[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 22, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3048-S3052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





          45th Anniversary of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this morning 
to recognize and commemorate the 45th anniversary of the first oil 
moving through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. We actually reached 
that milepost on Monday so I am here to speak this morning about what 
this 800-mile-long pipeline continues to mean for Alaska, our Nation, 
and really the world itself.
  TAPS, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, is truly a modern marvel. It is the 
backbone of my home State's economy. It supports great jobs for Alaska. 
It helps generate critical revenues for our State. It ensures that our 
energy is transported safely, and it really is a vital component of 
America's energy security. But I think it is kind of nice, as we 
reflect on decades past, to appreciate some of the history behind the 
Trans-Alaska Pipeline because, for a period of time, there was a 
question of whether or not this extraordinary energy infrastructure 
would be built at all.
  After oil was discovered in Prudhoe Bay, there was vigorous debate as 
to how we were going to move this resource, how we were going to 
transport it. Some wanted to use trucks or tankers; others actually 
thought that massive jets would be the way to go. There were some who 
wanted to build an overland pipeline across Canada. That would have 
been about a 3,200-mile line in length. But, thankfully, it was an all-
Alaska pipeline route that prevailed.
  So when you look at the map of Alaska and where our pipeline sits 
today, it truly does just bisect the entire State of Alaska. From 
Prudhoe to Valdez at Tidewater is an 800-mile line. Thankfully, an all-
Alaska pipeline route was the one that ultimately prevailed over all of 
the alternatives that were considered. Congress authorized it in 1973--
an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis of authorization.

  There is an interesting side story--it is actually not a side story; 
it is pretty pivotal--in terms of whether or not this Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline actually came into being. But it was a tie-breaking vote cast 
by Spiro Agnew that really helped to facilitate the line because it 
effectively determined that there would be no further litigation about 
the line moving forward.
  The preconstruction process for TAPS lasted for about 6 years, mostly 
concurrent with the final passage of its authorization act; and as part 
of that, the Federal Task Force on Alaskan Oil Development--this is a 
group that we should probably be bringing back--completed a six-volume 
environmental impact statement, so a six-volume EIS.
  And that EIS, along with Congress's decision to shield TAPS from 
litigation--again, this tie-breaking vote that I have alluded to--
allowed the construction to begin. So it did.
  Several companies joined together to form a joint venture, called 
Alyeska, and they set forth to build and operate the line. And Alyeska 
ultimately acquired 515 Federal permits, along with more than 832 from 
the State of Alaska, in order to proceed.
  Now, at that time, TAPS was the largest private construction project 
of its kind. It had a pricetag of more than $8 billion. In October of 
1975, more than 28,000 people were working to make it a reality, and 
together they turned over 100,000 pieces of 40- to 60-foot pipe in a

[[Page S3049]]

