter months--averaging 
     $4.32 in California and $3.73 a gallon nationally on 
     Wednesday, according to the AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report. As 
     summer approaches, demand for gasoline rises, typically 
     pushing prices up.

  Again, ``no clear end to tensions in Iran and Syria and rising demand 
from countries like China. . . .''
  It is interesting because, obviously, China is the country that told 
the Prime Minister from Canada recently: We will buy all that extra oil 
you have that apparently the President of the United States isn't 
interested in, as he continues to block the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  That is what the American public is facing today, rising prices and 
an administration that continues to block access to an important source 
of safe, secure energy, as opposed to sending so much money overseas. 
Here we are with high gasoline prices, which is continuing to cause 
additional hardship for American families and American businesses. When 
families pay more at the pump, it impacts the quality of their lives. 
Families are dealing with mortgages, goods and services, and their kids 
as they continue to see the money going to fill the tank. This also 
hurts economic growth and our ability to create jobs.
  When companies pay more for gasoline, they have less money to expand 
their businesses and create new jobs. Wyoming families and businesses 
know this all too well because in Wyoming we drive longer distances 
than most Americans. The President also knows this impacts the economy. 
That is why he continues to give speeches on energy.
  It is clear the President is defensive on this issue, and it is 
understandable because the average price of gasoline, regular unleaded, 
the day he became President--today it is 103 percent higher, over 
double what it was the day President Obama took office just 3 years 
ago. Again, the price of gasoline is 103 percent higher than the day 
the President took office.
  There are a lot of factors at play. What this does show is that the 
President's policies are at best ineffectual; at worst they are 
contributing to the higher gas prices. People on both sides of the 
aisle know this and are hearing it at home. This week, actually, one 
Senate Democrat wrote to the Obama administration and pointed this out. 
Specifically, he pointed out that these are ``the highest prices we 
have ever seen for this time of year.''
  Unfortunately, that Senate Democrat's solution is to request that 
Saudi Arabia produce more oil. I will repeat that. His solution is to 
have the Secretary of State ask Saudi Arabia to produce more oil.
  Of course, the President is also considering other proposals as well. 
Like asking Saudi Arabia to produce more oil, the President's ideas 
would put national security at risk. There I am referring to the 
President's threat to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This will be 
the second time that President Obama has tapped the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. Prior to the President's decision to do that last June, it had 
only been tapped twice for emergencies since 1975. So between 1975 and 
2011, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve had only been tapped twice for 
emergencies--in 1991 upon the outbreak of the Persian Gulf war and then 
again more recently following Hurricane Katrina.
  In both of these instances we are talking about actual supply 
disruption. However, when President Obama tapped the Reserve last year, 
there was no substantial prospect of a supply disruption. The decision 
was based on politics, as would be the decision this time. That is why 
Jay Leno, earlier this week during his nightly television show, called 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve President Obama's strategic 
``reelection'' reserve.
  A number of my colleagues and I think there are other ways to address 
high gasoline prices. We understand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 
for emergencies, not political disasters.

  It is interesting because just earlier today, the House minority 
leader Nancy Pelosi endorsed tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--
not because of an emergency or a crisis or supply disruption, but she 
says ``to combat rising gas prices.''
  There is only so much oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The 
amount that was taken last year was never put back in to fill the tank. 
The amount taken out last year was sold. If we use that money to fill 
the tank, it is not enough--almost $1 billion more this year to fill 
the tank than what they got for selling what they took out last year.
  So we have a tank at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is not 
full, still waiting to be filled from what was taken from it last year. 
Now, here we are a year later, and the President, as well as Nancy 
Pelosi, is considering tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve again, 
drawing it down again, making us that much more vulnerable in case of a 
true emergency.
  The President actually has some options that make a lot of sense to a 
lot of Americans. An option, of course, is to increase American energy 
production. The President can begin to follow through on his words in 
Miami a week or so ago, when he said, ``I'll do whatever I can to 
develop every source of American energy.''
  The President can provide more access to Federal lands and waters. 
This week we learned the oil and gas production on Federal public lands 
and public waters is down. In 2011 there was a 14-percent decrease in 
oil production on public lands and water from 2010--less energy 
produced in Federal lands and waters. There was an 11-percent decrease 
in gas production from 2010.
  In Miami, the President said he has ``directed my administration to 
look at every single area where we can make an impact and help 
consumers in the months ahead, [including] permitting. . . .''
  Again, the President needs to follow through on his words. He can 
begin by increasing the number of permits issued for development in the 
Gulf of Mexico. I understand that the administration has issued only 21 
permits so far this year. In 2010 the administration issued 32 permits 
by this time.
  The President can also increase access to other offshore areas. He 
can provide access to offshore areas in the Atlantic and the Pacific 
Oceans, not just the Gulf of Mexico. In November he proposed an 
offshore leasing plan that excluded the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific 
Ocean. What kind of offshore leasing plan is that? The President 
excluded areas off the coast of Virginia, even though both Senators and 
the Governor of Virginia supported such energy exploration. The 
President said no.
  The President can also increase access to onshore areas. The 
President can open areas in Alaska, and he can support proposals to 
open ANWR. Both Senators from Alaska--one Republican and one Democrat--
and the Governor strongly support opening ANWR for exploration. The 
President should too. The President should also take steps to 
facilitate onshore exploration in the West. Specifically, he should 
scrap new regulations requiring what is called ``master leasing and 
development plans.''
  These regulations were put into place over 2 years ago by the 
Secretary of the Interior. It is unclear why the Secretary issued such 
regulations. They add more redtape and cause more bureaucratic delay 
and slow down American energy production.
  Of course, there are other regulations that drive up the cost of 
American energy--specifically, the EPA's forthcoming tier III 
regulations which will affect America's refineries. A recent study says 
this rule could increase the

[[Page S1183]]

cost of manufacturing gasoline, which will add to what Americans are 
paying at the pump and will add to the pain at the pump. They could 
also raise operating costs for refineries by anywhere from $5 billion 
to $13 billion a year. They could force as many as seven U.S. 
refineries to shut down and could lead to a 7- to 14-percent reduction 
in gasoline supplies for American refineries. These policies, by this 
administration, are completely unacceptable. The President should, at 
the very least, delay the issuance of this current rule.

  In addition to providing more access to Federal lands and Federal 
waters and eliminating burdensome regulations, the President should 
follow through on his words--his words--and address what he called 
delivery bottlenecks. Specifically, he should address the bottlenecks 
the Keystone XL Pipeline would relieve. I am referring to 100,000 
barrels of oil a day that the pipeline would be able to ship from 
Montana and North Dakota.
  That is right; we are talking about homegrown American energy. Of 
course, the President ought to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline coming 
in from Canada. It is North American oil from Canada but specific and 
significant amounts of oil--100,000 barrels a day--from Montana and 
North Dakota. Right now, there isn't sufficient pipeline capacity out 
of North Dakota and Montana. They are shipping the oil on trucks and 
trains, and that is much more expensive than shipping it by pipeline. 
Approving the Keystone XL Pipeline is an easy decision and the 
President should make this decision immediately.
  It was interesting today to see in Politico--one of the local papers 
on Capitol Hill--an article quoting Bill Clinton as saying, ``We should 
embrace'' the Keystone XL. The first sentence of the article says:

       Bill Clinton says it is time to build the Keystone XL 
     Pipeline.

