[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5021-S5039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ACT OF 2014

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5021, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5021) to provide an extension of Federal-aid 
     highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and 
     other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, and for 
     other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 3582

        (Purpose: To Modify the Provisions Relating to Revenue)

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment 3582 from the desk, and 
I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment 
     number 3582.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, July 23, 2014, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the amendment that has just been offered is 
an amendment the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and 
I have worked on for many weeks. It is a bipartisan agreement on 
emergency transportation funding that the Senate Finance Committee 
reported virtually unanimously 2 weeks ago.
  I urge our colleagues to support this amendment as a replacement for 
title II of the House legislation. I will briefly describe why.
  As the Senate debates transportation funding, it is abundantly clear 
that all sides agree on the need for a long-term plan to rebuild the 
Nation's infrastructure. A number of our colleagues, led by Chair 
Boxer, a number of Republicans, Senator Corker, and Senator Carper have 
made that point repeatedly, and it is one I share.
  We cannot have a big-league economy with little-league 
transportation, and the chair of the Environment and Public Works 
committee, Senator Boxer, has consistently been on target, calling for 
a long-term plan to rebuild the Nation's infrastructure. The reality is 
that every Member of this body has constituents who are driving on 
highways full of potholes and ruts, and our citizens end up having to 
write a big check for car repairs because of it.
  The best way to fix America's transportation system is with a long-
term plan. The reality, however, is that to get to the long-term plan, 
what is needed first is a short-term path so we do not have the 
transportation equivalent of a government shutdown where we don't have 
the contracts being let and thousands of our people are put out of 
work, and a big set of economic dominos starts to fall. We need a 
short-term solution to prevent that from happening. That is what the 
Senate has before us today under a proposal from the Senate Finance 
Committee which

[[Page S5022]]

Senator Hatch and I developed in a bipartisan fashion, working under 
the regular order. This bill is before the Senate under regular order 
and it includes with Democratic proposals and Republican proposals. 
Senator Hatch and I worked with every member of the committee to draft 
our bill.
  The House has offered its own plan, and Senator Hatch and I agreed to 
incorporate to the greatest extent possible House ideas in drafting our 
alternative, including adopting a measure of customs user fees and some 
pension smoothing as revenue sources.
  I would like to take a moment early on to highlight three major 
differences between what the Senate has done and what the House has 
done because I think they are at the heart of the bipartisan case for 
passing this amendment.
  First, I think the other body simply overuses pension smoothing. I 
was struck in conversations with Senator Hatch and conversations with 
colleagues--one of our colleagues said: What is really striking about 
what the House is talking about today is that instead of having one 
problem, we would have two. We already know we have a huge challenge in 
paying for transportation long-term, as Senator Boxer has noted, but if 
you go with the House approach, it overuses pension smoothing. You are 
going to have two challenges--one, to pay for transportation, and 
second, what are you going to do with the hopes and aspirations of all 
those workers who are depending on their pensions?
  The second is the House ignores the whole concept of tax compliance--
something else that has had a strong bipartisan tradition here in the 
Congress. Tax compliance is not increasing taxes. It is not tax hikes. 
It is not somebody jacking up people's taxes in the dead of night. This 
is about collecting taxes owed under current law. Let me emphasize 
that. It is taxes owed under current law. Grover Norquist--somebody who 
is not exactly soft on taxes, and I probably wouldn't quote him on 
everything--makes that point as well, agreeing that what is in the 
Senate finance bill involves collecting taxes that are owed.
  Finally, the House bill again ignores some of the important 
bipartisan legislation that Senator Hatch and I have included on 
matters that are of great interest to many Senators, including the 
distinguished President of the Senate.
  Our bill promotes natural gas vehicles--natural gas, 50 percent 
cleaner than the other fossil fuels. Senator Bennet and Senator Burr 
came together with some very good ideas on that. Senator Isakson and 
Senator Nelson also came up with an approach to strengthen pensions and 
how they are accounted for. And I was very pleased that Senator Crapo 
was very involved with Senator Bennet in improving water 
transportation--something hugely important for the West, particularly 
right now when it is so dry back home and in all of the Western States.
  So these are major differences between the House and the Senate 
efforts, and, again, each of those ideas I describe is a sensible, 
bipartisan approach that comes about because we used our regular order. 
For example, the Bennet-Burr amendment adjusts tax laws to treat liquid 
natural gas and diesel fuel on an energy-equivalent basis. That is 
going to reduce the tax on liquefied natural gas. That is going to help 
us encourage more use.
  What Senator Isakson and Senator Nelson did clarifies pension rules 
and ensures that workers receive their earned benefits. Many of these 
individuals took their jobs in their teens and put in three decades of 
work by their late forties. When I look at what the House did in terms 
of pension smoothing, this raises real questions in my mind about 
whether the Congress, without really thinking through an alternative 
set of pay-fors, is going to cause those young workers additional 
problems.
  Finally, as I have touched on, Senator Crapo and Senator Bennet have 
done very good work. As we all know--particularly the chairman of the 
Environmental Public Works Committee--it is dry, dry, dry in the West, 
and what Senator Crapo and Senator Bennet did was come up with a 
bipartisan proposal that Senator Hatch and I have included that is 
going to help deliver water to farmers across the West.
  With those bipartisan initiatives, we were able to pick up support 
from such important groups as America's Natural Gas Alliance, the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the Western 
Agriculture and Conservation Association. They know that the only way 
to advance these important ideas is by adopting the amendment the 
distinguished Senator from Utah and I have offered.
  We have had some talk about how there is just not enough time to send 
a Senate amendment back to the House. I heard that statement made 
earlier today. I have made it clear to all concerned and I will state 
it again: This work is going to be done this week. This is non-
negotiable. The Congress is going to get this resolved this week, and 
in no way, shape, or form are we going to have the transportation 
equivalent of a government shutdown. But the idea that the other body 
says, ``Hey, it is our way or no highway,'' I don't think is a way to 
advance the kind of bipartisan, bicameral approach that is going to 
help us deal with the big challenges.

  I have already indicated, as Senator Boxer, the chair of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, has said so eloquently, we are 
going to have to deal with the long term. There are a lot of good ideas 
for the long term. I think Senator Paul from Kentucky deserves to have 
his ideas on repatriation addressed. We have a number of colleagues who 
are interested in the innovative approach used in Virginia. So we are 
going to have a variety of ideas to look at transportation funding for 
the long term, but we have to get the short-term patch resolved in 
order to get to the long term.
  That is why I think for the House to just say, Our way or no 
highway--I think for us to accept it today would simply be to abdicate 
our responsibilities. I don't think we are sent here to just wring our 
hands and say, Oh, my goodness, we can't do anything. There is no time.
  We are going to get this done this week. I believe the approach we 
have built in the Finance Committee is a more responsible approach. 
There certainly is time to compromise. The reality is our staff--and 
Senator Hatch and I have had a number of conversations with Chairman 
Camp on this, as I indicated earlier--Senator Hatch and I have agreed 
to adopt many of the House proposals. There is no reason this body 
can't quickly come to agreement with the House. The Congress has 
addressed much bigger pieces of legislation and differences between the 
Senate and the House on tight timeframes in the past. The reality is 
the Senate has to act first or we are sending a message--and I will 
close with this because my colleague from Utah has been very patient 
and the distinguished chair of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee has been very patient. If we simply say all we are going to 
do today is accept this House approach, this ``our way or no highway'' 
kind of approach, we are going to advance a bill that overuses pension 
smoothing, and we are going to move away from an approach both 
political parties have felt very strongly about, which is that tax 
compliance should be an ongoing part of our work. It should be a part 
of our work today and it should be part of the bipartisan efforts for 
tax reform that Senator Hatch and I are pursuing. It is not in the 
House bill. It is in the Senate bill. We would be walking away from 
that provision by accepting the House approach, and we also would, as I 
have indicated, be walking away from bipartisan efforts that are going 
to promote cleaner natural gas vehicles, bipartisan efforts that will 
promote water use, and the good work done by Senator Isakson and 
Senator Nelson on pensions at a time when we are very concerned about 
their future. We shouldn't do that today.
  I am going to yield to my colleagues who have been doing very good 
work on this issue. I think our plan is now Senator Hatch will make 
remarks on behalf of the bipartisan efforts in the Finance Committee. 
Senator Boxer, the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
will speak after Senator Hatch. It is my intention to stay here 
throughout the afternoon. I think both sides would like to get this 
done expeditiously, and I hope we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

[[Page S5023]]

  Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to allow Senator Boxer to go first.
  Mrs. BOXER. No, not at all. Please proceed.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
  Today the Senate will vote on a short-term extension of funding for 
the highway trust fund.
  While it remains to be seen what shape that extension will take, 
Congress appears to be poised to pass legislation that will ensure that 
the trust fund will not face a shortfall and that States will be able 
to continue to plan and implement their transportation projects. This 
is important. As many have noted, passing this extension will preserve 
thousands of jobs and prevent disruption of a number of different 
highway projects that are currently in existence.
  It has taken a lot of work to get to this point. It has required the 
collective good will of Members of both parties and it has meant 
compromise on both sides.
  In the Senate Finance Committee, both Chairman Wyden and I worked 
together for weeks on a bipartisan Federal highway funding extension. 
At the outset of these negotiations, I stated that I hoped any 
agreement to extend the solvency of the highway trust fund would 
contain spending cuts and reforms to go along with any revenues. I 
fought hard on that point, but in the end that particular goal of mine, 
with one exception, had to be set aside in order for an agreement to be 
reached. Of course that is how we pass legislation. If everyone got 
everything they wanted out of a deal, it would not be a compromise. 
While I maintain that a deal to extend funding for the highway bill 
should include reductions in spending, I am willing to continue that 
particular fight on another day.
  After weeks of negotiations--some of which were very hard fought--we 
were able to come to an agreement on a funding bill that I believe both 
parties can support. That, in my view, is more important than any 
individual demand I may have had going into the discussions.
  I wish to take a few minutes to speak about the specifics of our 
proposal. Overall, our bill would provide nearly $11 billion in funding 
for the highway trust fund, which is enough to extend its life until 
the middle of next year. Of that total, $2.7 billion would be provided 
by pension smoothing. I do have to say I am not a fan of using pension 
smoothing as a pay-for on the highway bill or in any other context for 
that matter. We stated as much on the record numerous times. However, 
we do face a funding emergency with regard to the highway trust fund. 
That being the case, I was willing to compromise on that point.
  Next, the bill provides an additional $2.9 billion by extending 
Customs user fees. Once again, in other contexts, I have been skeptical 
of using this tactic as a pay-for, mostly because it diverts necessary 
funding away from national trade priorities. However, we drafted the 
bill to ensure that enough money was left in future extensions to pay 
for things such as the Generalized System of Preferences, the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act, and the miscellaneous tariff bill, all of 
which are important to our Nation's trade agenda.

  Our compromise bill also transfers $1 billion from the leaking 
underground storage tank trust fund--called LUST--to the highway trust 
fund. The remaining funds would be raised through a variety of tax 
compliance measures, all designed not to raise taxes but to realize 
revenues already owed to the Treasury.
  The Finance Committee bill does include a provision designed to claw 
back orphan earmarks. The provision deals with earmarks included in 
previous highway bills. I wish to thank Senator Coburn for the idea 
that was the basis of this provision, though in the end we didn't go as 
far as he or I would have liked.
  As I said, all told, our bill will provide nearly $11 billion in 
funding for the highway trust fund and prevent the funding crisis that 
is on the horizon if Congress does not act. Once again, this 
legislation represents a bipartisan agreement between Chairman Wyden 
and myself. It was reported out of the Finance Committee by a voice 
vote, so it is an agreement by both sides.
  I wish to thank Chairman Wyden for his willingness to reach across 
the aisle in this effort. He has been a particularly good partner with 
whom to work. The Finance Committee has a long tradition of working on 
a bipartisan basis to provide funding for the highway trust fund, and I 
am glad we have been able to continue that tradition with this 
legislation.
  My only regret is that we were not able to reach an agreement with 
Chairman Camp of the House Ways and Means Committee, whom both the 
chairman and I highly respect. He has a tough job over there, and we 
have nothing but great respect for him.
  The two committees met over the July 4 recess, and I believe both 
Chairman Camp and Chairman Wyden acted in good faith to try to reach an 
agreement, but in the end, it did not end up happening. In my view, 
this is unfortunate. Had we been able to reach a bipartisan, bicameral 
solution on this issue at the outset, it would have helped to speed 
this process along. Still, if we take a look at the bill the House 
passed earlier this month, we will find it is similar in many respects 
to the legislation Chairman Wyden and I have put together. They provide 
virtually the same level of funding, so there is not a substantive 
difference in the amount of time they would extend the trust fund. The 
major funding pieces--pension smoothing, Customs user fees, and the 
LUST transfer--are all the same. The primary difference is that the 
House bill does not include the tax compliance provisions.
  Neither the House bill nor our bill is perfect, in my opinion, but 
they both accomplish the same goal and they do so in a way that under 
the circumstances I think both Democrats and Republicans can and should 
support.
  So while some would say we failed to reach an agreement on the 
highway bill, I think it is pretty clear there is a lot of agreement on 
these matters and that one way or another we are going to get a 
solution soon.
  In the end Chairman Camp produced what I think is a good bill. I 
think Chairman Wyden and I have done the same. I would vote for either 
approach because, as I said, they aren't all that different from one 
another. I reiterate that the funding levels in the House bill and the 
Finance Committee bill--and therefore the length of the two 
extensions--are virtually the same. That point is important, as there 
is an effort, as evidenced by another amendment we will be voting on 
today, to put an artificial deadline on the extension. I gather from 
the statements made by proponents of this approach that they hope this 
amendment will somehow force Congress to reach an agreement on a long-
term extension before the end of this year. This effort is, in my view, 
misguided, and I would hope, given the fact that both the House of 
Representatives and the Senate Finance Committee have reached virtually 
the same conclusion on the length of the extension, Senators will think 
twice before voting to shorten it.
  Ultimately, we all want to get to a long-term deal when it comes to 
the highway trust fund. That desire is shared across both Chambers and 
both parties. I think we can get there. I don't think we need to impose 
an artificial timeline or deadline--one that would create a similar 
crisis to the one we are facing now just a few months down the road--in 
order to do it.
  There are other efforts out there that would seriously alter the 
trajectory of this bill. I wish to stress that what we are working on 
is a short-term extension. Once the highway trust fund has been funded 
by this bill, we will need to start working on a long-term bill that 
will give the transportation community stability and predictability, 
and I believe both the chairman of the committee and myself truly mean 
we will do so. We will need to be thoughtful in our approach and must 
consider every option to ensure that our Nation's infrastructure will 
be safe, efficient, and reliable well into the future. But before we 
discuss any fundamental changes to the structure of the highway trust 
fund, we need to get this step out of the way first.
  As I conclude, I wish to take a moment to once again commend our 
chairman, Chairman Wyden, for his efforts on this legislation. From the 
outset he was willing to reach across the