48-inch diameter that runs from, again, Prudhoe to Valdez in the south 
central part of our State.
  I have had many opportunities to show visitors our Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline. If you look at it from the air, it is just this silver 
ribbon, again, that bisects the State. You look at it from the ground, 
and, again, it is truly, truly an engineering marvel.
  Now, I saw an old criticism that TAPS was an ``engineer's 
nightmare.'' The occupant of the Chair here might be interested in this 
given your background, but, in reality, it is a testament, truly, to 
world-class engineering and the genius, the creativity, and the 
pioneering spirit of all who worked on it.
  TAPS crosses three mountain ranges, including Atigun Pass in the 
Brooks Range that has an elevation of 4,739 feet. It reaches a grade of 
55 degrees at Thompson Pass in the Chugach Range. It crosses more than 
530 streams and rivers. It accommodates some 579 animal crossings. And 
it operates at temperatures ranging from 95 degrees above zero to 80 
degrees below zero, and that is not counting the windchill factor.
  And when you are talking about Alaska, of course, you have got to 
account for seismic activity. So TAPS' engineers also had to account 
for that. You have got mountain ranges. You have got extreme weather. 
You have got animals, wildlife that you have to accommodate. You have 
the rivers, the streams, but you also have to accommodate seismic 
hazard.
  The pipeline crosses three fault lines, including the Denali Fault. 
In that area, engineers built the pipeline on slider beams with Teflon 
shoes. So if you look at these supports here, these vertical support 
pillars here and the slider beams are on Teflon shoes that allow the 
pipeline to move laterally up to 20 feet--up to 20 feet laterally--and 
up to 5 feet vertically. So this pipeline can absorb the give-and-take 
and the hard shake of a significant earthquake.
  And it is pretty important that the engineers worked this into this 
extraordinary infrastructure. We had a magnitude 7.9 earthquake that 
struck in 2002 right on that Denali Fault. The pipeline handled it 
well. It remained intact, and it did exactly what the engineers 
designed it to do: It moved back and forth on these lateral supports. 
It moved up and down, and it allowed that pipeline, that piece of steel 
pipeline, to have the flex that it needed to avoid any--any--issues.
  The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was built in just over 3 years. This 
was between 1974 and 1977. I was a young person growing up in Fairbanks 
at the time, and that was a time and place of great energy and 
intensity as we were involved in this extraordinary oil construction 
boom. And the men and women who were working on the project at that 
time had this saying: ``They just didn't know that it couldn't be 
done.'' And they not only met their goal of first oil moving through 
the pipeline by July 1, 1977; they beat it by 10 days.
  And the rest, they say, is history. Over the past 45 years, TAPS has 
not just been a pipeline, not just oil pipeline infrastructure; it has 
become Alaska's economic lifeline. I say it is like the artery for our 
State. It has helped us create jobs to the point where our oil and gas 
industry either employs or supports about one-third of Alaska's 
workforce. It has generated billions of dollars in revenues for our 
State--for everything from roads and schools to essential services.
  TAPS has allowed us to create and now grow our Permanent Fund. This 
Permanent Fund has really turned our oil resources into an enduring 
source of prosperity for Alaskans. We not only have a Permanent Fund, 
but spun off from that Permanent Fund and the investment on those 
earnings are dividends that are returned to each and every Alaskan in 
this State. If you lived in Alaska from 1982, when they first started 
the dividends, until today, you would have received nearly $45,000 in 
annual dividends that go to offset the high cost of living in a high-
cost State like Alaska. This year, Alaskans are set to receive a pretty 
hefty Permanent Fund dividend: more than $3,000 more.
  So it has been an economic benefit, most certainly, to Alaskans. It 
has also enabled us to keep our State tax burden low. We have no income 