  Perhaps President Obama ought to listen to President Clinton.
  Finally, the President says there are no silver bullets. That doesn't 
mean the President should sit on the sidelines. It doesn't mean his 
only options are asking Saudi Arabia to boost production or opening the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The President needs to promote American 
energy production. He can eliminate costly regulations and he can 
approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Those are the steps the President 
needs to take, and he needs to do that in the very near future because 
I believe we are going to continue to see headlines such as the one in 
today's New York Times: ``Tensions Raise Specter of Gas at $5 a 
Gallon.''
  With that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Death of Marie Colvin in Syria

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, Marie Colvin died last week, 
Wednesday, in Syria. As I speak, her body is still in Homs because the 
Assad regime refuses to honor the centuries-old tradition of human 
decency that even in war you are allowed to recover your dead.
  An American official in a position to know about the circumstances of 
her death has used with me the word ``murder,'' and this is not an 
official who uses such words loosely. News reports have suggested Marie 
was targeted using her cell phone signals. Why was she killed? Marie 
once said: ``Covering a war means going to places torn by chaos, 
destruction, and death, and trying to bear witness.''
  She was killed because she was doing what she was passionate about 
and what her gift was; that is, to bear witness.
  Marie was in Syria to bear witness to the massacre of the innocent in 
the city of Homs by the Assad regime. Her last report to the BBC was of 
a baby killed by shrapnel, dying in its mother's arms. That baby had no 
voice and that mother had no voice, but Marie was there. She was there 
making sure the dead did not die unheralded and the killers did not 
escape unwatched. She was there so they wouldn't get away with it. She 
was there to bear witness.
  The dictionary tells us that to bear witness means ``to see, to be 
present at, or know at firsthand.'' It means to ``testify.'' It means 
``to show by your existence that something is true.''
  This was Marie. Over and over she put herself in harm's way as she 
followed her calling to bear witness to the atrocities of our world.
  In Sri Lanka's brutal conflict, she was hit by the explosion of a 
rocket-propelled grenade, and in addition to other injuries, she lost 
sight in one eye. She was shot at that day after calling out, ``I'm a 
journalist.''
  In the Balkans and Chechnya, at Libya and around the world, she went 
to bear witness to suffering and corruption. I think she spent more 
time on the ground in Libya than any other Western correspondent.
  Marie was proud of this work, saying:

       We can and do make a difference in exposing the horrors of 
     war and especially the atrocities that befall civilians.

  Sometimes she managed to do more than just expose atrocities. In East 
Timor, she went to bear witness to the massacres. When the U.N. 
threatened to pull out of a base, leaving local employees and those 
sheltering there to the mercies of the massacre, Marie announced, ``I'm 
staying with them.''
  That created a new predicament for the U.N. leadership, and faced 
with Marie's courage, they decided to stay. Massacre averted.
  Marie was special. Her friends all knew it. Her colleagues knew it. 
The people who were trapped in the wars and conflicts she covered and 
who saw her there, sharing their risks and their suffering, and who 
knew someone would bear witness knew it. The Bible talks of bearing 
witness. It tells that John the Baptist ``came as a witness, to bear 
witness about the Light, that all might believe through him.''
  There is a parallel. Marie went as a witness. She went to bear 
witness in the places cloaked in darkness, that we all might perceive 
through her. With her death, it is our turn to bear witness. Marie 
Colvin had a calling, and it is our turn to bear witness to the courage 
and the passion of that calling. It is our time to bear witness to the 
grace and humor and brains and skill with which Marie Colvin pursued 
that calling. It is worth noting Marie did this all with style. I don't 
think Marie would want the record to fail to reflect that she had 
style.
  There has been an outpouring since the news of Marie's death spread 
around the world. From heads of state, famous writers, press 
celebrities, from old friends and colleagues, and from those whose 
praise she valued the most, the small band of brothers and sisters who 
practiced the dangerous craft of conflict journalism, there has been a 
torrent of grief and praise. I have culled from this torrent a 
collection of remembrances, reflections, tributes, and obituaries about 
Marie that I now ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Yale Daily News, Feb. 23, 2012]

          From the Archives: Colvin '78 Relects on Yale Career

                           (By Marie Colvin)

       The piece below, titled ``Running out of time,'' was 
     written by Marie Colvin '78 for the special issue of the News 
     handed out at Commencement 1978. Colvin, a seasoned war 
     correspondent, was killed by a mortar strike on Wednesday 
     while covering the escalating violence in the city of Homs.
       The most memorable event of my Yale career occurred in the 
     dining hall. At Silliman lunch last week, I was eating and 
     commiserating with a group of fellow seniors, slaphappy at 
     the thought of all the work to be done in the last week of 
     term. Everyone had a how-to story, the kind that only 
     circulates at finals time, like the one about the student who 
     handed in a bluebook with ``IV'' written on the cover, 
     inscribed with one sentence on the first page: ``and that's 
     the way it was in seventeenth century England,'' and received 
     a final grade of ``B'' from some T.A.; talk about surefire 
     dean's excuses and where to catch a quick 24-hour bug, always 
     good for a night at DUH.
       At a pause in the conversation, during which I flashed on 
     the twelve pages per day I'd have to write for the next week, 
     a friend next to me sighed and said profoundly, ``There's 
     just not enough time.'' It came out of the blue, but it was 
     the most relevant non-sequitur ever uttered.
       It sums up my Yale career. I've spent the last weeks of 
     every semester holed up in the Sillibrary, coffeepot by my 
     side, moving from one stack of books and clutter of papers to 
     the next like a guest at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. The last 
     week of my senior year I was there again, drinking coffee by 
     the pot,