[[Page S5024]]

aisle on this bill and as a result the Finance Committee produced a 
viable, bipartisan product. His leadership in getting us to this point 
has been essential.
  We are very close to solving this problem and avoiding a crisis. We 
just need to get a bill over the finish line, and I hope we can do that 
in short order. I yield the floor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take my time off the 
general debate time; is that appropriate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I am so pleased to be on the floor 
because the Senate has to be heard on this issue of the highway trust 
fund and our whole transportation system for that matter. I do wish to 
praise Senators Wyden and Hatch for coming together across party lines 
and making some real improvements in the pay-fors that are associated 
with this extension. I am very much in favor of the way they handled 
this bill, and I am also very much in favor of the way the pension 
smoothing was handled in the Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment because that 
does away with it altogether, because we shorten the timeframe so we 
don't need any pension smoothing in there.
  Before I speak specifically about the wisdom of what the Finance 
Committee did and my hope that we can get it over the finish line 
today, I want to give kind of an overview of where we are in general.
  For 2 years we have known that our Transportation bill expired 
September 30. We have known this for 2 years. Yet, and still, here we 
are at the 11th hour with an extension.

  This is probably, I think, the 12th extension in a few years. I think 
that is so unfair to the people of this great country who rely on their 
bridges and their highways and their transportation systems. It is so 
unfair to the thousands of businesses that work to rebuild our 
infrastructure, and it is very unfair to the millions of workers who 
work in construction.
  We still have 700,000 unemployed construction workers. When we do a 
piecemeal bill like this, of course, it is better than doing nothing--
there is no doubt about that; I would not argue that--but it still 
sends a message of indecision and, frankly, I think of incompetence on 
our part, and I step to the plate on that.
  But I am very proud to say that my committee--100 percent bipartisan; 
we did not have a dissenting vote--passed the 6-year transportation 
bill. When we did that, I went to my colleagues and said: I know you 
have the hard job. You have to figure out the long-term funding. I want 
to help you. I came forward and I said: Why don't we look at several 
proposals. One is what they are doing in Virginia. This was a 
Republican idea. It is to do away with the gas tax completely and 
replace it with a fee at the refinery level. That would be a more 
broad-based tax. We would do away with the gas tax. No more Federal gas 
tax at the pump. That would solve our problems. You set it at a rate 
where it floats, and we would have 100 percent certainty. Senator Wyden 
was quite open to it. He took a look at it. I know he floated it. 
Clearly, we did not have the type of support we would need.
  Then the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO said: Do you know what. 
We have not raised the gas tax in 21 years. Mr. President, we have not 
raised the gas tax in 21 years. I did a little reading and found out 
the first President to initiate the gas tax--and I say to Senator 
Hatch, he might be interested in this--the first President to formulate 
a gas tax--and it came in at a penny--was Herbert Hoover. The next 
President who raised it was President Eisenhower, who had that great 
vision to then put it into a trust fund for highways, and he raised it 
a couple of cents. So it was about 3 cents. The next President to raise 
it was President Reagan. And the next President to raise it was George 
Herbert Walker Bush. They were all Republican Presidents. Then 
President Clinton raised it.
  Clearly the Congress supported it each and every time because it is a 
user fee. So that is an alternative. There are many other ideas. I know 
Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch have a number of ideas, and I know 
Senator Hatch prefers a user fee. It makes sense. But because of the 
time crunch--because of, because of, because of--we did not get it 
done.
  I am proud. Senator Vitter is proud. We got it out of our committee, 
a 6-year bill. It is not a great, massive bill. It just takes the 
current program, adds inflation, and extends it for 6 years. I can tell 
you, if Senator Vitter and I can agree, if Senator Carper and Senator 
Barrasso can agree, if Senator Cardin can agree with Senator Sessions, 
and Senator Sanders with Senator Fischer--I could go on. Our committee 
goes from left to right, and everybody agreed we should have the 6-year 
bill.
  So as I stand here today, I am distressed that we do not have that 
before us, but I am still grateful to my friends for doing what they 
could politically do. But I feel it is a sad day for us, and I know and 
I hope we pass this Wyden-Hatch substitute. It is a much-improved way 
to pay for the extension. But we are extending all the way to May, 
right up against the next construction season. Now, if you are a 
State--whether it is Utah or California or West Virginia or Maryland or 
Oregon; it does not matter--you are not going to enter into any 
agreement. No businessperson is going to take this on where you do not 
know what the future holds.
  So we are putting it off again, and it is sad we are doing it, and we 
have 60, 70, 80 groups out there, which I will list later, that are 
supporting our shortening the timeframe.
  Now, my friend says artificial deadlines are bad. But let's face it. 
Their bill raises--I think it is $11 billion. Am I right on that? So we 
know it takes it to May 31. That is their deadline. Our bill, in the 
Carper-Corker-Boxer rewrite, takes it to December. We cut it back. We 
totally eliminate pension smoothing--totally eliminate it--and we take 
it back to $8 billion, and that forces us to do the job in December.
  Look, this Congress has to do its work. The trust fund expires during 
this Congress. Now we are kicking it down the road to the next 
Congress.
  Whatever the Senate wishes, I will go along with it. If the Senate 
says, no, we are going to go with that longer term extension, so be it. 
I will fight just as hard to move forward with a 6-year bill, I say to 
my colleagues, when we get back or in a lameduck.
  I want to close by talking a little bit about pension smoothing for 
just a minute because I so agree with Senator Hatch when he says this 
is not his favorite thing. It is not my favorite thing either, and we 
come from different sides of the aisle.
  So just to be clear, what we are saying to companies is, you can set 
aside less money for your pension requirements to your employees. Now, 
I have to admit in the light of day, I voted for that the last time 
when Senator Baucus brought that forward. I did. But it also was a 
company buy, an increase in the amount of money companies had to pay 
into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. If a company goes broke 
and they cannot pay their pensions because they have not set aside 
enough--and with our help they are not having to set aside enough--what 
happens then? The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp kicks in, and that is 
funded by the companies. But if that does not have enough--and my 
information is it is short $34 billion, as we speak--the taxpayers will 
have to bail it out. So this pension smoothing is really, really 
dangerous. It is an offset that is not a good one.
  Now, the Wyden-Hatch proposal is much, much better than the House 
proposal because it cuts it basically in half. The Carper-Corker bill 
cuts it out completely. So we just have to step to the plate. I think 
Senator Wyden is right. Here we are bailing out--if I could use those 
terms--the highway trust fund until May, while we set up another 
potential weakness in our pension system. It is not smart. It should 
not be done. We had 2 years to figure this out.
  But no question--no question--the Wyden-Hatch proposal is a far 
better proposal. Just making sure people pay their taxes, that is 
something we should all believe in, and, for the first time, the two 
Senators brought that issue forward to a successful conclusion. I am 
very, very grateful to them for that. So I very strongly support this.
  I hope we will see a lot of support for the amendment that Senators 
Carper,

[[Page S5025]]

Corker, and I brought forward because we do away with pension 
smoothing. So if you do not like pension smoothing, vote for that one; 
and we cut back the money so we can take this whole thing up in 
December and give some certainty to all the groups out there, whether 
it is the Chamber of Commerce or the general contractors or the cement 
people or the gravel people or the AFL-CIO or the laborers. All these 
folks want to make sure we are not just doing a little cut and paste 
and get us up against the next thing.
  I keep saying ``in closing,'' but I really mean it now. What you are 
dealing with here, if you want to use an analogy, is: You find a house 
you really like, so you go to the bank, and the bank looks at you and 
says: Well, you are a good risk. Yes, we will definitely give you a 
mortgage, but it is only for 9 months. Nobody is going to take that 
mortgage. Our States are not going to enter into 3-year contracts when 
they know they only are going to get the funding for 9 months. We have 
an amendment by Senator Lee which would cut the Federal Government's 
ability to help the States and wind up with an 80-percent cut in 
funding. So it is very risky moving out with all these things hanging 
over our head.
  But I am still pleased with what the Finance Committee did. I thank 
Senators Reid and McConnell for allowing us to have this time on the 
floor and all of my colleagues for agreeing, because this is a debate 
that has to start somewhere. So it is starting today. We know whatever 
happens, we are just doing a patch, and we are going to have to sit 
down together with good will and good ideas and solve this problem for 
the good of our country.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Carper, Corker 
and Boxer amendment to the highway trust fund extension Bill before us 
today. This amendment will provide certainty and a guaranteed funding 
stream that our State departments of transportation and the 
construction industry desperately need. It provides a short-term 
extension through December 19, 2014, which will allow Congress to 
complete its work on a multi-year bill this year. The underlying bill 
only prolongs uncertainty by extending the solvency of the trust fund 
to May of 2015.
  In the last transportation authorization bill, I fought for a Federal 
formula that gives the State of Maryland approximately $780 million 
annually from the highway trust fund: $580 million for highway funding 
and $200 million for transit funding. The Maryland Department of 
Transportation's, MDOT, average weekly expenditure of these Federal 
funds is $10 to $12 million. Right now during construction season, MDOT 
is submitting reimbursements to the U.S. Department of Transportation 
for $20 million a week.
  Without this extension, the Federal highway trust fund will go 
bankrupt in a matter of weeks. What does this mean for my home State of 
Maryland? I am advised that MDOT will not meet its commitments. The 
Department would be unable to begin new projects. It would be forced to 
focus on safety and system preservation instead of putting shovels into 
the ground. Existing projects will slow down or stop. The State of 
Maryland would have to find bond or State revenues to pay existing 
contracts. Most importantly, over 9,000 construction jobs will be in 
jeopardy.
  This is why MDOT, other State departments of transportation, and the 
construction industry support a multi-year bill. Enacting a long-term 
bill this year will provide certainty with a guaranteed funding stream, 
allow MDOT to plan for the future, and provide stability to the 
construction industry. Projects take time and thoughtful planning 
averaging approximately 10 years to complete through construction.
  In addition, a multi-year bill will strengthen our transportation 
networks improving safety and reducing congestion. It also will create 
3 million jobs and support our economy.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Carper, Corker and Boxer 
amendment. I also ask unanimous consent that the op-ed Senator Cardin 
and I wrote in the Baltimore Sun be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Time To End the Gridlock That Takes Its Toll on Maryland's Highways

   (By U.S. Senators Barbara A. Mikulski and Ben Cardin (Both D-Md))