tax in the State. We have no statewide sales tax. We have the lowest 
gas tax in the country.
  As the economist Scott Goldsmith has noted, revenues from TAPS also 
enable us to keep taxes on other industries like our tourism, our 
fisheries--it allows us to keep those taxes lower than they might 
otherwise be.
  But really, from day one, TAPS has strengthened our energy security. 
And when I talk about energy security, I am referring not just to the 
security of those of us in Alaska but to our Nation's energy security. 
It helped tide America over during the 1979 oil crisis. It has 
insulated us from OPEC and OPEC Plus and lessened our dependence on 
nations that do not share our interests, and it has dramatically 
reduced the dollars that go overseas to purchase oil.
  It has certainly provided reliable and affordable energy for tens of 
millions of Americans up and down the west coast because it is the west 
coast where Alaskan oil is primarily directed.
  But it is hard to imagine Alaska without TAPS, without the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System. It is hard also to imagine the consequences 
that America would have faced without the 18.4 billion barrels of oil 
that it has now safely moved over these past 45 years. And I think it 
is no exaggeration to say that while we built a pipeline, that pipeline 
has helped us build our State.
  And in the midst of all this--something that the folks at Alyeska 
Pipeline are very, very proud of--Alyeska has accrued a remarkable 
safety record. From 2017 through 2020, the company reported a total of 
just 5.1 barrels of oil as spilled. Yet over that same time period, 
from 2017 to 2020, more than 733 million barrels of oil have moved 
through TAPS. So not 1 in every 1 million gallons, not 1 in every 10 
million gallons, not even 1 in every 100 million gallons was spilled 
during this time period. That is a pretty darn good record. And that is 
something that Alyeska can be proud of, and I think it speaks to the 
kind of company that it is.
  And, at its core, the reason why TAPS has been successful are its 
people. They focus on safety first. There are more than 700 people who 
work directly for Alyeska on the North Slope, at the pump stations, at 
its Anchorage control center, and in Valdez. And you are probably not 
going to find a more dedicated group. They are just so committed to 
their mission, and it certainly makes me proud to know that 95 percent 
of those who work at Alyeska are Alaskans.
  TAPS is an economic engine for our State. But as we are standing here 
in 2022 celebrating its 45th anniversary, the fact of the matter is, 
this pipeline faces a real challenge. TAPS' technical capacity is 2 
million barrels per day. We have achieved that years ago. But right 
now--right now--the pipeline is moving just a quarter of that. They are 
moving about 500,000 barrels a day. So what that means is that the line 
is about three-quarters empty, and that can create some difficult 
operational challenges.
  We have had many of the briefings about what it means when you have a 
pipeline that isn't completely full. The throughput moves slower. And 
when you have hot oil coming out of the ground in an arctic 
environment, moving 800 miles through a cold piece of steel, if it 
doesn't move quickly and it is allowed to cool down, it can build up 
waxy buildup on the inside that needs to be scrubbed and cleaned. We 
call it pigging. It is just an operational thing. Alyeska deals with 
it, but it is something that is an issue.
  When you have less than full throughput, it moves differently. So 
when you are going up mountain ranges and down the other side, now what 
happens as you see that pipeline, which is designed to flex, when you 
don't have your full operational capacity? And Alyeska has been working 
to work through some of these challenges, and they have been doing a 
good job.
  But in fairness, this is not Alyeska's fault here. If you want to 
know why TAPS is a quarter full, you can probably look to some people 
in this Chamber, some who have been serving in this Chamber before. You 
can look down the street to Pennsylvania Avenue at the current 
administration as well as some who preceded the Biden administration.