[[Page S1184]]

     sleeping two hours nightly, marshaling enough credits to 
     graduate.
       That's why I wasn't a varsity athlete, or an editor of the 
     Oldest College Daily, why every room I've ever lived in has 
     been almost furnished. It's why my papers come back marked 
     ``good potential, inadequately realized.'' And it's why I 
     can't tell you what it feels like to be finished with Yale, 
     whether it's euphoric or just anti-climatic, because I'm not, 
     and by the time I am everyone will have left and I won't even 
     be able to ask anyone.
       It takes everybody but the football team four years to 
     realize that there is no way to do the work expected of you, 
     that teachers and deans don't really expect you to do it all 
     and that the real test of intelligence is to do the minimum 
     amount of work for the maximum reward. The football team 
     somehow learns freshman year what it takes everyone else 
     three years (it took me four). The most important things to 
     look for when choosing a course are not relevancy to future 
     career, interesting subject, or something you should know. 
     Number of papers and pages per paper, number of exams, and 
     Course Critique grade point spread are all you need to look 
     for. And if the football team shows up for the first lecture, 
     you've chosen correctly.
       The finer points of course selection involve arranging 
     enough of a workload so that when you do go out to Rudy's, 
     Mory's, or the Elizabethan Club for tea you can feel a twinge 
     of guilt. And so that you can participate in end-of-semester-
     conversations.
       The worst thing about graduating is that I can't remember 
     what I did all semester. I thought I was working, but that 
     seems impossible. I've started promoting the theory that Yale 
     is centered in a time warp. Time doesn't just seem to pass 
     twice as fast, it does. We have only one week to the 
     universal two.
       I haven't accepted the fact that I am not going to do 
     everything I kept putting off. I am not graduating Phi Beta 
     Kappa, I don't have 48 credits and 47 A's, I will never read 
     the bookcase of course books diligently bought in the Co-op, 
     lined up neatly with their binders unwrinkled. I will not 
     paint the fourth wall in my bedroom. I will probably never 
     even find out the name of that curly-haired boy in my English 
     seminar I've been flirting with all year.
       It's hard to say even what I've learned here. I don't think 
     I've finished adjusting yet. I have nothing striking to say 
     about anything and it seems like I should. I've changed from 
     a regular science major to a science major who only takes 
     English courses (there was no time to change majors), learned 
     about weenies, jocks, and turned-up collars, learned how to 
     run, not fast but far enough to enjoy the sweat, learned how 
     to do footnotes. Unlearned a lot too--like weenies and jocks 
     don't exist and that turned-up collar means zilch. And I've 
     learned how ridiculous it is to try to convince people that 
     you are serious about something, that you have a direction. 
     Best of all, I missed all the deadlines--LSAT, GRE, 
     scholarships, grants, and fellowships--not enough time--so I 
     guess I'll wake up Tuesday morning and start thinking about 
     it. Or else just buy a plane ticket.
       The one realization I have come to after four years is that 
     I can still make all the mistakes I want and it doesn't 
     matter. I remind myself of this often, whenever I feel the 
     ``let's get serious mood'' coming on, or I lunch with law-
     business-medical school prospectives, or read an article 
     about shopping bag ladies in the New York subway system. Not 
     that there's anything at all wrong with going to law-
     business-medical school, but enough people stick up for it, 
     and that's not the point anyway.
       The point is that it doesn't matter if you mess up, choose 
     the wrong road, flop in Vegas. What's important is to throw 
     yourself in head first, to ``go for the gusto.'' And if you 
     blow it, you blow it. What we have to worry about now is 
     success. Once you're successful, it becomes embarrassing to 
     make mistakes, and more difficult to grab onto the nearest 
     straw and hold on. You can always be a star, so what's the 
     rush?
                                  ____


                       Marie Colvin--The Natural

                          (By Allison Silver)

       I have been reading all day about Marie Colvin, the 
     terrific London Sunday Times foreign correspondent who was 
     killed Wednesday in Syria. David Remnick wrote a lovely piece 
     about her. It captures her coolness and professionalism.
       Marie was a remarkable writer--and person. Talented and 
     persistent: An unbeatable combo.
       I knew her back at Yale, and she often cited me as the 
     person who started her writing. And I think I was. Her 
     mother, Rosemarie Colvin, described Wednesday how her 
     daughter had decided to be a journalist back when she was 
     writing for The Yale Daily News.
       I was an editor on the Yalie Daily when Marie was in a 
     seminar with me. She was funny and savvy and amazing looking. 
     Tall and slim, with a baby face surrounded by masses of black 
     corkscrew curls. Her best friend was equally tall--and they 
     stood out on campus.
       She hung out with all the campus ``writers''--who took 
     prestigious writing classes but wouldn't deign to take part 
     in the hurly-burly of daily campus journalism. They were 
     serious writers--and serious partiers. I knew most of them--
     but her least of all. She was not quite regarded as a 
     ``writer,'' like they were.
       In that class, I realized Marie had a clear, clean talent 
     for writing. So I kept on her to write for me at the News. 
     She started doing longer reported feature pieces--and 
     thrived.
       I could see she was jazzed by the process of reporting. She 
     had started off insisting that she was not the writer of the 
     group. And I kept saying to her you can do this. So do it! 
     And she did. She was a natural.
       With all that persistence, of course she pursued it and 
     went on to serious international reporting. I remember, back 
     in the 90s I think, she was one of the elite Middle East 
     reporters who attained an interview with Qadhafi--a feat she 
     pulled off again recently.
       Meanwhile, I'm still a desk jockey. As my career took me to 
     Los Angeles, New York and DC, she was reporting from hot 
     spots around the globe. I rarely saw her, which is something 
     I will always regret. But whenever I ran into her, we talked 
     about Yale and our varied paths from there.
       She lived the life she wanted to. And that is to be 
     admired.
                                  ____


                        Tribute to Marie Colvin

                           (By Gerald Weaver)

       Marie Colvin sat across the table from me in the kitchen of 
     her Thames-side home in the Hammersmith neighborhood of 
     London on October 18, 2011, as she looked me in the eye and 
     gave me a completely unexpected answer to a question I had 
     long planned to asked her. ``So, Marie, do you have some kind 
     of a death wish or something?'' I had asked, waiting and 
     watching her intently. I had expected that she maybe she 
     would react a bit too defensively or that she might have 
     otherwise partially admitted to the premise of the question. 
     But I realized immediately that it had been the 
     quintessential stupid question. The gist of her answer was 
     that these were normal people who were being attacked, 
     bombed, uprooted and murdered in the stories she was 
     uncovering and reporting. The normal people who would read 
     her reports should have a normal reaction to them, she said. 
     And by that, she meant they should be appalled and horrified. 
     So for Marie it was merely normal to pick up and go find the 
     most terrible story that no other reporter would cover and 
     then report it as a matter of fact. The danger simply did not 
     occur to her. She neither feared nor courted it. As I 
     listened to her, I heard the word ``human'' for the word 
     ``normal.''
       She also had no interest in romanticizing or aggrandizing 
     what it was that she did in her work. She used to laugh it 
     off when I would call her ``the distaff Ernest Hemingway of 
     Great Britain.'' I was in London those four months ago at her 
     urging, because I had just written the first three chapters 
     of a novel that I had only started and only because she had 
     urged me to write it, and which I have only recently 
     completed with her encouragement and through her help. She 
     then started talking to me about us contacting literary 
     agents in London that she knew and it occurred to me ask her 
     when she was going to write her own book about her very 
     interesting, exciting and inspiring life. I knew that the 
     possibility of such a book would be why agents would have 
     wanted to court her. She only laughed and suggested that 
     maybe I should write her book. She was only interested in 
     reporting, not in making herself the story. She was in her 
     life and in her death utterly heroic, but she would have been 
     the last person to think that or to want to even talk about 
     it.
       Marie also had that same good natured disinterest when it 
     came to politics, or to her more difficult role as a woman in 
     her profession, or to moving about in a part of the world 
     that was not particularly easy for a woman. For the almost 
     forty years that I knew her, she only ever addressed politics 
     obliquely. I always assumed she was a liberal. But it was 
     more than that and it was much different. She was, through 
     her work and her life, a liberalizing force within the world. 
     She hoped to speak to a better part within us all that she 
     felt simply must empathize with the least fortunate, the 
     terrorized, the forgotten and the innocents who are under 
     attack. And when she called me on her satellite phone one 
     night this past December, it was only in passing that she 
     mentioned how she had been chased through Tahrir Square on 
     the same night that many women had been assaulted there. And 
     even then she only spoke of her gratitude to the Egyptians 
     who had saved her and not of the special dangers to her as a 
     woman.
       She used to always apologize for often being out of touch, 
     for answering with one phone call three or four weeks of 
     daily emails, for disappearing for weeks or months on end. I 
     have no doubt that for many of us who were even her closest 
     friends that her columns in the Sunday Times were perhaps the 
     most reliable way for us to hear her voice and know what was 
     on her mind. It was almost as if she was expressing her worry 
     that her relationships were like her politics or what she 
     might say about her work or what it meant to her to be a 
     woman war correspondent. They came after her need to tell the 
     story. My best insight into this came the day after I had 
     asked my stupid question, on October 19, 2011, the day it was 
     reported that Muammar Gadaffi had been killed.
       I watched her at her home in that morning as she 
     accomplished what would have taken anyone else several days. 
     She juggled several phones, gave an interview to National 
     Public Radio, made calls in English and French to