       It is now peak construction season and without 
     congressional action the federal highway trust fund will go 
     bankrupt (expenditures will exceed receipts) in August--next 
     month. As the Senators for Maryland, we are fighting for a 
     multi-year transportation bill to provide planning and 
     funding certainty to our state.
       Federal gas and diesel taxes paid at the pump are the 
     primary revenue streams for the highway trust fund, which 
     provides formula funding to states for both highway and 
     transit projects.
       We fought for a formula that provides Governor Martin 
     O'Malley and Maryland Transportation Secretary Jim Smith 
     approximately $780 million annually to spend across the 
     state: $580 million in highway formula funding and $200 
     million in transit formula funding.
       The cause of the Highway Trust Fund's insolvency is 
     threefold: big improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency; 
     reduced driving; and inflation. The last time Congress 
     increased the gas tax was in 1993 from 14.1 cents per gallon 
     to 18.4 cents per gallon. These three factors have resulted 
     in lower gas tax revenues, reduced purchasing power, and 
     trust fund receipts not keeping up with demand.
       A bankrupt Highway Trust Fund means the Maryland Department 
     of Transportation (MDOT) would stop receiving $80 million a 
     month in reimbursements from the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation. As a result, MDOT will have to use state 
     money obligated for other project to cover its federal 
     expenditures. In other words, MDOT will be forced to rob 
     Peter to pay Paul. New projects will not be initiated and 
     existing projects will slow down or stop. The Department also 
     will be forced to focus solely on system preservation instead 
     of new construction needed to improve safety and modernize 
     our transportation network.
       Maryland needs a multi-year bill that ensures the solvency 
     of the federal highway trust fund. A multi-year 
     transportation bill is estimated to create two million jobs 
     nationwide and transportation loans and grants create another 
     million. Doing nothing is utterly unacceptable, and short-
     term extensions do not provide the planning and funding 
     certainty states need to put those three million workers on 
     the jobs necessary to maintain and improve our nation's 
     essential transportation assets. In an uncertain economic 
     climate, investments in transportation infrastructure creates 
     jobs in construction, engineering, and manufacturing right 
     here in the United States.
       A multi-year transportation bill will help businesses 
     succeed by making sure goods and products get to where they 
     need to go. U.S. trade is expected to double in the next 
     thirteen years and our national transportation assets must 
     serve the growing economic demands for U.S. goods and 
     services. We must modernize and maintain our infrastructure 
     or we risk diminished profits and falling behind our 
     international competitors in the global marketplace.
       It also creates certainty for commuters and families. 
     Traffic congestion wastes over 2.9 billion gallons of fuel 
     each year. Maryland commuters have the longest commutes in 
     America.
       Unfortunately, the gridlock in Congress only leads to more 
     gridlock on our nation's roads. When it comes to funding our 
     nation's infrastructure, we've suffered from roadblocks and 
     standstills. Despite our calls for more funding our roads, 
     highways, bridges and railways are in dire need of repair.
       That's why we work hard as Maryland's one-two punch for 
     transportation funding Senator Cardin serving on the 
     Environment and Public Works, and Finance Committee creates 
     the policy and authorizes the programs that guide 
     infrastructure investments for Maryland and the nation. 
     Senator Mikulski as Chairwoman of the Appropriations 
     Committee puts the funds in the federal checkbook to keep 
     Marylanders moving.
       We know strong transportation infrastructure is a key 
     ingredient to economic growth. It protects the safety and 
     reliability of travel and transportation. It also supports 
     our economy with investments in the highways, public transit, 
     airports, passenger rail and ports. This money creates 
     engineering and construction jobs today and prepares us for 
     jobs tomorrow bringing growth to our economy. The $13.1 
     billion Maryland spent in transportation over the last five 
     years has generated $29.3 billion in business output, 
     including $12.9 billion in wages and nearly 35,000 jobs per 
     year.
       We also know that infrastructure projects don't just happen 
     but they require smart planning. It's why we are united with 
     the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Society of Civil 
     Engineers, and the American Association of State Highway and 
     Transportation Officials in fighting for a multi-year 
     transportation this year.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our tight knit communities in Vermont are 
part and parcel of my State's culture of neighbors helping neighbors. 
Our neighbors are not just next door; they are often in the most rural 
parts of the State, which can be difficult to reach. Our roads and our 
bridges connect us in a most basic way, and Hurricane Irene was a stark 
reminder that our infrastructure connects us not only in commercial 
ways, but in practical social ways that are integral to the spirit of 
Vermont communities. After Irene, with some of our roads and bridges 
completely destroyed, we saw, felt and lived what it truly meant to be 
cut off and isolated from our surrounding communities.
  As Congress faces a deadline in the Highway Trust Fund, we are facing 
yet another artificial, made-in-Congress crisis for our States, their 
people, and for the Nation. Congress is senselessly imposing these 
strains and lost opportunities on this country. There are

[[Page S5026]]

those in Congress in recent years whose approach to governing is ``my 
way, or the highway.'' This time, even the highway is not safe from 
their obstructionism. This is a crisis we can avert if we would only 
work together to agree on a long-term funding plan for the Nation's 
transportation programs. I commend the Committee on Environment & 
Public Works for their hard work on legislation to reauthorize the 
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, MAP-21, and I 
commend the Committee on Finance for its hard work in trying to solve 
the funding issues we face in developing and improving our country's 
infrastructure.
  However, I had hoped the Senate would have responsibly agreed to a 
long-term plan to give State and local governments the certainty and 
stability they need to plan. Unfortunately, that was not the case. And 
while a short term fix avoids a transportation catastrophe this summer, 
it will also increase costs of transportation projects, limit the 
ability of State and local governments to plan infrastructure 
improvement, and ultimately result in the degradation of our country's 
infrastructure. Start-and-stop highway construction is even more 
wasteful than start-and-stop driving is on our roads. It is wasteful, 
it hurts our communities and our economy, and it is needless.
  The Highway Trust Fund is a critical asset for Vermont, as it is for 
every State. It provides millions of dollars to repair our roads and 
bridges and creates jobs for thousands of Vermonters. According to the 
State of Vermont, every $1 million of transportation funding supports 
about 35 jobs in Vermont, directly and through the maintenance of the 
State's transportation infrastructure. Construction companies, sign-
makers, State employees, and every citizen will suffer the consequence 
of the inability to make progress on this vital issue.
  While this short-term fix has become necessary, we must acknowledge 
what long-term funding for infrastructure represents: opportunity. 
Large, long-term investments in infrastructure have paid off in the 
past. President Eisenhower's ``grand plan'' for the Interstate Highway 
System was an ambitious project that many questioned at the time. 
Today, it is indisputable that the vision of President Eisenhower and 
the foresight of the legislators in Congress who authorized the 
Interstate Highway System have strengthened our economy in every corner 
of the Nation, providing the opportunity for the American people and 
their families and businesses to grow, travel, and invest in the 
future. There are many Vermonters, and citizens all across the Nation, 
who are counting on us to provide a comprehensive, long-term solution 
to this problem. By coming together, we have an incredible opportunity 
to invest in the wellbeing of future Americans, and of our country. Let 
us not continue this latest made-in-Congress crisis. Let us pass the 
reauthorization of MAP-21 before the new December deadline.
  I thank the Presiding Officer very much and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 3585

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set 
aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment No. 3585, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3585.

  Mr. TOOMEY. 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:

   (Purpose: To ease Federal burdens on State and local governments 
                  recovering from catastrophic events)

       At the end of subtitle A of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 10__. EMERGENCY EXEMPTIONS.

       Any road, highway, railway, bridge, or transit facility 
     that is damaged by an emergency that is declared by the 
     Governor of the State and concurred in by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security or declared as an emergency by the 
     President pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) and 
     that is in operation or under construction on the date on 
     which the emergency occurs--
       (1) may be reconstructed in the same location with the same 
     capacity, dimensions, and design as before the emergency; and
       (2) shall be exempt from any environmental reviews, 
     approvals, licensing, and permit requirements under--
       (A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (B) sections 402 and 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342, 1344);
       (C) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);
       (D) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
       (E) the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et 
     seq.);
       (F) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 
     et seq.);
       (G) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.), except when the reconstruction occurs in designated 
     critical habitat for threatened and endangered species;
       (H) Executive Order 11990 (42 U.S.C. 4321 note; relating to 
     the protection of wetland); and
       (I) any Federal law (including regulations) requiring no 
     net loss of wetland.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, let me start by complimenting my 
colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member of this committee, for 
a genuine, sincere effort at a bipartisan solution to a difficult 
problem. There are provisions I like in this legislation. There are 
provisions I do not like. But I do like the fact that at least with 
respect to this legislation at the moment the Senate is functioning. 
The committee was functioning and had a vigorous debate and discussion 
and came up with a reasonable approach. I thank Chairman Wyden and 
Ranking Member Hatch for their cooperative effort to do this.
  But I want to address this particular amendment, amendment No. 3585. 
I thank my cosponsor on this amendment, Senator McConnell. What this 
amendment does, in short, is it allows communities that are recovering 
from a natural disaster to rebuild damaged infrastructure without 
having to acquire--or maybe I should say reacquire--Federal 
environmental permits.
  Now, there is no question we all agree it is vitally important we 
protect our environment. I should point out there is nothing in my 
amendment that would change Federal environmental permitting 
requirements for any new construction--nothing at all. We should also 
recognize that States have their own very substantial standards in 
place to protect their environments, including during the construction 
of transportation infrastructure projects. There is nothing in my 
amendment that would weaken in any way or change in any way any State 
environmental laws or regulations.
  The fact is our Federal environmental permitting process for 
infrastructure is broken. It is too cumbersome. It takes too long. It 
is too costly. It is a huge problem. I think the most damming statistic 
I can think of--that I am aware of anyway--is from the Federal Highway 
Administration itself, which in fiscal year 2011 estimated that on 
average transportation projects required 79 months to complete the 
National Environmental Policy Act review process, the NEPA review 
process--79 months. That is 6\1/2\ years to get permission from the 
Federal Government to build a road or a bridge or to rebuild an 
existing road or bridge that has been damaged--6\1/2\ years. That is 
often longer--sometimes a lot longer--than it takes to actually do the 
construction, and that is a problem. It is a problem because it just 
drives the costs up dramatically and unnecessarily.
  Two weeks ago, constituents of mine in Northampton County, PA, 
reported to my office that just one environmental survey for a small 
bridge repair--we are not talking about some massive, new ``Golden Gate 
Bridge'' here; we are talking about a little bridge that is just going 
to be repaired--just one of the environmental surveys was $21,000 
alone.
  Senator Rob Portman reports that in Ohio Federal environmental 
permitting alone increases project costs on average by 20 percent.
  The reason these delays are so expensive is all of these delays, all 
of these permitting requirements, require consultants to carry it out, 
and there are all kinds of engineering and consulting fees that get 
paid, often on retainer over time; it also means that while

[[Page S5027]]

waiting for a road or a bridge to be rebuilt or restored, there are 
longer commutes, there is a big detour, there is more consumption of 
gas. That is all a waste of time and money. The bottom line is that 
projects cost more the longer they take. That is the reality. The fact 
is, recovering communities do not need to have to incur this extra 
cost.
  I will give you an example, again in Pennsylvania. Since 2010, 
Federal environmental permitting has delayed nine projects by over a 
year. The Cherry Creek Bridge in Monroe County, PA--this is an area 
that is flood prone; it was struck by Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane 
Irene in 2011--the reconstruction for the damaged transportation 
infrastructure should have started pretty much right away, but Fish and 
Wildlife review delays alone cost us 2 years before construction could 
even begin. Senator Ben Nelson recognized this problem--a Democrat from 
Nebraska who served in this body--and offered a bipartisan amendment to 
the last highway bill, MAP-21.

  What his amendment would have done would have been to exempt roads 
and bridge repair projects from Federal environmental permitting if the 
roads and bridges were destroyed by a declared emergency, such as 
Superstorm Sandy, for instance, and provided that the reconstruction 
would occur entirely within the footprint of the existing structure, 
the original footprint.
  Unfortunately, Senator Nelson never got his vote. He was denied a 
vote. Instead, he got a watered-down provision put into the final bill 
that allows the Department of Transportation, under certain 
circumstances, to exclude certain repair projects from this whole 
process. But they cannot make that exclusion if the project is deemed 
to be ``controversial.'' Undefined. I do not know what that means. The 
exclusions do not apply to the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the reviews of which constituents tell me are the 
most time consuming, cumbersome, and costly to comply with.
  The result is that recovering communities today, after they have been 
hit hard by a natural disaster, after they have incurred damage to 
their roads, their bridges, their infrastructure, do not know what 
environmental standards are going to apply to them, except that some 
certainly will, and others may or may not be exempted.
  It still leaves them subject to a lengthy, costly, and unnecessary 
procedure. Because, once again, let me emphasize, we are talking about 
roads and bridges that are already there. We are not talking about new 
infrastructure, new capacity. We are talking about rebuilding what was 
there already and what was damaged.
  This amendment I am offering is almost identical to the Nelson 
amendment. The difference is, at the request of SPTA, which is the 
Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority, it has been expanded to 
include not just roads and bridge but also rail and transit facility 
repair projects. That is it. So it simply says: These existing 
transportation infrastructure facilities, if they are damaged or 
destroyed by a declared natural disaster, the rebuilding, the identical 
rebuilding in that very same footprint should not be subject to going 
through the whole environmental permitting process all over again. That 
is all it says.
  I am glad to have the endorsement of a number of organizations and 
groups: Associated General Contractors, National Association of 
Counties, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens 
Against Government Waste.
  I argue this is just common sense. This is a modest, narrow 
amendment. As I say, it does not in any way, shape, form, or fashion 
change any regulations or permitting requirements for any new 
construction. It says nothing whatsoever about the extensive State 
requirements. It is silent about all of that. It simply says: With 
respect to Federal environmental permitting, if you are rebuilding an 
existing road or bridge because it has been damaged in this way, you do 
not have to go through this costly, lengthy process that is costing us 
time, money, jobs, and infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from 
Pennsylvania for his comments and the manner in which we are 
proceeding.
  I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend 
from Pennsylvania, and for many reasons.
  First, let me compliment Senator Boxer and the leadership on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. Because when we approved MAP-
21, we took up this issue. We dealt with it. It was not without 
controversy. We had strong views on both sides of this issue. Because 
what the Senator from Pennsylvania is doing is removing completely 
replacement facilities from any--not just the NEPA procedures, but also 
from the Endangered Species Act, from the Clean Water Act--basically 
putting a dome over the process so anything goes, basically. Anything.
  We debated that issue in the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
There were different views. Quite frankly, Senator Boxer was extremely 
accommodating to the legitimate concerns the Senator from Pennsylvania 
has raised. That is why there is an expedited procedure already in law, 
passed in MAP-21, that deals with this issue. The Senator talks about 
using the proper legislative process. We did that. The committee of 
jurisdiction debated it. We had difficult compromises, but we reached 
these compromises.
  Let the process work, because the process is working. Let me point 
out, I was one of those who was not excited about giving up any of our 
environmental protections on replacement facilities, because I pointed 
out the fact that when we had a bridge collapse in Minnesota, that 
bridge was replaced within a matter of a very short period of time, 
before we did our compromise, which now expedites the process. My point 
is, in emergencies we seem to work things out. But in order to deal 
with the concerns the Senator has raised, we put into the law this 
expedited procedure for replacement facilities. It is in MAP-21. It is 
the law.
  This amendment would open it to significant abuse. It is very 
conceivable that when you give this type of an exemption, you basically 
are exempting a geographical spot so that anything goes. It could be a 
total ending of the protections that we have in the Federal Clean Water 
Act. It could be eliminated.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is 
unnecessary. It certainly opens it to tremendous abuse. We have a 
process in place. It was negotiated. I would urge my colleagues to 
accept it.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to thank Senator Wyden. I want to 
thank Senator Boxer and Senator Hatch--I see them on the floor--and 
Senator Carper for their incredible work on this bill. I agree with 
Senators Boxer and Wyden. It is very important that we pass a bill 
before we leave this week so that there is no delay in making sure the 
Federal Government pays its bills to our State and local governments on 
transportation projects.
  I strongly support Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch's effort in our 
committee to get a better funding flow for the patch so we deal with 
collecting the taxes that should be paid, rather than causing a 
disruption in some of the revenue sources that are in the House bill. I 
strongly support Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch's efforts in our 
committee.
  I certainly support Senator Carper's amendment that would say it is 
our responsibility to act in this Congress.
  Let me point out, we have 5 months left before this Congress goes out 
of business. It would be wrong for us to pass just a patch and not to 
do the 6-year reauthorization. The Environment and Public Works 
Committee, by unanimous vote, recognized that we could get a 6-year 
bill done. We have already talked about from where revenues can come. 
There are bills we could take up dealing with supplemental ways to fund 
infrastructure, infrastructure banks, using the Tax Code. I am sure we 
can get bipartisan agreement on some of these issues.
  The Carper amendment says we are going to get our job done in this 
Congress and we are not going to subject our States to the uncertainty 
of just a patch. In my State of Maryland, we have many long-term 
commitments that we are trying to get funded. A short-term patch will 
put us in a hole.