[[Page S3050]]

  We have the resources--Alaska has the resources to fill TAPS up. What 
we have lacked is access to our lands, access to our leases, and access 
to the permits to help make this a reality. And this is despite various 
Presidents telling Alaskans that, look, you are going to be able to 
develop your resources. They say it, and the promises are broken over 
and over and over again. And it continues to this day.
  The Biden administration is breaking the law by refusing to carry out 
the oil and gas program that Congress mandated for the non-wilderness 
1002 Area. We did that in the 2017 law.
  Millions of acres in our National Petroleum Reserve are being taken 
off the table with this administration through, effectively, 
administration whim. And with one of the best projects within the 
Petroleum Reserve right now, we are dealing with some redtape here; 
but, effectively, the excuse is that more studies need to be done. 
These are studies that have been done already, and we are being told 
you have to do them again.
  With gas prices averaging more than $5 a gallon across the Nation, it 
sure would be nice to fill up the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. It not only 
gives us more product domestically; it would certainly help us in 
Alaska. We would have more jobs in Alaska and more revenue to help us 
improve the quality of life in every community in our State, help 
offset the very high fuel costs in our State. We averaged $5 and above 
a long time before many in the lower 48 here.
  But we would also be bringing less foreign oil to the West Coast, 
including California, where imports have risen in almost direct 
proportion to our production decline. As you are seeing less oil coming 
out of Alaska to the West Coast, particularly California, they are 
getting it from somewhere, and they are bringing it in. They are 
importing that. And whether it is from countries that don't like us and 
don't really care about their environmental track record or their human 
rights issues, we get it from there.
  We would also have an alternative to Russia, which continues to sell 
its energy and bring in billions of dollars a day to finance its bloody 
war against Ukraine. And then across the Nation, you could anticipate 
that prices would be lower at the pump, which would reduce the pain 
that families and businesses are experiencing.
  I know that there is not a dial on this extraordinary energy security 
asset where we can just ramp it up, but this is an important discussion 
to be having, again, in context of what value the oil resources in 
Alaska can contribute to our country.
  And when you have in place policies that say it is not important to 
keep this thing full--even though in Alaska, you have the resources to 
keep it full--when you say it is not important and you put in place 
pressures and obstacles and barriers to increase production, you are 
going to see that. You are going to see that impact, what happens in 
this country to our supply. Right now, we are all reading about it. We 
are all watching the news.
  There is a lot that President Biden is saying that this is what we 
are going to do to bring down your gas prices, but I will go on record 
to suggest that a full TAPS would do a heck of a lot more to reduce gas 
prices than many of the other suggestions out there like price gouging 
probes and suspension of the Federal gas tax, the proposal to hand out 
gas cards. These are temporary--almost momentary--blips that might make 
somebody feel OK for a month or 2 because maybe I get a few cents more 
off the price at the pump if we have a 3-month Federal gas tax holiday 
like President Biden is suggesting. But, you know, it is not right to 
put in place--I mean, you can call it a gimmick, but are you addressing 
the fundamentals of supply and demand if you just say for a few months: 
``Here, we are going to take the pressure off you so you won't be so 
mad''? Well, people are going to continue to be so mad if it doesn't 
help alleviate the problem, if it doesn't help address the pain that 
American families are feeling.
  It is pretty simple out here. We need supply. We need supply to keep 
up with the rising demand and the falling output from around the world. 
This is where we need to wake up because it is not as if we don't have 
options. It is not as if we don't have the supply. Alaska has the 
supply right in the vicinity of a world-class pipeline that has room 
for an additional 1.5 million barrels per day.
  It is just beyond me why anyone would contemplate oil from Iran or 
Venezuela or other members of OPEC+ over a State like Alaska. It is 
just beyond me; yet that is what we hear. That is what we hear from the 
President. That is what we hear from the administration that somehow we 
have to get this resource and it is going to have to come from 
somewhere, so we are going to go asking. We are going to go asking 
outside of our country. We are going to go to Iran, Venezuela.
  The President is going to make a trip to Saudi Arabia, yet they are 
not asking Alaska to do more. In fact, they are not only not asking, 
they continue to put up impediments and barriers for us to do more, and 
that just defies logic. It degrades the environment. It makes the world 
a more dangerous place every time we look to other countries for 
resources that we need, knowing full well that we have a better 
environmental record here. We have the ability to make us less 
vulnerable, less energy-insecure, and yet we are not taking advantage 
of that.
  There is a section on Alyeska's website titled ``Memories and 
Mileposts,'' with historical information about TAPS, and I would 
suggest that it is well worth visiting and recognizing what an 
incredible asset this pipeline has been since first oil was moved 
through it on June 20, 1977. Forty-five years is a good long time, but 
even as we thank all who have made TAPS such a resounding success, I 
would encourage all of you to maybe mark your calendars for June 20, 
2027. That will be the 50th anniversary.
  I would hope that we could all be honest and realistic about our 
global energy needs in the meantime and ensure significantly greater 
throughput is running through that pipeline when we reach the next 
milepost. That would be good for Alaskans; that would be good for the 
country. I think it would be good and important for the world. And we 
know the men and women who operate TAPS at Alyeska and their 
contractors will ensure that every last molecule moves safely through 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Republican whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I just want to echo what was said by my 
colleague from Alaska because what we are now hearing from the 
administration are ideas that they think will help ease the pressure on 
gas prices in this country, but they are all gimmicky. I mean, it is 
all rebates--gas card rebates or doing away with the gas tax 
temporarily until September, like that is going to do anything 
meaningful long term to address this supply-demand crisis that the 
Senator from Alaska just alluded to.
  I have to say that this administration, from the time they came into 
office, has demonstrated an open hostility to oil and gas production in 
this country--energy production, more generally.
  The Senator from Alaska was talking about the oil pipeline. We have 
one in South Dakota--that was going to run through South Dakota--the 
Keystone XL Pipeline, which was killed the first day in office by the 
Biden administration and, again, sent signals to those who produce 
energy in this country that we are not interested in what you have to 
offer. We want to move in a different direction. And that different 
direction, of course, is electric vehicles, which I am not against. 
Everybody might want an electric vehicle. It is a free country. But the 
fact of the matter is, we will be dependent upon liquid fuels in the 
foreseeable future. Since that is the case, we ought to produce it 
right here in Alaska. We have vast resources.
  It is an issue, fundamentally, of supply and demand. As the Senator 
of Alaska pointed out, you look at Alaska, now we are talking about 
getting oil from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, from countries, other 
places around the world--in some cases run by dictators--instead of 
producing it right here in the United States of America. That is just 
tragic. It is just tragic, and the American people are paying the price 
for it.
  Why? Because in places like Alaska where we have abundant resources, 
they shut it down. They shut down

[[Page S3051]]