[[Page S1185]]

     make arrangements for two separate clandestine border 
     crossings, made flight arrangements, coordinated with other 
     reporters, communicated with her office, dug up leads, 
     tracked down reports. And that was all the while she was 
     packing and gathering up several different phones and 
     communications uplinks, taking deliveries at the front door, 
     and pulling out her helmet, her flak jacket and all her other 
     protective gear, which was all marked, ``Marie Colvin, O +,'' 
     for her blood type. She laughed about that too, and all the 
     time she was apologizing for cutting our visit short. She was 
     generous to a fault and she showed her idiosyncratic 
     disinterest when it came to compliments. And when I pitched 
     in and helped her prepare to leave in what limited ways I 
     could, she was surprised by it and slightly embarrassed.
       But what I noticed that morning has stuck with me now that 
     she is gone. There can be no doubt of the magnitude of the 
     loss that is encompassed by her death, personally to her 
     family and friends, professionally in the realm of 
     journalism, and even to the world in what has been lost in 
     the reporting of stories that are the most harrowing and 
     dangerous to reporters and perhaps the most important for the 
     rest of us to know. When I read what has been written and 
     what I write about her passing, and even when I read what has 
     been reported about what Marie herself had said about the 
     importance of reporting these stories, I realize that all of 
     it is true but that all of it is necessarily a reduction of 
     what she actually was. That morning she was incredibly alive 
     with a passion to get to the story and to tell it. And she 
     was filled with what can only be called joy. In all the moods 
     and stages of her life in which I had witnessed her, at that 
     moment of going to cover the story she was the most of who 
     she really was, and she was at one with it.
       She was a tirelessly brave and compassionate female war 
     correspondent, true. But to me she really was what few people 
     ever get the opportunity to be and what almost none of us 
     have the will to be. She was a free artist of herself and of 
     her life. Her commanding if almost sole interest was in being 
     our eyes and ears in places where most people would be afraid 
     to look or to go. I think the joy I saw in her was that she 
     knew how rare such a life can be, and that she was fortunate 
     to be living it. That is the small personal consolation that 
     I draw from her death. It would be tremendous if something 
     positive would come out of it in terms of expediting the 
     end of the massacre in Syria, but I believe that is 
     something even she would not have expected and would have 
     been something for which she had only hoped. The possible 
     larger consolation would be to the way in which her death 
     might speak, in the same way that her life and her 
     reporting had, to that part of us that should care for the 
     world's innocent and obscure victims. And I also hope that 
     it might speak to some others who might be inspired to go 
     in her wake and report those same kinds of stories to the 
     world, and do so regardless of the personal risk and do it 
     heroically, as did my friend, Marie Colvin.
                                  ____


                            For Marie Colvin

                           (By Katrina Heron)