[[Page S5028]]

We are okay to the end of the year, but let's make sure we enact a 6-
year bill before this Congress leaves.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CARDIN. I would be glad to yield to my colleague from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I wanted to ask him a question. 
Because I think the way the Senator responded to the Toomey amendment 
was exactly right on point. It was almost a deja vu as I listened to my 
friend from Pennsylvania, because he is not on the committee of 
jurisdiction. But we had this debate, as my friend pointed out. As a 
matter of fact, I started to get a little stressed as he related what 
we went through to get to the point where we have an expedited 
procedure that takes care of the problems my friend from Pennsylvania 
talks about.

  But we do not throw out every landmark environmental law. That would 
be a disaster. I can give you an example and ask my friend if he agrees 
with this example.
  I also want to point out the American Public Health Association 
strongly opposes Senator Toomey's amendment, because they know the 
health of the people is at stake.
  But let's say you had a situation where you brought in a contractor 
to clean up after there was a disaster, collapse, let's say, of a 
highway. There was a body of water nearby. The contractor came in. 
Instead of having a good clean operation, he started dumping his fuel 
and chemicals and everything else into this waterway. Mind you, under 
our law he has already got an expedited permit, he is ready to roll. 
But he or she, they have to be good citizens and not make matters 
worse.
  Does my friend not agree that these landmark laws, such as the Clean 
Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, should be respected, and the 
Toomey amendment throws them out the window, and we can endanger the 
health of the people?
  Mr. CARDIN. I say to Senator Boxer, through the Chair, she is 
absolutely right. It is even worse than that, because the contractor 
could be using a subcontractor whose principal work may not even be 
directly related to the replacement. It would be virtually impossible 
to detect what they are doing on the replacement site as to what they 
are doing on other sites. So it could be absolutely used as a shield in 
order to avoid the laws that we have to protect public health, protect 
our clean waters, our drinking water, et cetera. It opens a huge 
potential abuse. It is throwing out the laws, rather than making the 
laws work. That is exactly what our committee did after a very lengthy 
debate and which, quite frankly, we did certain things that make it a 
lot easier for a replacement facility to be done in an expedited 
process.
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I would like to address another issue 
connected to this debate. Before I do so, I would yield a moment of my 
time to my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah. Let me 
respond to my colleagues from Maryland and California briefly.
  First of all, I am perfectly glad that the committee of jurisdiction 
addressed this. One of the great things about the Senate is when it is 
actually functioning, Members who are not on a particular committee 
still have the opportunity to weigh in on an issue and have that debate 
on the Senate floor. That is exactly what we are doing today. I am glad 
we are doing that.
  I would also observe that my colleagues seem to have very little 
faith in the ability and willingness of States to protect their own 
environment. They should spend some more time in Pennsylvania. We care 
a lot about our environment in Pennsylvania. We have a Department of 
Environmental Protection that takes that responsibility very seriously.
  Finally, I would point out that the so-called fix in MAP-21 is 
extremely incomplete. It is incomplete because, first, it occurs at the 
discretion of the Department of Transportation. They can simply choose 
not to have an expedited process. If they deem the project to be 
``controversial''--undefined. Who knows what that means.
  Secondly, the Department of Transportation is not permitted to 
exclude from this process compliance with the Army Corps of Engineers 
or the Fish and Wildlife Service reviews, which altogether are 
extremely time consuming and expensive and costly. Again, we are just 
talking about repairing existing infrastructure. We are not talking 
about waiving these requirements for new capacity, for new 
infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I thank the Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 3584

(Purpose: To empower States with authority for most taxing and spending 
            for highway programs and mass transit programs)

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set 
aside the pending amendment so I can call up my amendment No. 3584, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3584.

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of July 23, 2014, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we are here today because our Federal highway 
policy status quo is not working, and it hasn't been working for a long 
time. This is the sixth time American taxpayers have been asked to bail 
out the highway trust fund since 2008--the sixth time since 2008.
  None of those patches, $52 billion worth of bailouts in 7 years, 
fixed the problem, and neither will the $10.8 billion authorized by the 
bill that is before us today. It will buy us only a few months before 
we are right back in the same place once again, the same place where we 
are now.
  Indeed, this debate is itself the dysfunction of Washington, DC, in 
miniature. Here--as in health care, higher education, assistance for 
the poor, energy, and so many other areas--the Federal Government has 
created a permanent structural problem, and it responds with duct tape. 
Worse, this bill solves only Washington problems, only the problems of 
Washington, DC, not those of the American people.
  Under the broken status quo this bill not only protects but also 
extends, in 6 months--and in 6 years--our roads will still remain 
congested. Too many single moms will still live on a knife's edge 
trying to make it to their second jobs all the way across town. Too 
many dads will still have to leave for work before breakfast just to 
make it to their job and then do the same thing again as they try to 
make it home for dinner. Children will still look in vain into the 
empty seats at their piano recitals and at their Little League games. 
Commuters will still squeeze onto overcrowded subway cars, hold their 
breath, and hope they don't break down again. Young families will still 
be unfairly priced out of neighborhoods near the best jobs and the best 
schools, and diverse communities will still be subject to the 
monotonous inefficiency of an outmoded Federal bureaucracy.
  But it doesn't have to be this way. There is a better way. The 
Interstate Highway System is one of the greatest achievements not only 
in the history of the Federal Government but in all of American 
history. It unified a sprawling continental nation by investing in our 
common destiny. It simultaneously met the economic, social, cultural, 
and security needs of an emerging superpower. It was and it remains a 
wonder of American innovation and self-government.
  More than that, the Interstate Highway System was the daring, 
audacious work of a young nation literally on the move, bristling with 
confidence in its future and in its people. With the Federal-Aid 
Highway Act of 1956, Congress threw off the yoke of the status quo and 
it met the emerging needs of a new generation.
  Yet today, some 58 years later, in a new century with new needs, new 
technologies, and a new economy, Congress anxiously clings to that 
exact same policy like some kind of a tattered security blanket.

[[Page S5029]]

  Six decades ago, Federal highway policy represented a triumph of 
imagination. Today, our refusal to modernize that same policy 
represents a failure of imagination. So we are here with the duct tape 
and WD-40 trying to keep this 20th century bureaucracy in place, rather 
than embracing the worthy challenge of building a new mobility policy, 
one that is well suited for the 21st century. That is exactly what my 
amendment, the Transportation Empowerment Act, would do.
  In 1956, it made sense for the Federal Government to collect the 
majority of gas taxes from around the country and then coordinate the 
construction of a national system. We needed it. But with the 
interstate system now largely complete and most transportation issues 
that we see today existing at the local level, there is no longer the 
same need for Washington to serve as the central coordinator. We have 
become an intrusive middleman. We need to refocus the Federal 
Government solely on interstate priorities and to empower a diverse, 
flexible, open-source transportation network controlled by the States.
  My amendment would empower States and communities to customize their 
own infrastructure according to their own needs, their own values, and 
their own imagination.
  It would, over 5 years, gradually transfer funding and spending 
authority over local transportation infrastructure projects to the 
States.
  Today the Federal gasoline tax stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. My 
amendment would lower it by 2019 to 3.7 cents per gallon.
  In the interim, we would gradually send States more of their 
allotment without strings to prepare them for the eventual transfer of 
this differential. After this gradual transition, Congress would retain 
enough revenue to continue to maintain the Interstate Highway System, 
which rightfully, properly remains a Federal priority and a core 
competence of our government at a national level, but States and 
communities would be newly empowered to launch a new era of local 
investment and local innovation.
  The idea behind this plan is not only that there is a better way to 
improve America's infrastructure, there are 50 better ways and even 
thousands of better ways. In our increasingly decentralized world, 
there are as many ideal transportation policies as there are 
communities across this great country.

  Washington is standing in the way, imposing obsolete conformity on a 
vibrant, diverse society. For if we truly love local transportation 
infrastructure--and who doesn't--we should set it free.
  Under the Transportation Empowerment Act, Americans could finally 
enjoy the local infrastructure they want. More environmentally 
conscious States and towns could finally have the flexibility to invest 
in more green transit projects and bike lanes. Regions reaping the 
benefits of America's recent energy renaissance could accelerate their 
own infrastructure and their own buildouts to keep up with their 
explosive growth. Dense cities could invest in more sustainable public 
transit networks. Meanwhile, surrounding counties could reopen the 
frontiers of the suburbs to a new generation of far more livable 
communities. State and local governments will also be free to 
experiment with innovative funding mechanisms not necessarily tied to 
the unreliable, unpredictable, gasoline tax. By cutting out the 
Washington middlemen, all of those States, communities, and taxpayers 
will be able to get more for less.
  My amendment would not reduce America's investment in infrastructure 
any more than Uber reduces America's investment in car services. In the 
real world, value is not a cost. Rather, my plan would empower a nation 
hungry for greater mobility to spend its infrastructure dollars on 
steel and on concrete instead of on bureaucracy and special interests.
  Some of my colleagues oppose this plan. Some will offer Washington's 
eternal promise. The status quo will work, it just needs more money. 
That is all it needs, and it will work. The Federal gasoline tax has 
not changed since 1994, they will say. We are starving the trust fund, 
they will add.
  But it is not true--at least it is an inaccurate and incomplete 
picture. For in the 12 years prior to 1994, the gasoline tax 
skyrocketed by an alarming 460 percent from 4 cents per gallon to 18.4 
cents per gallon.
  Put another way, since 1982, the Federal gasoline tax has grown by an 
equivalent of 6.1 percent per year. Chasing ever more money will not 
solve this problem. That is what we have been doing, and the bill 
before us today is incontrovertible proof that it hasn't worked.
  Others argue that reducing Washington's role in local transportation 
would invite economic and infrastructural catastrophe. This makes two 
very peculiar assumptions.
  First, it assumes that Washington is uniquely competent in the area 
of local transportation, even as a long train of abusive boondoggles 
and bridges to nowhere tell us exactly the opposite.
  Even more bizarrely, this argument assumes that the 50 States of our 
exceptional Republic, many of which would rank among the wealthiest 
nations in the world on their own, are unstable banana republics 
nursing the development of primitive hunter-gatherer societies whose 
only transportation services involve the clearing of woodland paths for 
their pig-drawn carts.
  State and local governments already pay for 75 percent of all surface 
transportation infrastructure projects in this country.
  In my home State of Utah, one of the best run in the country, only 20 
percent of our transportation money comes from Washington. The other 80 
percent we raise ourselves. Of course, we raise most of that 20 percent 
too. It is just that under the broken status quo, Washington middlemen 
take their cut before sending that back to us.
  Why not just leave that extra 25 percent to the States and 
communities who need and use it in the first place?
  The States already own and maintain the highways and local transit 
projects that are inherently local. So why not let the Federal 
Government focus on interstates and let Oregonians plan, finance, and 
build their bike paths; San Franciscans their green energy transit 
experiments; and Texans their eight-lane expressways, in their own way, 
tailored to their local needs and their own local values? All we add to 
the process in Washington, DC, is unnecessary overhead and self-
congratulating press releases, trying to take credit for it all.
  Finally, many who admit that the status quo is unsustainable 
nonetheless support it because they believe their particular State 
benefits by receiving more money back from the highway trust fund than 
it puts in. Washington perpetuates the myth that transportation money 
is free, especially for these so-called net donee States. But as in 
every other middleman arrangement, the status quo policy ensures that 
States actually get less value back than they should.
  Federal regulatory strings not only make infrastructure projects 
unnecessarily expensive, they specifically divert resources away from 
actual infrastructure and waste it on special interests and 
bureaucratic redtape.
  The Federal Davis-Bacon Act, for instance, costs States an additional 
10 cents for every single dollar they spend on infrastructure 
construction projects.
  Numerous regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act--or 
NEPA, as it is frequently called--collectively cost State governments 
an additional 9 cents on the dollar. No wonder the trust fund needs to 
be bailed out every year. Washington is charging taxpayers a 20-percent 
processing fee off the top.
  I encourage my colleagues to work out the math for their own States.
  But for Utah, that means that of the $335 million we receive annually 
from the highway trust fund, nearly $64 million goes to political 
overhead instead of steel and concrete.
  Everything in our economy and our society today is moving away from 
rigid, centralized, bureaucratic control and toward flexible, open-
sourced community and individual empowerment. This is a simple question 
of old versus new, of bold versus unimaginative.
  The Interstate Highway System met a crucial need in its time and 
represented a wonder of innovation, but so did Borders bookstores at 
one time, so did Blockbuster Video at one time, so did record stores, 
and so did rotary telephones.