Federal lands. They started denying permits to drill, and they killed 
the infrastructure that supports, in many cases, energy production in 
this country.
  A pipeline, for example, is not only the most efficient, but the 
safest way to transport liquid fuels in this country. We need liquid 
fuels. We know that. It is a fact, and we have the supply--abundant 
supply is right here in the United States. All we have to do is simply 
access that. Instead, we are talking about gimmicks like rebates, gas 
card rebates or temporary suspension of the fuel tax in this country 
which, by the way, would rob the Highway Trust Fund of the resources 
that we need to build out the infrastructure in this country and to 
maintain it.
  There are just so many reasons and on so many levels why these are 
bad ideas--so bad, in fact, that Speaker Pelosi in the House of 
Representatives has previously referred to this kind of idea that the 
administration is now proposing as a gimmick and something that isn't 
going to provide long-term relief.
  It is fundamentally an issue of supply and demand, and all we simply 
have to do is turn it on. We have to get the energy producers in this 
country off the sidelines, back into the game, producing oil and gas in 
America in a way that will meet Americans' daily needs when they fill 
up their cars and trucks with gasoline at the pump, which right now 
they are being punished unnecessarily by an economy where we have 
constantly rising gas prices. The average price is around $5 
nationwide, literally a doubling of the gas price since this President 
took office. There is a direct correlation--direct correlation--connect 
the dots--to policy decisions this administration has made, which they 
are now realizing and trying to come up with these gimmicky ideas to 
try to deal with an issue that fundamentally could be fixed simply by 
sending the right signals and encouraging and incentivizing the type of 
energy production in this country that we ought to be encouraging.
  And the energy producers in this country are up to it. They will meet 
the demand if we simply give them the opportunity. That is what needs 
to change. That is what this administration needs to be focused on, not 
on shutting down gas and oil and energy production here in the United 
States.


                           Pro-Life Movement

  Mr. President, the Dobbs case will be decided by the Supreme Court in 
a matter of days now. I pray that it will be decided in favor of life 
and that Roe v. Wade, a case that even pro-abortion constitutional 
scholars criticized, will be overturned.
  But however Dobbs is decided, the work of the pro-life movement will 
continue. That work, of course, includes advocacy--attempts to change 
laws that ensure that human rights of unborn human beings are 
protected.
  But perhaps most of all, it includes the daily work of providing help 
to moms in need. Helping moms and their babies are central to the pro-
life movement. Pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life 
organizations provide a variety of resources to help women in 
challenging circumstances. They provide supplies for moms and their 
babies. They offer prenatal and parenting classes. They assist moms 
with housing. They help them connect with State and local resources, 
and they provide friendship and support and a listening ear to mom 
going through a difficult time.
  They provide agency referrals for mothers who choose to make an 
adoption plan for their babies. They provide places for moms and their 
babies to live while they complete their education or get back on their 
feet.
  During the current formula crisis, pregnancy resource centers have 
helped moms struggling to find what they need to feed their babies by 
providing them with free formula.
  You would think that helping out moms would be pretty 
uncontroversial. You would think that everyone, including individuals 
who are pro-abortion, could get behind helping a struggling mom find 
housing or access to prenatal care. But apparently the pro-abortion 
movement finds providing material help to moms in need and letting them 
know they have alternatives to abortion somehow to be pretty 
threatening.
  Pregnancy resource centers have frequently been a target of pro-
abortion politicians in the pro-abortion movement, which have sought to 
undermine their work. But things have gotten very serious in recent 
weeks. Since a draft of a possible opinion in the Dobbs case was leaked 
in May, pro-abortion extremists have conducted a campaign of vandalism 
and violence against pregnancy resource centers and churches. Just a 
few blocks away from here, one pregnancy resource center was egged and 
graffitied and had its door covered in red paint. A number of others 
have faced similar vandalism, and multiple pregnancy resource centers 
have been the victim of arson.
  A group claiming responsibility for a number of the attacks, Jane's 
Revenge, released a chilling letter last week in which it declared 
``open season'' on pregnancy centers and stated:

       We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against 
     oppressive infrastructures. Rest assured that we will, and 
     those measures may not come in the form of something so 
     easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti.

  Well, perhaps it is not entirely shocking that some members of the 
extreme abortion movement have responded to the possibility of Roe 
being overturned with vandalism, arson, and threats of further attacks.
  This wave of violence is deeply troubling, and these attacks need to 
be taken seriously. I hope Attorney General Garland is developing a 
strategy to confront this wave of vandalism and violence and to prevent 
future and more serious attacks.
  Earlier this month, I joined a number of my Republican colleagues in 
sending a letter to the Attorney General asking about his plans for 
dealing with these attacks and preventing future ones. I am 
disappointed that we have yet to receive a reply to our letter. And the 
President--not merely his spokesperson but the President himself--
should be out there strongly condemning these attacks and letting 
everyone know that violent responses to the Dobbs decision will not be 
tolerated.
  After one pregnancy resource center was vandalized, its director 
said:

       We are not going to let intimidation change what we are 
     doing. It failed. It was pretty unanimous from the volunteers 
     and staff here that this is not going to change how we will 
     do business here one bit at all.