       I've spent my adult life refusing to envision an obituary 
     for Marie. I planned with all my conscious powers never to 
     read one, and I promised myself that I would never have to 
     write one. Along with her family and her great caravan of 
     other friends, I celebrated Marie's determination to put 
     herself in harm's way, to ``bear witness'' as a foreign 
     correspondent in so many parts of the world--Lebanon, Libya, 
     Israel, the Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank, 
     Chechnya, Sri Lanka, East Timor, Iraq--and waited each time 
     she went out on assignment, fretting, for her to signal the 
     all-clear. ``Will call when I'm outta here,'' she would write 
     as she filed her last story from the danger zone.
       From our mid-20s until yesterday, that fragile insistence 
     of mine mostly held. There were terrifying moments, and Marie 
     was gravely wounded in 2001; caught in a firefight in Sri 
     Lanka, she lost sight in one eye and nearly died from 
     shrapnel wounds. But she survived, and when she arrived back 
     in New York, we went together to interview ophthalmological 
     surgeons (waving away, regretfully, the very handsome young 
     doctor who eagerly auditioned with his grasp of geopolitics), 
     shopped for eye patches and drank quite a lot of Champagne. I 
     didn't stop worrying after that, but my hope swelled to a 
     greater confidence. Marie took the greatest possible 
     precautions in conflict areas, so far from rash or merely 
     impulsive that other journalists often looked to her for 
     guidance on the risk calculus of a given situation. She 
     focused on bringing back the story and didn't dwell 
     personally on the dire circumstances in which she found 
     herself except insofar as they served her formidable powers 
     of description and, often, hilarity.
       I look back over the last year or so of scattered emails, 
     sitting there innocently in the queue. She wrote last June: 
     ``I am STILL in Misrata, Libya, and the ever brutal Gadaffi 
     is ruining any chance of a social life or indeed a life by 
     selfishly refusing to Go. Despite all the graffiti on walls 
     here giving excellent advice, ``Just Go!''
       I had one of my best offers ever today. A rebel fighter on 
     the front ambled over, on his break from firing, so to speak, 
     and said, ``Hey, do you want to shoot the mortar?'' It is 
     definitely a sign that I may have been here too long because 
     I REALLY WANTED TO SHOOT THE MORTAR. I mean, when will I ever 
     get a chance to shoot a mortar again?''
       A couple of days later: ``I am sitting in the gloaming on 
     the stern of a Turkish boat in Misurata harbor, looking out 
     over an ugly seascape of cranes and broken concrete and 
     blasted buildings from months of bombing. I am finally 
     homeward bound, a day's journey to Benghazi, a few days in 
     the rebel capital for a story then an overnight drive to 
     Cairo. It gives one respect for travel, having to run the 
     spectrum of transport. It will be strange coming out of this 
     world that, however mad, has a simplicity to it of sand and 
     courage and bombs and sleep and canned tuna and a few shirts, 
     washed out in a bowl when the dust threatens to take over.''
       A bit farther on, there's an invitation to connect with her 
     on LinkedIn, which prompted some hazing about whether she was 
     trying to beat the rap on her famously abysmal grasp of basic 
     networking technology (she used a satellite phone but was 
     flummoxed by her iPhone). In truth, she was a technical 
     wizard of a different sort, a skilled sailor who had done a 
     lot of deep-water racing and had recently, proudly, earned 
     her yachtmaster qualification. She grew up sailing in Long 
     Island Sound, and the loss of vision had slowed her down not 
     a bit.
       There's a quick back and forth toward fall on a subject we 
     talked about often by phone and during our last couple of 
     visits--me going to London, where she lived, or her coming to 
     California, where I am. She kept saying she wanted to spend 
     less time in the Middle East and more time at home--and on 
     the ocean. She had briefly tried a desk job at her paper, the 
     Times of London, but of course it drove her nuts. Still, the 
     job was getting more perilous. Tim Hetherington, the 
     photojournalist killed in Misrata in April 2011, had been 
     very generously helping me on a book I was editing about 
     Liberia, where he'd spent a good deal of time. Marie knew 
     about the project and had written me: ``Weirdly, I went by 
     the place today where Tim and [photographer] Chris Hondros 
     were killed. A shiver of mortality. The forecourt of the car 
     repair shop still bears the mark of the mortar shell that 
     killed them, and a starburst of chips in the concrete where 
     the metal flew out as shrapnel.''
       Around Thanksgiving, the messages trail off for a bit, as 
     they often did. But even when I didn't know exactly where she 
     was, I didn't worry desperately. I was used to periods of 
     silence, plus there was a group of us that always passed 
     around bits of her itinerary. Sightings by other journalists 
     would filter back or someone would see her on CNN or hear her 
     on NPR. She knew she could call day or night, and I could 
     always reach at least her voice--I was thinking tonight that 
     her cell is probably still on, with its years-old, soft and 
     slightly lilting greeting. But I couldn't bear to hear it now 
     so I won't try. Christmas Day she there in my inbox, brief 
     but joyful.
       A couple of weeks ago, Marie wrote that she was going to 
     Syria. I think her colleagues were uneasy, and I know now 
     that several of our friends tried to talk her out of it. I 
     felt fairly calm, which just goes to show you how great is 
     the power of willful optimism. In the last email I have from 
     her, she wrote: ``I am now in Beirut, negotiating with 
     smugglers to get me across the border. After six weeks in 
     Libya this year, under shelling and that low level of anxiety 
     every day brings, I had said I'll do a bit less of the hot 
     spots, but what is happening in Syria, especially Homs, is 
     criminal, so I am once again, knapsack on back with my 
     satellite phone and computer, clambering across a dark 
     border.''
       I was fast asleep in my bed in Berkeley yesterday when 
     Marie was killed in Homs. I woke up to what the world was 
     learning--that the house she and several others were camping 
     out in had been hit by rockets; that with Marie in the lead, 
     the group had just run down the stairs to the front door when 
     a blast obliterated the entryway; that a 28-year-old French 
     photographer, Remi Ochlik, also died, and three others were 
     wounded. Right now, all of us are panicked about the 
     condition of the injured journalists, not knowing whether 
     rescue workers will be allowed in to Homs to get them. It 
     brings me back to those frantic, terrible hours in 2001 when 
     all we knew was that Marie was wounded in Sri Lanka and had 
     yet to be evacuated.
       I have been walking around all day talking to her, asking 
     her dumbly where she is. Ever since we first met and became 
     roommates in college, we've been inseparable in one way or 
     another. In that same last email she said we should charter a 
     boat this summer--sail merrily to the ends of the earth: 
     ``More when I am back from Syria. I love you very much.''
       The phones and email and all the rest have been humming 
     with misery, and with Marie's love. So many wonderful people 
     adored her and she them that I've been swathed in stunned, 
     overflowing warmth all day. At the same time, it's impossible 
     to believe she's dead, but then I'm scared of the moment when 
     it will be impossible not to.
       Further tributes to Marie Colvin can be found at http://
whitehouse.senate.gov/.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. On behalf of a group of old friends who are stricken 
by her loss, I offer this in affection, in appreciation, and in 
memorandum.
  Marie's mother, Rosemarie Colvin, said of Marie:

       Her legacy is: be passionate and be involved in what you 
     believe in. And do it as

[[Page S1186]]

     thoroughly and honestly and fearlessly as you can.