[[Page S5030]]

  America still needs books, movies, music, and communication, and it 
still gets those things. Today those goods are just delivered more 
efficiently, more affordably, through flexible models customized to the 
needs of individual customers. In the very same way Americans still 
need highways, bridges, subways, and bike paths. Indeed, we need them 
now more than ever, but Federal policy hasn't kept up with the 
times. That is why, even without my amendment, more than 30 States have 
begun or are considering their own transportation modernization 
programs.

  This is just one more piece of evidence that the transportation 
renaissance America needs is one that our centralized bureaucratic 
status quo cannot deliver--not with another $10.8 billion or 10 times 
as much.
  After six decades and historic successes, the time has come for a new 
Federal transportation policy--one that taps the creativity of our 
diverse Nation. Today, Americans are unnecessarily stuck in traffic, 
stuck in overcrowded subway cars, missing their kids' games and 
recitals, priced out of neighborhoods close to their jobs, and they 
spend almost a full 40-hour workweek per year stuck in gridlock. They 
deserve better than what Washington is offering--which is just the 
status quo, plus a little more money. A new era demands a new approach.
  The Interstate Highway System is a success, and the people who 
created it deserve our great admiration and gratitude. But the way to 
honor their legacy is to stop imitating them and start emulating them 
by investing in an innovative transportation network for our own era, 
just as they did for theirs. Just as it was in 1956, the status quo is 
once again no longer good enough. We need to transcend it.
  The future of America's mobility is not a rigid, monolithic, 
centralized bureaucracy frozen in amber; it is a flexible, organic, 
open-sourced network of empowered individuals and communities as 
diverse as the Nation itself.
  My amendment would empower Americans to start to build that future 
together, and I respectfully ask my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is really almost hard to know where to 
start in my opposition to this amendment, but let me say that some 
people call it devolution, meaning you devolve all responsibility for 
the highways and transits to the States. I call it not devolution but 
complete and utter destruction of a system that has been in place that 
the States have grown to count on. That is why the States that my 
friend speaks from, the States' point of view--they oppose this 
amendment strongly. AASHTO--they represent not one State but every 
single State.
  There are so many things my friend said that we can't refute--that a 
State should have the right to spend whatever they want. Sure, they 
can. They can spend anything they want right now. But they count on the 
basic bread and butter of these grants.
  If we look at history, it has been Republican Presidents who have 
stepped to the plate on this all through history. That is why I think 
this is so radical. It is shocking to me. It is shocking to me because 
some of the biggest proponents of the Interstate Highway System and aid 
to the States have been Republican Presidents.
  Let's be clear. If, God forbid, this were to become the law, 
immediately the States would see a cut in their transportation funding 
of 80 percent. That is my friend's answer to gridlock--cut the funding 
to the States by 80 percent.
  The last time I heard and listened, we were one nation under God, 
indivisible. That is why the visionary Dwight Eisenhower saw this. He 
knew we had to be able to move equipment. He knew logistics because he 
was a general. He knew we were one Nation, sea to shining sea. And my 
friend would have us lose that.
  I really wish my colleague Senator Inhofe would come to the floor 
because I think he has a voting record that is as conservative as any, 
and he feels transportation is a basic function, along with defense.
  I think it is important to note that counties and cities and States 
depend on this program, and they have for years. Again, this is a 
national interest, to have this one Nation.
  If we really want to see Republicans and Democrats united around the 
country, look at who is opposing the Lee amendment: the American 
Trucking Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American 
Highway Users Alliance, the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel 
Association, the general contractors, the Associated Equipment 
Distributors, and the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. And if 
they agreed with Senator Lee--set us free; set us free; we are going to 
build so much--I don't know what he is talking about, set us free. Set 
us free with 80 percent less money? That is really great. What are we 
going to build? Nothing. We are going to have to raise taxes. I was a 
county supervisor. That doesn't work.
  Proponents of this amendment weakly claim that with the completion of 
the interstate system, we don't need a Federal role in transportation. 
Well, guess what. We have to maintain our Federal highways even though 
they have been built. We have to maintain our bridges even though they 
have been built.
  I said on a TV show the other day: I know I have gotten a little 
older. I need more maintenance. That is just the way it is. I am not 
happy about it.
  Stop laughing. But that is a fact of life.
  So don't tell me ``we are free at last; do away with this'' and then 
think the States are going to be happy when the very States my friend 
says he speaks for are totally against his amendment. We would be 
massively cutting transportation infrastructure spending.
  Let's talk about the impact on thousands of businesses and millions 
of workers. I don't know if we have the picture of the stadium. I wish 
to show my friend--when he comes here and makes an ideological speech, 
I like to talk about the real world. Here is the real world. This is a 
Super Bowl game. This is a stadium that holds 100,000 people. We have 
seven stadiums full of unemployed construction workers. He wants to cut 
the Federal involvement by 80 percent. Just don't see some of these 
workers. It started out that we filled 20 of these stadiums in the 
height of the recession. Now we have got it down to seven, and we still 
don't have enough work.

  And this isn't make work. This is work our American businesspeople 
want. This is work our American workers want. This is work that can't 
be outsourced. This is work that pays a good wage. What a time to cut 
back our investment by 80 percent and sock it to the workers.
  The same people who vote for this amendment won't raise the minimum 
wage--support this pension smoothing that is taking away dollars from 
our employees' pensions.
  So I am at my wit's end to understand. My friend is a nice man, and I 
know he believes this. But don't come on the floor and say let's forget 
about Eisenhower's vision and have a new vision, which is that there is 
no more Federal role.
  Some will get up and say: Maybe it is better to do this than to do 
nothing. Maybe this is better.
  No. We have to do our job around here, and that is a multiyear bill. 
We are faced with a short-term extension because we haven't done our 
work.
  Senators Carper and Corker and I are going to put forward an 
amendment that is going to force us to do our work in December if we 
are lucky enough to have it passed. We hope it will pass because if we 
vote for that amendment, we are cutting back the short-term money we 
have to pay, and we are cutting back the time. And that is good. But we 
are not walking away from the responsibility we have as a nation, one 
nation under God, indivisible, from sea to shining sea, a vision of 
America that my friend's amendment would destroy. It is not devolution, 
it is destruction, and I hope we will vote no.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I strongly, respectfully disagree with the 
characterization my distinguished colleague from California has made 
suggesting that this somehow represents an 80-

[[Page S5031]]

percent cut in the transportation funding. That simply is not true. The 
idea here is to transfer both the revenue collection authority and the 
spending authority back to where most of it belongs, which is at the 
State and the local level.
  There isn't a State in the Union that wants to do away with 
transportation infrastructure spending. Quite to the contrary, our 
States and localities and those who assist the contractors, who provide 
the services, provide the gravel and other materials that go into these 
roads and bridges and transit projects--they want to get to work, but 
they want to put this money into steel and concrete in the ground 
rather than spending so much of it on lobbying, rather than spending so 
much of it on things that have nothing to do with steel and concrete in 
the ground.
  I also wish to refer to something my colleague said with regard to 
the fact that it costs money to maintain the Interstate Highway System. 
I absolutely agree--I could not agree more--which is exactly why I 
wrote this amendment so as to retain a 3.7-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax 
that would be collected and spent better to make sure we would maintain 
the Interstate Highway System. That is exactly what we do.
  A reference was made to my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Inhofe, expressing remorse over the fact that he is not here with us at 
this moment to have a discussion and wondering what he would say about 
it. To respond to my colleague's point, Senator Inhofe has voted for 
this provision in the past. In fact, in the past Senator Inhofe himself 
has introduced a version of this very piece of legislation.
  My colleague also referred to groups that happen to oppose this 
legislation. I would encourage those groups to learn more about it and 
also point out that there are lots of groups that support my 
legislation, including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax 
Reform, Heritage Action, Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Freedom, 
Freedom Works, and the list goes on and on.
  It is also important to remember that our Federal gasoline tax did 
increase substantially between 1992 and 1994, increased from just 4 
cents per gallon to 18.4 cents per gallon. During that time period we 
were told that if the gasoline tax was increased at the Federal level, 
we would be backing up the highway trust fund, that we would make sure 
it was secure.
  Did that happen? No. What happened instead was the Federal Government 
overreached. The Federal Government started getting more and more 
involved in surface streets and things that have nothing to do with our 
Interstate Highway System. That is why we are here today.
  I therefore yield back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know my colleagues 
want to present the Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment. I will just say that 
we just did the math. The Senator cuts the gas tax to such a degree 
that the States would get an 80-percent cut. The Senator can do the 
math himself, but I am happy to work with the Senator on it.
  It is not convenient--it is not right to speak about another Member 
when they are not here, but my understanding is Senator Inhofe does not 
currently support this. I could be wrong. We will find out in a couple 
hours. One of us can apologize. But I will apologize if I misstated his 
objection to this.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3583

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our 
amendment, the Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment 3582, be made pending and 
that it be reported by number at this time.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper] for himself, Mr. 
     Corker, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 3583.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, July 23, 2014, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I will make some comments to lead off and 
then will yield to Senator Corker and back to Senator Boxer, and we 
have others who would like to speak on behalf of this amendment.
  I wish to start off by saying to the Senator from Tennessee who is 
here with us, the lead Republican on the amendment, how grateful I am 
to have this opportunity to work with you on an important issue. Thank 
you for your courage. One of the definitions of leadership is the 
courage to stay out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong 
tune. In this case, not everyone else is marching to the wrong tune, 
but a few people are. I thank you for showing that courage and standing 
up to do what we believe is the right thing to do.
  I would like to give a big shout-out to Senator Boxer. She chairs the 
Environment and Public Works Committee on which I serve as the 
subcommittee chair for transportation and infrastructure. She and 
Senator Vitter and Senator Barrasso and I worked to fashion a 6-year 
transportation plan for our country that is a very well thought out, 
excellent roadmap for the future of transportation in America, and what 
we now need to do is to fund it. It is great to have a plan. How about 
some money to make it happen? That is what this is all about.
  This is the question: At the end of the day, how do we best ensure 
that we actually fund the 6-year plan Senator Boxer and others helped 
us develop?
  I thank not just Senators Corker and Boxer for their great support 
and for their leadership, I also thank the Democrats and Republicans 
and even an Independent or two for their support of our amendment.
  I will yield the time now to Senator Corker and Senator Boxer, and I 
will take some time out. Senator King is welcome to speak as well.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order with 
respect to H.R. 5021 be modified to allow for 2 minutes equally divided 
in the usual form between the votes and that all after the first vote 
be 10-minute votes, with all other provisions of the previous order 
remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from 
California for going ahead with this amendment. I thank Senator Carper 
for this leadership not just on this issue but other issues. I know we 
are working with other long-term issues that need to be resolved, and I 
thank him for the way he is going about doing that.
  If I could just lay out what is happening today, a House bill is 
coming over here today that is a short-term extension. Mr. President, I 
don't know if you know this, but this will be the 11th short-term 
extension since 2008. Let me say that one more time. This will be the 
11th short-term extension that has occurred since 2008.
  This is the fifth time we have taken money out of the general fund--
taken money out of the general fund--to fund the highway trust fund, 
which is supposed to be funded through user fees. So what I would like 
to say to my friends on this side of the aisle is that this is the 
fifth time for the highway trust fund, which builds highways and 
bridges around our country, that we are engaging in generational 
theft--generational theft--where we take money out of the general fund. 
Everyone knows it is not paid for. We use gimmicks to pay for something 
that the Constitution says we are actually supposed to deal with.
  The House sent over a bill, and there has been a lot of consternation 
on the floor about that. They used $6.4 billion worth of pension 
smoothing. Everyone in this body knows it is not a real pay-for. All it 
does is move revenues up a decade. And because it uses $6.4 billion 
worth of pension smoothing, it has a $5 billion budget point of order 
against it. Let me say that one more time--a $5 billion budget point of 
order against the House bill that is coming over. So there has been 
some consternation.
  People say: Well, if you don't take up the House bill, the road 
program is going to fall apart, and we are going to go home for the 
August recess and everybody is going to be blamed.
  Well, fortunately--fortunately--today Speaker Boehner said: No. If 
the