  I know that attitude is reflected at other pregnancy resource 
centers, and I know that, despite threats of violence, the work of 
helping moms and their babies will continue.
  The work of the pro-life movement represents the best of our American 
tradition: providing a voice to the voiceless, standing up for the 
human rights of those who have been denied them, and providing a 
helping hand to neighbors in need. I am grateful to all the pro-life 
Americans standing up for the human rights of unborn human beings and 
helping moms and their babies get the resources they need, and win or 
lose at the Supreme Court, I know that work will continue.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Nomination of Mary T. Boyle

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, later this afternoon, we are going to 
vote on Mary Boyle to be a Consumer Product Safety Commissioner. This 
organization, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, works on the 
frontlines to protect consumers from dangerous and defective products, 
and Ms. Boyle's confirmation will give the Commission a full complement 
of Commissioners to complete its important work.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission is responsible for regulating 
the safety of more than 15,000 everyday products and helps keep 
hazardous products out of our homes and away from our families. The 
Agency is responsible for investigating hazards, effectuating product 
recalls, issuing and enforcing product safety standards, and informing 
consumers and manufacturers about potential dangers and how to avoid 
them. The CPSC's work literally saves lives and prevents injuries.
  We know that Ms. Boyle is well qualified for this position and that 
she will make consumers a top priority and their safety a top priority.
  Now is an important time for the Consumer Product Safety Commission

[[Page S3052]]

to be well equipped to fight for these consumer safety issues. We need 
it to remain a strong force in keeping unsafe and defective products, 
including children's toys, infant rockers, household appliances, and 
other issues in the development space, like elevators and space 
heaters, out of the market.
  When it comes to recalls, for example, this year the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission and three residential elevator manufacturers 
announced the recall of 70,000 residential elevators that posed a 
serious risk of injury and, tragically, death to small children. I am 
encouraged to see that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is taking 
action on this heartbreaking issue. There is more to be done, and we 
need a Commission that will follow through.

  The Commission is also responsible for investigating tragedies, such 
as home fires that might have been caused by defective products. In 
fact, the Consumer Product Safety Commission was quickly on the scene 
in the Bronx earlier this year when a fire from a space heater caused 
the death of 17 people, including 8 children. When I sent a letter to 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission asking them to look further into 
this issue, they acted quickly and knew that we had to investigate.
  While these investigations are still ongoing, we need assurances that 
if a defective product is found to be the cause, that the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission is going to be fully equipped to take action.
  I also want to mention with respect to the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission's rulemaking authority that the Commerce Committee recently 
passed the STURDY Act, a bill that would speed up the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission's rulemaking process to deal with furniture tipovers.
  Unfortunately, many furniture items are designed in such a way that 
they can tip if a child grabs or climbs upon them, with the potential 
of very tragic consequences. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has 
been undertaking a rulemaking to ban unsafe furniture items by imposing 
strict tipover testing requirements. I hope we will see a safety 
standard for this very soon.
  Over the course of more than a decade at the Commission, Ms. Boyle 
has worked on these issues in senior positions across the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, including as General Counsel and Deputy 
General Counsel before assuming her current role as Executive Director.
  As the Consumer Product Safety Commission's General Counsel, Ms. 
Boyle served the Agency's chief legal officer--providing legal, policy, 
and strategic advice on a multitude of regulatory, statutory, fiscal, 
litigation, and enforcement issues--and examined proposed product 
safety rules and standards. So I think she is well qualified for this 
job. She worked with the Department of Justice on Federal court 
litigation in which the Commission was involved.
  In her current role as Executive Director, she is the chief operating 
officer of the Agency, ensuring that it meets program and operational 
and administrative functions. She is more than well-versed in the 
Agency's processes and eminently qualified to hit the ground running as 
a Commissioner.
  Over 90 different organizations have written to my office in support 
of her nomination, including the AFL-CIO, the Consumer Federation of 
America, the National Consumers League, Kids in Danger, and many, many 
more organizations.
  I want to say to all my colleagues, I hope you will vote to confirm 
Ms. Boyle to ensure that the Consumer Product Safety Commission can 
move forward so that these important issues can be addressed and 
Americans can find safer products in their homes.
  I look forward to working with Ms. Boyle at a critical time for the 
Agency in making sure that these products are safe and that Americans 
are protected from dangerous and defective products.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 
today, the Senate vote on the motion to discharge the Freeman 
nomination; further, that immediately following that vote, the Senate 
vote on confirmation of the Boyle nomination as under the previous 
order; and that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate and the President be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________