  Indeed.
  With those words, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I did not know Marie personally, as my 
friend and colleague from Rhode Island did. But his words, his passion, 
his emotion allow us all to know her a little bit better.
  Even just reading the newspaper accounts, she was a remarkable 
person. But hearing from Sheldon, both here and speaking to him 
privately, it is obvious that those who knew Marie were privileged and 
were touched by her life long before her untimely death. She leaves an 
amazing mark.
  I just wish to say to my colleague Sheldon, there are times that 
measure the mettle of a person and one of them is when they go through 
grief and tragedy. My respect for him, as high as it was before, is 
higher still knowing what he is going through and how he has worked to 
handle this difficult situation.
  I rise simply as a New York Senator who represents the area, Long 
Island, where Marie Catherine Colvin came from. We are working--Sheldon 
above all--desperately, to bring her home to her mother Rosemarie, so 
her family can provide her with a final resting place, providing her 
with the dignity she deserves.
  Marie had a remarkable career. It is no doubt that not only, as 
Sheldon said, the small band of journalists but many larger than that 
and anyone she knew will mourn her death for years to come because we 
have not just lost a daring journalist, but we also have lost a 
humanitarian, one who took her abilities as an investigator and a 
storyteller to speak for the voiceless. It is clear from Sheldon's 
remarks and from reading the biographical accounts and her obituary 
that this was a woman of both courage and passion who managed to sort 
of weave the two into an amazing life where she served so many.
  Marie grew up on Long Island, attended Oyster Bay High School, and of 
course, as we know from what Sheldon has said, went on to study at 
Yale. She studied anthropology. She moved to New York City, worked as a 
UPI police reporter on the midnight to 6 a.m. shift. That is the time 
when most crimes occur. That is the times in the dark, particularly in 
those days in New York City, to be a journalist was difficult. It took 
courage. But even then, Colvin didn't shy away from tough jobs.
  She worked her way up, moving to Paris and later to work for the UK's 
Sunday Times and became their Middle East correspondent in 1968. She 
has been doing this kind of dangerous and important work that 
inevitably and inexorably saved lives for so many years, 27 years. 
Colvin focused on years when the Middle East was not calm. It hasn't 
been the warmest climate for women and certainly was not an area for 
the weak of heart. But she didn't just stay for a year or two. She 
stayed at the front, and after each conflict ended, she went to the 
next one because I think she knew--and, again, Sheldon would know this 
much better than I. But just reading about her, she knew her talents 
were unique; that there wasn't anybody else who might fill those gaps 
and be able to do the kind of reporting that might bring change. So she 
followed the conflicts in Chechnya and the Balkans, East Timor, Sierra 
Leone, Zimbabwe. She was not just in the Middle East. She was there.
  For those who cannot instantly remember some of her coverage, I am 
sure they remember her eye patch. This is from her work in Sri Lanka, 
where she defied a government ban on journalists' access, traveled over 
30 miles through the Vanni jungles to report on the terrible war crimes 
of the Sri Lankan civil war. I remember reading them at the time and 
being moved to try and do something.
  Colvin suffered. She never threw in the towel. If anything, it pushed 
her to work even harder. Her quests to help the women and children from 
every single war-torn country she entered endeared her to those women, 
those communities, those members of our global community who knew and 
know that her type of bravery was so rare indeed.
  This brutal regime has broken families, torn apart homes, and forever 
changed the way of life for the Syrian people. There is darkness that 
has descended over Syria by design, by this awful regime. There was 
Colvin, shining a candle, letting the world know, and now we are all 
deprived of an incredible journalist.
  With her, we lose an international role model. We lose the story she 
would tell, the light she would bring to the darkest lives, most 
recently in Syria but throughout the world, and we lose the voice she 
would have found wherever the next merciless regime tried to suppress 
it. Yes, Marie Colvin would have been there.
  While there is currently no official U.S. diplomatic presence in 
Syria due to the awful human rights tragedy being carried out by the 
Assad regime, we are working as best we can to explore every avenue to 
help Sheldon and her family bring closure and to help her mother, in 
particular, who made clear that she will not rest until her daughter 
returns home.
  On behalf of all my colleagues, I offer my condolences to Rosemarie 
Colvin in East Norwich, Marie's mother, and to the many people who will 
miss the work of one of the greatest correspondents of this generation.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of OHIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for up to 20 minutes and to yield at the conclusion of my first 10 
minutes to Senator Portman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          High School Tragedy

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I join my fellow colleague from 
Ohio Senator Portman to offer our condolences and prayers to the people 
of Chardon, OH, who experienced a terrible tragedy earlier this week.
  On Monday morning, February 27, a troubled young boy opened fire in 
the crowded cafeteria at Chardon High School. Three students were 
killed. Two students were wounded. The entire community remains shaken.
  As fathers, we cannot imagine the loss of a child and the loss of 
innocence of children who will now grow up knowing tragedy all too 
early in life. As Members of the Senate, we couldn't be more proud of 
the resiliency and the love and the compassion the people of Chardon 
have shown in the wake of such fear and sorrow.
  During the shooting, teachers and school administrators risked their 
lives to protect and save the lives of their students. Assistant 
Football Coach Frank Hall chased the gunman out of the cafeteria, 
Principal Andy Fetchik called 911, and countless other teachers and 
students provided safety and comfort until help could arrive.
  Chardon law enforcement and first responders--from the 911 
dispatchers to the police, to the emergency medical people--arrived at 
the scene to apprehend the suspect and restore calm and order.
  Chardon Police Chief Tim McKenna and his team--especially the three 
officers who rushed to the school--did an outstanding job. Hospital 
staff at MetroHealth and Hillcrest cared for the victims and counseled 
the families of lost ones. Out of this week's turmoil and tragedy, we 
remain proud of the community that has come together through vigils and 
prayer services, through support and red ribbons worn.
  The day after the shooting, more than 1,000 people crammed into the 
St. Mary's parish across from Chardon High School. The overflow crowd 
of another 1,000 was outside listening to Principal Fetchik express how 
proud he was of the students.
  Yesterday, President Obama spoke to Principal Fetchik to say how 
proud he was--as Senator Portman and I are--of the school and of the 
community.
  At the prayer service, Superintendent Joseph Bergant explained why 
the school would close for a few days this week to reflect, for 
students and families to get the help they need, for parents to hug 
their children, and for children to hug their parents.

[[Page S1187]]

  Yesterday, I spoke with Superintendent Bergant to express Connie's 
and my gratitude and prayers. The investigation into how and why this 
happened continues, but resilience, compassion, and love, we know, will 
remain.
  Tomorrow classes resume in Chardon and at Lake Academy and Auburn 
Career Center, where students and staff are also dealing with this 
tragedy. Tomorrow, Chardon High School students will march together 
from the town square to the school in a show of solidarity and unity. 
They will remember Joy Rickers and Nicoloas Wajczak, who are still 
recovering from their injuries. They will honor those fellow students 
no longer with them. Daniel Parmertor was a 16-year-old high school 
junior. Known as Danny, he was a student who loved snowboarding and 
video games and computers. He enjoyed wing nights at Cleats with 
friends and was excited about starting his first job in a bowling alley 
and picking up his first paycheck.
  His father Bob, a boiler technician with First Energy, and his mother 
Dina, a nurse at Hillcrest Hospital, were finishing their night shifts. 
If we can imagine, they were finishing their night shifts when they 
learned of the shooting.
  In their statement, the family said:

       Danny was a bright young boy, who had a bright future ahead 
     of him. The family is torn by this loss.

  He is survived by his parents, siblings, grandparents, a great-
grandmother, and numbers of aunts, uncles, and cousins.
  Russell King, Jr., was 17 years old. His friends described him as 
sociable and who got along with everyone. A junior, he was enrolled in 
Chardon High School and the Auburn Career Center. He was studying 
alternative energy such as solar and wind power as so many young people 
are today.
  Demetrius Hewlin was 16 years old, affectionately known as ``D'' to 
his family and friends. Demetrius was interested in healthy living, 
staying active, playing computer games, and reading books.
  In their statement, his family said:

       We are saddened by the loss of our son and others in our 
     Chardon community.
       Demetrius was a happy young man who loved life and his 
     family and friends.
       We will very much miss him, but we are proud he will be 
     able to help others through organ donation.