[[Page S5032]]

Senate sends something over, we are going to send something right back.
  So everybody ought to be relieved. So it doesn't matter today that 
many of our Finance Committee members who serve with Chairman Wyden--
they have made commitments to him that we are going to get on the 
Senate Finance Committee, and they should all know it is not a problem 
now. The House today said they are going to send something right back.
  So the first vote that is going to take place today is a vote to 
strip out the House bill, which has $6.4 billion worth of pension 
smoothing--a total gimmick. Everyone knows it is not a pay-for. It 
loses money--loses money. And the Senate Finance Committee bill is 
going to--the first vote is to replace the House bill with the Senate 
Finance Committee bill--by the way, which was done under regular order, 
done the way bills are supposed to be done. Unfortunately, it also is a 
short-term fix. I have never voted for a short-term fix for the highway 
trust fund because it is so simple for us to resolve. The only issue is 
we haven't been willing to address it. There are no new ideas that I am 
aware of.
  I am going to have to vote against a short-term extension. But we 
have an amendment to improve it, and what that amendment does is it 
takes out all of the pension smoothing that unfortunately is in the 
Finance Committee bill. I thank them for doing their work, but it has 
$2.9 billion worth of pension smoothing, which, again, is a gimmick. In 
other words, it moves up revenues. It weakens, by the way, the pension 
system in our country. You ought to know that. It weakens our pension 
system. It moves money into this decade, but from then on it loses even 
more money. It is absolute--no offense to those who put it in place--
generational theft. So what this amendment does is it takes pension 
smoothing out of the Senate finance bill and leaves everything else in 
place.
  The secondary benefit is that it means the highway trust fund will 
not have funding except to make it through this year. What that means 
is that this body in 2014 will have the opportunity to actually deal 
with this issue.
  I have to tell you, seriously, I am embarrassed. I have been here in 
the Senate 7\1/2\ years--7\1/2\ years--and we have yet to deal with one 
of our long-term issues. I cannot remember a single issue this body has 
come together on to deal with one of our long-term structural issues. 
It is an embarrassment. They really aren't new ideas around here; there 
has just been a lack of willingness to deal with it.
  I thank the Senator from California, the Senator from Delaware, and 
others who will join in this amendment. And all we are doing is one 
thing: We are taking a gimmick out of the Senate finance bill and 
forcing this body to act responsibly before year-end. That is all.
  I would urge my colleagues to come to the floor and say: Look, it has 
been a long time, 11 short-term reauthorizations.
  By the way, think about the economic issues that come with this. We 
do these reauthorizations, and departments of transportation around the 
country have no idea whether there is going to be funding in place. 
What do the contractors do? They don't hire people long-term. They 
don't buy equipment. Yet we come and do this 11 times since 2008. Five 
times, again, transferring money out of our general fund--the greatest 
generational theft that can occur--taking money out of the general fund 
and spending it over a 6-month period, paying for it over 10 years.

  To my Republican friends who railed against the President over the 
health care bill because he was using 6 years' worth of costs--by the 
way, I was one of those railers--6 years' worth of costs, 10 years' 
worth of revenues--we couldn't get off of it because it was so 
irresponsible. Yet in this bill we are going to spend the money over 6 
or 7 months and pay for it over 10 years. It is an order of magnitude 
worse.
  I know that a lot of people have worked and they have said: No, there 
is no way we can come up with a solution by year-end.
  You have got to be kidding me. How could we not come up with a 
solution to such a simple issue--a trust fund that has been funded by 
user fees. How could we not figure out some way in 5 days? The Senate 
Finance Committee has some of the smartest people in the Senate on it. 
They know there are no new real options. The chairman has floated some 
ideas as to how to get there, and I applaud him for it.
  By the way, I know that the Senate Finance Committee is only doing 
its job today. In other words, you have to come up with a short-term 
solution. I got it. I cannot support it. I cannot support it. I cannot 
support another kicking of the can down the road on one of the simplest 
issues we have to deal with in the Senate because elections are coming. 
Let's face it. Every time it is the election. We can't deal with this 
issue, so what we said is: OK. We got it. We realize that during 
elections people don't really want to show their cards, apparently. So 
we are saying, hey, let's strip the gimmick that is in this bill--the 
pension smoothing that we all know is not a pay-for. It is a gimmick. 
Let's strip that and let's force the Congress before the end of this 
year to actually deal with an issue that is very important to our 
Nation.
  I hope people will support it. I have heard people say: Well, I just 
don't see how we can figure out a solution.
  You have got to be kidding me. I mean, how many new ideas are there 
relative to this?
  So, look, I thank my colleagues for joining in this amendment. I hope 
we will have support. Again, this amendment lessens the kicking of the 
can down the road. It takes out a gimmick. It forces us to deal with a 
long-term solution, which we should have done a long time ago.
  I thank all of those Senators who support this amendment. I hope 
others will consider it before they come down to the floor. I hope this 
Senate will have the opportunity--and the House--before year-end to 
actually deal with this issue.
  Again, let me say this: The kick-the-can down-the-road that is 
occurring takes us into next May and June. Think about it. So we are 
going to have a Presidential race underway. So then people are going to 
say: Oh, we can't deal with this issue. We don't want our nominees to 
have to deal with this issue.
  Remember, the primaries this year are early. So our Republicans will 
say: Well, we don't want to deal with this issue in May or June because 
a Presidential race is coming up. And the Democrats will say the same 
thing: We don't want our candidate to have to talk about this issue. So 
again and again we will kick the can down the road. We will engage in 
generational theft. We will weaken our economy. We won't do the things 
we should be doing with our infrastructure. It is the wrong thing to 
do.
  Please support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Corker for his 
remarks because I have been here a while, and I haven't heard a more 
honest speech in my life on the Senate floor. I haven't heard a more 
passionate speech, a speech in which the Senator just spoke from his 
heart and with his brain, which is quite competent. I thank the Senator 
for it because there are some times when you do feel like shouting. I 
guess that was a movie, ``I Can't Take It Anymore.''
  It is ridiculous that we are where we are. We knew for 2 years--2 
years--that the highway trust fund was going to run out of money. We 
knew it for 2 years. That is why in May Senator Vitter and I, Senator 
Carper, Senator Barrasso, and others on both sides of the aisle passed 
a 6-year bill. We knew it was coming. We wanted to wake up our 
colleagues. And we did wake them up but, sadly, to a short-term fix 
instead of a long-term fix, a multiyear bill.
  I so agree with my friend. It is the political will that is lacking. 
There is always an excuse followed by an excuse. The next thing we know 
they will say: The dog ate my homework. We have heard every excuse. And 
the Senator is so right. We will be in Presidential races, and then we 
will start with more Senate races and more congressional races, and 
people won't want to take a tough vote again.
  This is the greatest Nation on Earth, but we have to reflect the 
greatness in our work here, and we are not.

[[Page S5033]]

  The one thing I disagree with my friend on--he said we are only doing 
one thing in this amendment. We are actually doing two things in this 
amendment. One is we are getting rid of that gimmick called pension 
smoothing. I have kind of studied it over the last few weeks to really 
understand what we are doing, which is when you use this pension 
smoothing, you are saying to companies: Don't put any money into your 
pension obligations. And through some smoke and mirrors--because then 
it means they get to pay a little more income taxes--by the way, some 
don't pay more income taxes--it comes out a plus. The fact is, it is in 
essence telling companies they don't have to set aside money for their 
workers' pensions. That is not something that is good, especially since 
the pension guaranty corporation is short $34 billion.
  I don't know if my friend knows this. The last time we used pension 
smoothing for a short-term fix, at least we had in the committee a 
comparable measure that ensured that companies gave more to the pension 
guaranty corp. So although they had a chance not to put the money into 
the pensions, they did have to pay more to the pension guaranty corp. 
If the pension guaranty corp. isn't there--the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corp. is broke--the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. I am looking at 
my friend in the Presiding Officer's chair, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Ms. Warren, who knows what happens when everybody is 
broke and the Federal Government says: Oh my God. That is too big to 
fail.
  So this attack that you make on smoothing as a gimmick--it is worse 
than a gimmick because it has real-life impacts, and those real-life 
impacts are that the companies aren't putting aside enough money. So 
let's think about what we are saying. We are saying the highway trust 
fund is going broke, so to fix it we are going to endanger another 
fund, the pension funds of our workers. That is terrible.

  That is why I love the Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment, and I thank my 
friends for their leadership on the pay-for. It does two things, this 
good amendment. It says we are not going to use the smoothing; we are 
going to protect our pensions. Secondly, we are going to attack the 
long-term issues of the highway trust fund in December, in the 
lameduck, after the elections, and everybody knows that is the best 
time to do it.
  So I stand proudly with my friends. I hope we pass this. I don't know 
what happens or what the House will do, but my dad used to say you can 
only control what you can control. We can't control them, but we can 
control us.
  So I hope anyone listening to this debate--I am going to support the 
Wyden amendment because it does strip some of the pension smoothing. I 
am going to oppose the Toomey amendment and the Lee amendment because I 
think they are dangerous, and I am going to strongly support the 
Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment.
  I thank my colleagues. I know there is some very important business 
about to come to the floor, so I will yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren.). The Senator from Maryland.


                       MILCON--VA Appropriations

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we have just listened to a very lively 
debate on the highway trust fund, which is certainly a great issue 
confronting our Nation because our infrastructure is crumbling.
  But we also know another great infrastructure has really been 
crumbling, and that is our VA infrastructure, including the ability to 
deliver health care to our veterans as promised, as well as to meet 
their claims when they file for their benefits, particularly those 
poignant, compelling claims around disability benefits.
  I come to the floor today to see if we can't do a trifecta this week 
by passing the serious reform bill advocated by Senators Sanders and 
McCain----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will take their conversations out of 
the Chamber.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. These are excellent Senators whose voices are heard and 
heard and heard, as is mine.
  In addition to the Sanders-McCain bill that comes as a result of the 
conference, really what that bill does is focus primarily on the health 
care issues facing us. What concerns me is also the fact that we need 
to eliminate the VA disability claims backlog for which there is also a 
compelling need.
  Now, what I am advocating is that we do a trifecta this week; that 
is, we pass the conference report that has been advocated by Senator 
Sanders and Senator McCain that will deal with the important reforms, 
including adding new personnel. We have given the VA a new chief 
executive officer to bring about the reforms with the know-how of 
business. I also wish to bring to the floor the VA-MILCON 
appropriations bill.
  This is a fantastic bill that moves from the subcommittee, led by my 
very able subcommittee chairman, Senator Tim Johnson, with the help of 
the ranking member, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. They have done such 
incredible diligence on how we can use the taxpayers' dollars wisely to 
really provide the services we promised the veterans--yes, health care, 
but also that veterans shouldn't stand in line for health care and 
veterans also shouldn't stand in line and wait in line and then hope 
the line gets smaller for disability benefits.
  What the VA-MILCON bill does this year, under the very able 
leadership of Senator Johnson, with the cooperation of Senator Kirk, is 
to implement these very important reforms, and the committee responded. 
I wish the Presiding Officer could have been in the full committee that 
day. We passed it on a bipartisan basis of 30 to 0.
  Now I want to be able to bring this bill to the floor so this week we 
could do all three of these and make sure that the Sanders-McCain 
conference report bill is not on a weak foundation. We need to 
modernize our VA infrastructure.
  There is over $10 billion of backlog in crumbling physical 
infrastructure at the VA. Its technology is dated. We want them to have 
great technology. Most of all, we finally want to crack this veterans 
backlog.
  So I am going to propound shortly a unanimous consent request. I 
talked about it earlier. But before I make this request--I have spoken 
about this bill--I would like to yield to my colleague and my very able 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Tim Johnson, who has spent more than a 
decade working on these issues, and now, on a bipartisan basis, we have 
such a splendid bill--so wise, so prudent, so effective--that I wish we 
could do it.
  I yield the floor for Senator Johnson and then I will reclaim the 
floor for my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam President, I thank the chairwoman 
for her strong leadership on the Appropriations Committee and her 
unfailing dedication to our Nation's vets. She is absolutely right in 
pointing out that passage of the fiscal year 2015 MILCON-VA bill is 
crucial to implementing the Sanders bill. The Sanders bill provides 
funding and expanded access for medical care for vets, but the MILCON-
VA bill provides a far broader range of funding and oversight that 
covers every aspect of VA operations.
  By a unanimous vote, we just confirmed Robert McDonald to be 
Secretary of the VA. He is assuming the leadership of an agency in 
crisis, and he will need every resource available to him if he is to 
succeed in turning the VA around.
  The Senate has given him the job, and the Senate should now give him 
the resources to accomplish that job. This is no time to delay or 
shortchange VA funding.
  For the sake of the Nation's vets, we must keep our focus on the full 
scope of VA operations, including but not limited to access to medical 
care. The disability claims backlog is a perfect example. In the past 
year, with the resources and oversight provided in the fiscal year 2014 
MILCON-VA bill, VA has made great progress in reducing the backlog. The 
fiscal year 2015 bill provides additional resources for claims 
processing to sustain this momentum. The move to paperless claims was 
key to streamlining and expediting claims processing, and it was made 
possible by improvements to VA Information Technology systems--
improvements which were funded in the MILCON-VA bill.
  IT is the backbone of virtually every program the VA administers. An 
antiquated and cumbersome electronic scheduling system was a key factor 
in the patient scheduling scandal. The VA