  Imagine that, the parents and the family thinking of others so 
immediately.
  He is survived by his parents, grandparents, a brother and sister, 
and numerous aunts, uncles, and cousins.
  On behalf of all Ohioans, the Senate, and joining with Senator 
Portman, we offer our continued prayers and condolences to the Chardon 
community.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise with my colleague Senator Brown, 
who has just spoken about this terrible tragedy that occurred in our 
State on Monday at Chardon High School in Geauga County. I was calling 
into a radio program in the Cleveland area on Monday morning when the 
first reports started to come in. Frankly, it was unbelievable that 
there could be a shooting anywhere but certainly in a high school and 
in this community that I visited that Senator Brown and I both know. 
Unfortunately, the rumors ended up being true and the tragedy is--as 
Senator Brown has just described so well--that lives were cut short and 
these were lives full of promise. We will never know those young people 
Senator Brown was just talking about as adults, but we will always 
remember them, and now they are memorialized in the Congressional 
Record.
  My wife Jane and I have been keeping the families in our prayers, and 
for that matter the entire Chardon High School community. We continue 
to pray for the healing of those who were injured in flesh and in 
spirit through this terrible act. As the parent of a high school 
student who is about the same age as these young people, I cannot 
imagine what the parents have gone through over the last 4 days. 
Chardon is a beautiful community. It is almost a New England-style town 
on the Western Reserve, with a beautiful town square. It is a place of 
certainty, and that certainty, of course, now has been shattered. It 
touches so many people around Ohio.
  One of my staff has two cousins who attend the school, and along with 
two other cousins who have already graduated from the school, 
fortunately, their family members are all OK. But it shows that despite 
being a big State, all of us in Ohio are tied together.
  We have been in touch with the Chardon officials offering to help 
where it is appropriate. I know Senator Brown has made a call, as has 
the Governor, and the President has made a call. We all want to be 
there and help in any way we can. We can draw some hope from the 
heroism of the day.
  Unbelievably, the assistant football coach and teacher, Frank Hall, 
chased the shooter with his gun and showed a lot of bravery. A math 
teacher, Joe Ricci, rescued one of the injured students. We draw hope 
from the rank and leadership of Principal Andy Fetchik, Chardon schools 
Superintendent Joe Bergant, Geauga County Sheriff Dan McClelland, 
Chardon Police Chief Tim McKenna, and the first responders who 
responded as they always do, and we appreciate and commend them for 
their reactions and their ability to deal with a very difficult 
situation.
  The community has received a lot of support and will need it as they 
come together to grieve and to heal. The reports I have heard about, 
the vigils and gatherings over the last week have been moving. I am 
told as students returned to school for the first time today, they 
gathered in that town square I talked about and walked together in 
unison.
  We need to make sure we continue to pull together and continue to 
support the community and school. For the parents to heal is a journey, 
and the journey has just begun.
  I have been moved by the expressions of support from other local high 
school students too. Apparently, other students of the Cleveland area 
have gone Hilltopper red and black, which is the mascot, to show their 
support for other students. We are in the Chamber with some of our 
pages who are about the same age as these students and that show of 
support and love is appreciated and it shows the character of our 
State. We pull together in Ohio. We pull together in times of tragedy, 
through tears and through pain. We will get through this.
  Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with my colleague about 
the tragedy and to be sure that in the Record we are memorializing this 
event and ensuring that those students whose lives have been cut short 
will all be remembered.
  God bless Chardon and the Chardon community.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Energy Policy

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our 
Nation's energy policy.
  Georgians, as well as folks all across America, are shocked every 
time they pull up to the gas pumps, both at the price of gas per gallon 
and at the jaw-dropping total cost each time they fill up their tanks. 
With rising food prices and a weak economic recovery, skyrocketing gas 
prices could not come at a worse time. This situation illustrates why 
it is imperative for Congress to focus on creating a policy to expand 
and diversify our energy sources so the American people are no longer 
held hostage by prices at the pump.
  The necessity of congressional action has become all too clear as gas 
prices continue to rise and unrest in the Middle East threatens the 
global economy. We cannot afford to keep sending hundreds of billions 
of dollars per year to foreign countries, many of which are not 
America's friends, to meet our energy needs. Doing so poses a threat to 
our national security and further harms our Nation's struggling 
economy.
  Unfortunately, the President and his administration have made some 
decisions that contribute to rising gas prices and that prevent us from 
being able to take advantage of vast energy

[[Page S1188]]

resources located right here in North America.
  First, the President's recent decision to reject the Keystone XL 
Pipeline was extremely disappointing. Canada is a trusted ally and 
friend to the United States, and by tapping into its vast oil reserves, 
we could have substantially lessened our need to import oil from other, 
potentially hostile, nations. Not only would this project instantly 
have created many jobs, it would also have helped secure our Nation's 
energy future.
  In addition, the long line of burdensome regulations coming from the 
administration threatens both economic growth and energy costs in the 
United States. Instead of navigating through this unprecedented 
regulatory environment, more and more industries will choose to take 
their business overseas. This could potentially include refiners and 
other businesses essential to domestic energy production. In fact, we 
are already seeing the movement of the deep oil rigs in the Gulf of 
Mexico to China--a classic example of what could happen even more so in 
the future.
  Rather than hindering domestic production of oil and gas, we must 
encourage the development of the abundant energy resources we have 
right here in the United States, and we must do so in an 
environmentally responsible manner. I will continue to support domestic 
oil and gas exploration and production. It is an essential component of 
a comprehensive energy policy that will enable America to become more 
energy independent.
  As I hear more reports of new oil and natural gas deposits found 
within our borders and off America's shores, I am stunned that we are 
not doing more to encourage the development of these resources. I can't 
think of a better means of improving our economy, by both reducing 
America's energy imports and encouraging job growth. Unfortunately, the 
administration continues to hold up and unnecessarily delay the 
approval of drilling leases and permits. Now is not the time to tie up 
valuable and much needed American energy production in bureaucratic 
redtape.
  A responsible energy policy that includes increased domestic energy 
production; improved energy efficiency through technology; improved 
conservation; and a diversified energy supply with the use of renewable 
fuel sources will keep gas prices low, lessen our dependence on foreign 
oil, and strengthen our economy. I am hopeful we will take action on 
some form of comprehensive energy legislation during this Congress. For 
the sake of our national security and our economy, we need to tackle 
this issue now instead of procrastinating and letting others handle it.
  I made this same speech 4 years ago when we saw gas prices approach 
$4 a gallon. Here we are 4 years later with the same hurdles standing 
in front of us with respect to the lack of a long-term energy policy in 
this country. So I hope that in a bipartisan way we can develop an 
energy policy, even if it is short term and even if it is narrowly 
focused, that will provide relief to Americans with respect to the 
rising gas prices, which are going to impact every single product that 
is made in America today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Senator Chambliss pertaining to the introduction of 
S. 2151 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask that I be 
followed by Senator Brown of Ohio, who assured me he would be waiting 
in the Chamber when I concluded.
  But since I see he is not here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
my amendment to the transportation reauthorization bill that I have 
introduced with Senator Blunt. I am grateful this amendment has been 
included in the base bill of Leader Reid's substitute amendment.
  I will take a couple of minutes to explain this amendment. It is a 
simple commonsense amendment. I am glad it has been accepted. It is 
also particularly significant to my home State of Minnesota.
  On August 1 of this year, we will mark the fifth anniversary of the 
tragedy in my home State of the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge 
in Minneapolis. The collapse killed 13 people and injured 145. That 
tragedy should have been a wake-up call in America and in this body. 
Bridges should not collapse in the United States of America.
  Unfortunately, the state of many of our bridges today is still 
extremely concerning. According to the most recent data compiled by the 
Federal Highway Administration, one in nine highway bridges in this 
country is classified as ``structurally deficient.''
  Let me say it another way. One of nine bridges in our country needs 
significant rehabilitation or replacement and requires yearly 
inspection.
  In Minnesota alone, more than 1,100 bridges were listed as being 
structurally deficient. The bill we are debating today consolidates 
many varied surface transportation programs into five main pots of 
money. The Highway Bridge Program would be consolidated in the new 
National Highway Performance Program, and of this new program, 60 
percent would have to be spent on restoring National Highway System 
roads and bridges into a state of good repair. The other 40 percent is 
more flexible and can be spent on a variety of projects, including 
Federal-aid highways that are not on the National Highway System, or 
the NHS.
  However, if those non-NHS roads have a bridge that needs repair, that 
project would not have been an allowable use of this flexible pot of 
money. My amendment, which is now included in the base bill, fixes 
that. It allows the 40-percent pot of money to be used to repair 
bridges on non-NHS Federal-aid highways.
  It is common sense. If roads are eligible for this funding, then 
bridges along these roads should be eligible as well. This is a no-
brainer to me, especially given the poor state of our bridges today. 
The I 35W bridge collapse was a tragedy. It was a monumental failure of 
policy. I am determined not to let that happen again.
  I thank Senator Blunt for joining me in this effort. I also wish to 
thank Transportation for America and Smart Growth America for their 
support on this important fix.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I would like to talk about an 
important part of the transportation jobs bill the Senate is debating 
this week. The bill is about creating jobs by modernizing our roadways 
and highways, about making our bridges safer--we know what that means 
in Minnesota, the State of the Presiding Officer--and about improving 
public transportation and reducing congestion across the country. But 
it is also about improving the public safety of the vehicles that 
travel our country.
  We know about the success we have had as a nation because of the 
partnership between the auto industry and the government and adopting 
safety rules and working with the industry and making our travel safer. 
We know about the very impressive increase in safety on our Nation's 
highways. And there is still work to be done.
  Five years ago tomorrow, a fatal motorcoach accident rocked a small 
Ohio community and brought national attention to the need for 
commonsense safety measures that could save lives.
  Bluffton University is a small university in Bluffton, OH, near 
Interstate 75 in Allen and Hancock Counties in the northwest part of 
the State. The school's baseball team was on their way to Florida for 
spring training when their bus lost control on a poorly marked exit 
ramp outside Atlanta. The bus toppled from the overpass. Like the

[[Page S1189]]

majority of fatal motorcoach accidents, when the bus rolled over, the 
passengers were ejected from their seats and thrown through the bus 
windows. Seven people were killed and dozens were injured.
  John and Joy Betts of Bryan, OH--a couple who have become friends of 
mine--lost their son David, one of the students who died that day. He 
was a baseball player and student at Bluffton. I have gotten to know 
the Betts family since the accident. They have been courageous 
advocates in raising awareness of motorcoach safety and demanding 
congressional action. To the family's credit, they used the loss of 
their son to save the sons and daughters of many others who will not 
face those tragedies because of the work the Betts family is doing on 
behalf of this motorcoach safety legislation.
  The National Transportation Safety Board's final report from the 
Bluffton motorcoach accident--released almost 4 years ago--echoed 
recommendations the NTSB has been urging for years. For nearly 5 years, 
I have been working with Senator Hutchison, whose State has seen its 
share of tragic motorcoach accidents, to put those recommendations into 
law. In a bipartisan manner, we are fighting to make motorcoaches safer 
for the millions of passengers who ride them every day.
  Today, because of the Betts family, other courageous families, and 
activists, we are taking a step in the right direction if we pass the 
bill.
  In the 110th, 111th, and now the 112th Congress, Senator Hutchison 
and I have introduced the bipartisan Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, 
which includes many of the NTSB's ``most wanted'' safety improvements. 
Specifically, the bill would address many of the major safety 
shortfalls from the Bluffton accident, which have plagued tour bus 
operations for too long. It would mean better protection systems for 
occupants and stronger passenger safety standards. It would improve 
safety equipment and devices and the need for onboard recorders with 
the capability to collect crash data. These safety measures are neither 
exotic nor complicated; they are commonsense safety features that have 
been and in many cases are widely used. But since they are not required 
by law, they have not been installed in most American motorcoaches. 
Instead of saving lives, the public safety remains at risk.
  Some who oppose improved tour bus safety standards will tell you that 
this isn't a motorcoach problem, that they have a problem with rogue 
bus companies or bad drivers. Certainly, that is part of the problem, 
but we cannot simply look the other way and reject the idea that 
improving the safety of motorcoach manufacturing and motorcoaches is 
unnecessary or fiscally imprudent.
  John Betts said:

       It is necessary through our current regulations to get bad 
     operators off the road. However, it is not sufficient as it 
     does nothing to ensure safety once the crash has occurred.

  I couldn't agree more. We can get bad operators off the road, but 
that is not enough to ensure passenger safety in the tragic event of an 
accident. If the technology to save lives and reduce injury in 
motorcoach accidents exists, we must put that technology to use. This 
bill does that.
  Last year in Cleveland I was joined by John's sister and brother-in-
law, Pam and Tom Bryan of Vermillion, OH. We met with a Greyhound bus 
driver who showcased new Greyhound buses equipped with some commonsense 
safety measures that clearly will save lives and protect both 
passengers and motorists on the road.
  The Betts family and operators like Greyhound understand the urgent 
need and have too often relived the painful reminders that safety 
improvements for tour bus operations are long overdue. That is why this 
Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act is important, and it is why Greyhound's 
endorsement of this bill is so critical to turning public sadness and 
outrage into public action. Bus operators such as Greyhound think we 
can do this, and manufacturers do too. The technology is there.
  The bill is common sense, bipartisan, and it will save lives. How 
many more motorcoach deaths--in Ohio, Texas, and most recently in New 
York and New Jersey--do we have to witness before bus companies start 
doing the right thing? As a father and Senator, it is disturbing to 
know that students are still traveling in motorcoaches without even the 
option of buckling up. Our laws should ensure that our vehicles and 
roads are safer, not less safe, for students, families, and elderly 
people, who often take motorcoach charters to events and concerts and 
such.
  Tomorrow is the fifth anniversary of the Bluffton University tragic 
motorcoach accident. Our legislation is in the underlying 
Transportation bill we are debating on the floor. I urge its passage. I 
urge continued inclusion of these provisions, as Senator Hutchison and 
I have asked. It is commonsense, middle-of-the road, bipartisan 
legislation that will save lives, undoubtedly.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Ms. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2151 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for everyone's information, it is not as if 
we have been sitting around doing nothing. We have been trying to work 
something out on this highway bill. Hopefully, in the next little bit 
we can do it. We have not been very successful this day. I am glad we 
had that vote to try to move forward, but there are still some 
obstacles in the way.

                          ____________________