[[Page S5034]]

is in the midst of an entire overhaul of its electronic health record 
system to make it more accessible to patients and to exchange 
information with DOD. This effort is crucial to the VA's ability to 
deliver timely care and benefits to vets.
  The MILCON-VA bill also provides the funding to implement a wide 
array of programs that are crucial to the health and well-being of 
vets. Many of these aren't the kinds of programs or initiatives that 
make splashy headlines, but they are essential in delivering timely 
care and benefits. For example, the fiscal year 2015 MILCON-VA bill 
contains $7.8 million for a centralized mail system at the VA. The VA 
estimates that once the centralized program is implemented, it will 
take as many as 10 to 15 days off the time it takes to process a 
disability claim. The bill also provides increased funding to expand 
the Access Received Closer to Home program for vets in rural areas. 
These are just a few of many examples I could cite.
  The Sanders bill and the MILCON-VA bill are separate components of a 
single requirement and they should move forward at the same time. I 
hope we can pass these bipartisan bills before we adjourn for recess.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4486

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am really eager to bring at least 
one appropriations bill to the floor. There are only 72 hours left 
before we break for August.
  I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 400, H.R. 4486, the 
Military Construction-VA appropriations bill; that the Committee-
reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that there be no other 
amendments, points of order or motions in order to the bill other than 
budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there 
be up to 1 hour for debate equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, 
as amended, be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on the 
passage of the bill, as amended; that if the bill, as amended, is 
passed, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with 
the House, and authorize the Chair to appoint conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object, our side is eager to 
schedule floor consideration of appropriations bills with a full and 
open amendment process, and the MILCON-VA bill would be at the top of 
our list.
  Would the Senator from Maryland agree to modify this consent request 
as follows: that following disposition of the highway bill this 
evening, the motion to proceed to S. 2648, the Senate border 
supplemental bill, be withdrawn and the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 4486, the MILCON-VA bill; I further ask that the 
first amendment in order be offered by the Republican leader or his 
designee, and that the two sides then offer amendments in alternating 
fashion; that following the disposition of all amendments, the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland so modify her 
request?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The answer is no, I will not modify my request. But my 
response should not be interpreted as a pugnacious rejection.
  I appreciate the civil and courteous way the Senator from Alabama has 
responded. But in a nutshell, what the Senator from Alabama is 
requesting is that we not pick up the supplemental, we bring up the VA-
MILCON instead. I would like to bring up both bills, which is why I am 
asking that there be no amendments on VA-MILCON. They are practically 
identical between the House and the Senate. There were no amendments 
except a few perfecting ones in the Senate. We could get this done in 
an hour. So, therefore, I will not modify my request.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I object to my distinguished chair's 
motion to consider and pass the MILCON-VA appropriations bill. This is 
not because I oppose the underlying bill, as I have said. This a bill 
that has wide bipartisan support. Its support is predicated upon the 
premise that we will engage in what we call ``regular order'' here. 
Regular order, by its very nature, includes the ability to offer, 
consider, and to vote on amendments.
  If we were to agree to this unanimous consent request by the Senator 
from Maryland, we would be trading away every Member's prerogative on 
both sides of the aisle to offer and to vote upon amendments. I would, 
therefore, encourage the chair and the majority leader to revise their 
unanimous consent request to allow for an open amendment process. Until 
then, we will be compelled to object.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I know my friends Senator Mikulski and 
Senator Shelby are doing everything they can to work the will of the 
Senate. I know how they both want to get something done on this 
appropriations bill.
  I simply want to say that I looked at the modification of my 
Republican friend--and he is my friend--that he offered, and I think 
for the good of America, who could be watching, I want to make a couple 
of points that will take me 30 seconds.
  First of all, there is no limit on the number of amendments. We do 
not know if it will be 5, 10, 20 or 1,000 or 2,000 or 1 million. We 
have no idea. They would not even have to be related to the bill at 
hand, and they will not tell us what this list of amendments is.
  I have looked back at some recent requests, and I want to be very 
honest with my friend. The recent requests I have seen before have been 
attacks on the Clean Air Act, attacks on the Clean Water Act, attacks 
on the Safe Drinking Water Act, attacks on women's health care. 
Frankly, that is not something I can agree to.
  So I just want to say I am so saddened that we cannot seem to take up 
the most popular bill. I know how hard everybody has worked on MILCON-
VA, and my friend, Senator Shelby, said: Our side is eager to schedule 
floor consideration of appropriations bills. Well, if they are really 
eager, they should work together with Senator Mikulski. You could not 
find anyone more fair. Get a finite list of amendments. If they are 
controversial, we have the 60-vote threshold. We know how to do our 
work around here.
  So I am sorry it has come to this, and I appreciate the leadership of 
both Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, first of all, I thank all of those 
advocating the highway bill for their courtesy in letting us bring this 
to the floor. Senator Johnson and I are deeply appreciative.
  I think we have just had a very good discussion. We have stated what 
we would like to do to move VA-MILCON in the most time-efficient way 
possible--with the least controversial bill. I am not going to have 
anything more to say about this tonight, but now that we have kind of 
put a lot of ideas out there, we have heard what the expression is of 
the vice chairman of Appropriations, I would hope that over the next 36 
hours perhaps we could find a way forward to do the trifecta I am 
hoping for to serve America's veterans: pass the conference report that 
helps improve veterans health care--we have done one part of that now 
by approving Mr. McDonald--and all we would have to do before Thursday 
night is to finish VA-MILCON.
  So I intend to reach out across the aisle, and I appreciate the 
effort and courtesy and the cooperation of the highway Senators, who 
are moving this bill forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Madam President.
  I know we have a number of colleagues who still want to speak, and we 
want to get to votes tonight, so I want to be very brief speaking in 
opposition to the Lee amendment and in support of the amendment of my 
friends Senator Carper, Senator Boxer, and Senator Corker.

[[Page S5035]]

  Madam President, I want to quickly tell you about the Norwalk River 
Bridge, which is a bridge in the State of Connecticut, which is pretty 
important to the transit of people and goods throughout the Northeast 
because it spans the Norwalk River and allows for trains--Amtrak 
trains, Metro-North trains--to be able to transit millions of people 
over millions of trips up and down the Northeast Corridor. Without the 
Norwalk River Bridge, you cannot get from New Haven to New York, but 
you also cannot get from Washington, DC, to Boston.
  That bridge is 118 years old, and it is a miracle that it opens at 
all. It needs to open in order to allow maritime traffic to go up and 
down the Norwalk River. It is a miracle that it opens at all. But, in 
fact, on 16 of its 271 openings last year, it did not open and it 
interrupted Metro-North service 175 times.
  The result for not just Connecticut but the entire region is hundreds 
of thousands of dollars in lost productivity. Our inability to pass a 
long-term transportation bill means that big projects like the 
replacement of the Norwalk River Bridge cannot get done. Why? Because 
when you only budget for 12 months or 24 months at a time--or in this 
instance only 6 months or 4 months at a time--there is no way for a 
State to be able to plan to do that kind of massive work.
  So I am here on the floor to beg my colleagues to support the 
amendment from Senator Boxer and Senator Carper because it is time we 
started to get some political courage and admit that the emperor has no 
clothes when it comes to Federal transportation policy. Yes, it is 
politically difficult to make the choices necessary to come up with the 
funding to fill that gap.
  Senator Corker and I have one particular idea, but we would love to 
hear others. But it is time for us to sit down and have that honest 
conversation because you cannot do projects like this if you do not.
  But to Senator Lee's amendment, this is exactly why you need a 
Federal commitment to transportation funding. The idea that you are 
just going to devolve all of these projects down to the local level is 
preposterous. Why? Because this is a regional asset. The Norwalk River 
happens to be located in the State of Connecticut. But if all 
transportation funding came from the States, and Connecticut, for one 
reason or another, decided not to spend money on replacing the Norwalk 
River Bridge, it is not just Connecticut that is affected by that; 
transit stops in Massachusetts, in New York, in New Jersey, in 
Delaware, all the way down to Washington, DC.
  So the reason we have made a robust commitment to Federal funding for 
both highways and mass transit is because the benefits accrue to all of 
us.
  Senator Lee said that this is just an innovation in the way we fund 
transportation, like, as he said, the innovation in the way in which 
people buy books. That analogy speaks to our imperative for Federal 
funding because the way that books have been sold is different. It used 
to be that you just used the local roads to drive down and buy your 
book from the local bookstore. Today, you buy at amazon.com, and it is 
the Interstate Highway System, the interstate rail system that is used 
to get your book from a warehouse somewhere out in the Midwest to you 
after you ordered it online in Connecticut. If you want to talk about 
the great innovations of the last 20 to 30 years, they all buttress the 
idea that we live in an interconnected, interstate world in which we 
need a Federal commitment to highway funding--one that does not just 
parse out funding one month at a time.
  My State is particularly dependent on this kind of funding. 
Connecticut only survives if we are able to unlock the congested 
highways and byways and rail lines that connect my State to New York 
and to Boston in particular. But this Nation as a whole will not 
succeed, will not survive economically if we do not grapple with the 
fact that as China spends 12 percent of its GDP on infrastructure, 
Europe spends 6 percent of its GDP on infrastructure, even if we just 
held the line, we would still only be spending 3 percent of our GDP on 
the most important asset to the future of America's economy.
  So I hope we reject the Lee amendment. I hope we pass the Carper-
Boxer-Corker amendment. I am glad to join them in support of it this 
evening.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, just for purposes of making a unanimous 
consent request, I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining time 
be 5 minutes each for the following Senators and the Senate then 
proceed to vote on the amendments and the bill as provided under the 
previous order: Senator Carper, Senator Flake, Senator Wyden, and 
Senator King. The unanimous consent request is for 5 minutes each, and 
then the votes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, will we 
still have 2 minutes before each amendment then? It will be in between?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we will.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I understand in the unanimous consent 
agreement I have 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. CARPER. I yield 1 minute of that to Senator King. Oh, great, he 
has 5 minutes. I would like to have 4 of his minutes.
  I will start by saying my thanks to Senator Wyden for his leadership 
as well. I am pleased to be able to support his amendment. I am 
grateful he is supporting ours.
  I say to some of our Republican colleagues, I have talked to most of 
you in the last several weeks about this approach that Senator Boxer 
and Senator Corker and I are proposing; that is, to lower from $11 
billion to $8 billion the amount of money that would go into the 
transportation trust fund. That would force us to come back and make a 
decision by the end of this calendar year. That would force us to do 
something real, do our job during the lameduck session.
  One of the reasons Republicans have said to me is: We can't do that 
because then that would force the bill to go back to the House from 
which it has emanated. Well, let me just say the bill is going back to 
the House. The Wyden amendment is going to pass. So get over it. The 
bill is going to go back to the House. It is not going to die there. 
They will do something with it. They may send it back to us in that 
same form or some different form. But for Republicans who have said: I 
understand the importance of doing something in a lameduck session, and 
we know we need to be compelled to do that but I just can't do it, 
well, you can.
  For the folks, our Republican friends who say: I don't like that 
pension smoothing at all, the idea of mucking with people's pensions in 
order to fund something entirely unrelated--and that is building roads, 
highways, bridges, and transit systems--well, you do not have to do 
that. You can use an honest pay-for, an honest set-aside, and feel good 
about doing that.
  We are going to be here, maybe, Friday night, December 19, and if we 
have provided $11 billion to carry us to fund programs through the end 
of next May, I promise you, if we have not worked out a 6-year 
transportation funding plan by December 19, that Friday night, we are 
going to be gathered right here and people will say: What are we doing 
here? It is almost Christmas. I want to go home or go somewhere to be 
with my family. We have money to run these programs until the end of 
May, so let's just kick the can down the road and come back a little 
bit before May and we will do it then.
  One problem with that: We did something like that 5 years ago, and we 
did it again and again and again and again--11 times. This will be the 
12th time we do it.
  Why am I concerned we will do it again?
  I say to Senator Durbin, let me ask, what did Albert Einstein say 
about the definition of ``insanity''? He said: It is the notion that we 
are going to do things the same way we have always done them and we get 
a better result or a different result. We will not. We will do it 
again.
  All over this country, State and local governments, mayors, 
Governors, people who build roads, people who run contracting 
companies, the truckers,

[[Page S5036]]

all kinds of people are saying to us one message: Do your job. Our job 
is to provide transportation infrastructure. Do it in a time-
responsible way so that States and local governments that have these 
programs, that have them on the drawing boards can build them or the 
ones that are underway, they want to complete them.
  We can help them do that. We can do that by voting for the Carper-
Corker-Boxer amendment.
  Let me close with another great quote from another great guy who used 
to criticize this place, Mark Twain. He was always saying bad things 
about the Congress, even then when he was around. But one of the things 
he said is relevant today. Here is what he said: When in doubt, do what 
is right. You will confound your enemies and amaze your friends.

  I will just say to my Republican colleagues, especially: We love you. 
We want you to join us in doing what is right, and you will confound 
your enemies and you will amaze your friends, and not only that, you 
will do the right thing for our country, strengthen our economic 
recovery, do what we are supposed to do, providing strong 
transportation infrastructure for this Nation.
  The people of this country are counting on us. Let's not let them 
down.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, in just a short time we are going to have 
some votes--five--and we have been very lackadaisical. We have waited 
for people to come here to vote for up to 25, sometimes 30 minutes. We 
are not going to do it. We have first a 15-minute vote, and then we 
have four 10-minute votes, and we are going to cut off the time. We 
will have the 5-minute period we always have at the end of these votes, 
but, everyone, there is no excuse. It is not fair to everybody to wait 
around here while you are doing whatever you are doing. It is impolite, 
and it is not courteous, and we need to move things along. People have 
things to do tonight. So when we finish the speeches, we are going to 
move to the voting, and we are going to stick to the times. So, 
everybody, there are no excuses. Everybody should understand that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I will be brief in support of the 
amendment by the Senator from Utah to devolve highway trust fund 
spending to the States. I want to correct something that was said 
earlier. It was said that all money would be devolved to the States and 
it would be up to the States to maintain the Interstate Highway System. 
That is not the case.
  This amendment is similar to many that have been submitted over the 
years, myself included. I have submitted some in the House to do this 
very thing.
  I think we can all agree that the highway trust fund is in need of a 
major overall. Since 2008, we have taken, I think, $53 billion from the 
general fund to replenish the highway trust fund because cars have 
better gas mileage, and when we have recessions, less driving is done 
and less money goes into the trust fund, and we are trying to make that 
up now.
  In the future, it simply is not going to meet the need out there. So 
we have got to do something to make sure we get more bang for the buck 
for highway spending. One way to do that is to allow States greater 
flexibility to use these moneys and give the States those 
responsibilities as well. When you do that, you can increase the bang 
for the buck. When you look at what a lot of the money is now spent 
on--the Federal money--instead of putting it toward highways, it is 
diverted to mass transit, bike paths, ferry boats, streetscaping, and 
countless other projects that are, at best, very local in nature and, 
at worst, very wasteful.
  The States generally have a better idea of what their needs are and 
are better stewards of taxpayer money in that respect. I have been told 
that if you build two bridges--if a State has two bridges to be built, 
they are next to each other across the same river and about the same 
location, if you build one with Federal funds and one with State funds, 
the one with Federal funds will cost you about 20 percent more, when 
you take into account the Davis-Bacon requirements and other mandates 
and lengthy approval processes. So States simply get a lot more bang 
for the buck. If we want highway dollars to go farther, we ought to do 
this.
  In an issue brief by Common Good, it states, ``The environmental 
review process has grown onerous and expensive, adding years to the 
length of infrastructure projects without improving environmental 
outcomes.'' That is another thing that Federal laws require oftentimes 
is lengthy environmental reviews.
  We can correct a lot of this by devolving some of these 
responsibilities to the States. I think the Lee amendment goes a long 
way toward doing that.
  I want to say that I appreciate some of the amendments that are being 
brought forward today. Some of them are a lot less gimmicky than we are 
used to dealing with on the highway trust fund. But the Lee amendment 
is one that actually deals with the highway trust fund long term and 
offers a long-term solution to the problem of not enough money in the 
fund and misplaced priorities with some of the spending.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise to address the highway funding 
issue we are discussing today. Four or five years ago, Tom Brokaw wrote 
a book called ``The Greatest Generation.'' He was talking about the 
generation that sacrificed--I repeat sacrificed--on our behalf. They 
struggled through the Depression, they fought World War II. Then when 
it was over, they paid the debt from World War II and built the 
Interstate Highway System. I hate to think what Tom Brokaw would call 
the book written about our generation, which has, in effect, rebuilt 
the World War II debt, which we are passing on to our children. We 
cannot even keep the Interstate Highway System fixed. This is shameful.
  I am here to support the Carper-Boxer-Corker amendment, because it 
forces us to deal with it in this Congress. It is not going to be any 
easier to deal with next May. Let's get it done. We have the answers. 
We know what we have to do. The highway system is a pay-as-you-go 
system. The problem is, now we are going more than we are paying. The 
gasoline tax has not been raised since 1993, 21 years ago. But the cost 
of maintaining the highways, of course, has been raised precipitously.
  Not fixing infrastructure is debt. A lot of people around here talk 
about debt, and we are worried about the debt we are passing on to our 
children. I am worried about it too, but I want to make the point that 
if you do not fix a bridge or do not fix a highway or do not fix an 
airport, that is debt too because our children are going to have fix 
them. When they get around to it, they are going to have to pay more 
for it.
  Senator Corker used the term ``generational theft.'' That is what it 
is. Our generation is giving ourselves tax cuts borrowing the money to 
pay for those tax cuts, and our kids are going to have to pay it. That 
is not a tax cut, that is a shift of a tax from us to our children and 
our grandchildren. It is wrong.
  To think that generation went through the Depression, fought World 
War II, paid for World War II, and then built the Interstate Highway 
System in the 1950s and 1960s, and then we cannot even keep it paved, 
and we have rebuilt the debt from World War II with nothing much to 
show for it, is unconscionable.
  There are a lot of problems we deal with here that are hard and 
complicated. I deal with, on Armed Services and Intelligence, some very 
complicated problems that are troubling and difficult to figure the 
right thing to do. This one is simple: Pay your bills. It could not be 
more straightforward. Pay your bills. If you want to drive on the 
highways, have the potholes filled, we have to pay for it. To delay 
this into next May is just that much easier, and then we are going to 
start talking about Presidential campaigns and other campaigns and 2016 
is going to be coming up. There are always reasons not to do it.
  This is the 11th time we have punted on this issue. This is what the 
American public is sick and tired of. They are sick and tired of us not 
doing our basic job. There could not be a more

[[Page S5037]]

basic job than fixing and paying for and maintaining your 
infrastructure. So I hope we can pass this amendment.
  Yes, it is going to go back to the House. The House has said: Well, 
we are not going to accept it. But let's see. Let's put something good 
over there, shorten the time, get to it this year, in December, 
November or December, and let's solve it. It is not going to be any 
easier to solve in May. I would argue it would probably be harder.
  I think it is time for us to start talking straight to the American 
people and say: We have to pay our bills. That is what this amendment 
and that is what this bill is all about. I want that book to talk about 
another greatest generation, not the worst generation that just passed 
all the bills on to our kids.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this debate has shown the urgency of 
moving on both a short-term patch for funding transportation and a 
long-term solution. Senator Hatch and I, with the first amendment, 
offer a bipartisan path forward. We take ideas from the other Chamber. 
We take ideas from both parties. We take ideas that both sides can 
build on for the long term, as Chairwoman Boxer has recommended.
  There are important differences between the other body and the 
Senate. The other Chamber overuses pension smoothing. That creates two 
problems rather than solving one: They ignore the issue of tax 
compliance. That has always been bipartisan--paying taxes on taxes 
owed. Not tax hikes, not increases, not jacking revenues through the 
stratosphere, paying taxes on what is owed.
  The other body abandons important bipartisan initiatives, initiatives 
from Senator Burr and Senator Bennet to promote natural gas vehicles; 
from Senator Isakson and Senator Nelson to protect earned pension 
rights; and Senators Bennet and Crapo to make sure we can deliver water 
to farmers across the Nation. The American Farm Bureau has endorsed 
this amendment.
  The other body is saying: It is our way or no highway. I would ask 
colleagues, is that what we are sent here to the Senate to do, that we 
accept every dotted I and every crossed T from the other body and say 
that is just fine?
  Colleagues, we talk about regular order. How is it regular order to 
be a rubberstamp for the other body?
  This is going to be done this week. That is nonnegotiable. This bill 
will be finished this week. What should be negotiable is that the 
Senate and the other body should have a chance to work out differences. 
Working that out is as much a part of regular order as voting on 
amendments. So let's vote to be the Senate, and not have the other body 
dictate that it is either their way or no highway.
  I urge my colleagues strongly to support the first amendment. It is a 
bipartisan amendment from Senator Hatch and me. It passed with virtual 
unanimity in the finance committee.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Have the votes been set for a certain time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired except for the 2 minutes 
before the vote on the Wyden amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, if Senator Wyden would like this time, I 
think that would be really appropriate to sum it up in the 1 minute we 
have. If there is an opposition person, they can speak. I think the 
Senator should sum it up in 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as Senator Hatch and I--very briefly--
offer a bipartisan amendment, it is a bipartisan amendment based on the 
ideas from both bodies. It reflects the fact that we have tried to come 
up with an approach we can finish this week that does not overuse 
pension smoothing, that ensures we comply with our tax laws, and 
includes bipartisan initiatives that promote natural gas vehicles, help 
our farmers, and ensure that earned pension rights are protected.
  The other body offers what amounts to our way or no highway. We offer 
a bipartisan alternative. I hope all of my colleagues will support it. 
It is the first vote at hand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3582.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Blunt
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Fischer
     Flake
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Alexander
     Roberts
     Schatz
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3583

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to the 
vote on the Carper amendment.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, let me say to our Republican colleagues, 
this bill is going back to the House. We can send it back to the House 
correcting what I think is a misguided approach on pension smoothing. 
We can knock out that $3 billion pension smoothing. We can set a 
dynamic that will ensure we do something this year--that we do our jobs 
this year and get it done.
  Across the country, AAA, American Trucking Associations, Governors, 
Senators, want us to do our job and finish it this year. Let's vote yes 
on the Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment and do our job this year.
  I yield for the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, to my colleagues, we are now on the 
Senate Finance Committee bill. There is one major flaw in this bill. It 
has $2.8 billion worth of pension smoothing. This amendment does away 
with that. What it means is it would be a better bill, but we would 
also have to solve this problem.
  We have had 11 short-term reauthorizations of the highway bill. It is 
unbelievable. We have had five general transfers such as this, which is 
nothing but generational theft. So what this amendment will do is cause 
us to do our job by year-end.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote. I thank our cosponsors and hope this amendment 
will pass.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page S5038]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Coburn
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Ayotte
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Fischer
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Alexander
     Roberts
     Schatz
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3584

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Lee amendment.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, the amendment we are about to consider 
would empower States to collect and spend on the transportation 
infrastructure they need. We have a desperate need within our 
transportation infrastructure system that is not being satisfied by our 
current Federal system, one that has been bloated over the years and 
has centralized too much power within Washington, DC. This has resulted 
in gridlock within our transportation infrastructure projects. We 
increased the Federal gasoline tax by 460 percent between 1982 and 
1994. Instead of using that to back up and secure the Federal highway 
trust fund, we instead overreached. We instead expanded dramatically 
the power of the Federal Government and the expenses we incur.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this measure which would 
reempower States and move our interests further in the 21st century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to speak to Senators for a minute 
and tell Members this amendment is the end of the Federal highway 
system. The States oppose it.
  My friend from Utah gave a very impassioned speech earlier in which 
he essentially said: Free the States. Let them be free. But the States 
oppose this amendment. The American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials strongly oppose it and so does the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Associations, American 
Society of Civil Engineers, the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel 
Association. The fact is it would result in an immediate 80-percent cut 
to our States at a time when we still have 700,000 unemployed 
construction workers and thousands of businesses that are waiting--just 
waiting--to rebuild the infrastructure.
  I hope Members will vote no on this radical amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 246 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Ayotte
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--69

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Alexander
     Roberts
     Schatz
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 3585

  There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote on the Toomey 
amendment.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, in 2011 the Federal Highway 
Administration estimated the average transportation project in America 
takes 79 months to go through the National Environmental Policy Act 
review process--6\1/2\ years to get permission to build a road or a 
bridge. Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, recognized the problem 
and suggested an amendment. The amendment simply says if a bridge or a 
road is damaged or destroyed by a declared natural disaster or 
emergency and we rebuild the bridge or road in the exact same place, 
with the same footprint, the same dimensions--everything is the same--
then we don't have to go through the entire environmental permitting 
process again. This would save a lot of time and money and allow us to 
maintain our roads and bridges.
  I know my friends on the other side think this problem was solved. It 
was not solved. The Department of Transportation can exclude certain 
projects, but can choose not to, and does not have the discretion to 
provide an exclusion for the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and 
Wildlife Service--the very reviews that take the most time and cost the 
most money. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this issue was dealt with in MAP-21 in 
the committee. My friend from Pennsylvania talks about using regular 
order, and we did. We had a very serious debate and we had many 
different views and we compromised, and there is an expedited process 
to deal with replacement facilities. It is in MAP-21. It deals with a 
way to get this done.
  The problem with the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania is it 
totally eliminates all of the protections that are in the law. It 
eliminates all of the protections under the Clean Water Act and under 
the NEPA process.

[[Page S5039]]

  We handled this in the committee. It was bipartisan. It was done. 
There is no need for this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Alexander
     Roberts
     Schatz
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on passage of H.R. 5021, as amended.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I yield back time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 248 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Burr
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Flake
     Hatch
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Alexander
     Roberts
     Schatz
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, 
the bill, H.R. 5021, as amended, is passed.

                          ____________________