[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4809-4814]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mr. Alexander):
  S. 695. A bill to require the use of electronic on-board recording 
devices in motor carriers to improve compliance with hours of service 
regulations; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce 
legislation with Senator Alexander of Tennessee that I believe will 
have a dramatic impact on the safety of our Nation's highways and 
interstates, called the Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act. 
This bill will require the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration FMCSA, to implement regulations requiring 
the use of electronic on-board recording devices, EOBRs, for motor 
carriers in order to improve compliance with Hours-of-Service, HOS, 
regulations. Requiring the use of these technologies in motor carriers 
will not only improve compliance with HOS regulations, but it will also 
reduce the number of fatigued commercial motor vehicle drivers on the 
road. This will have a profound impact on highway safety and reduce 
accidents and fatalities on our highways and interstates.
  Hours-of-Service regulations place limits on when and how long 
commercial motor vehicle drivers may drive. These regulations are based 
on an exhaustive scientific review and are designed to ensure truck 
drivers get the necessary rest to drive safely. In developing HOS 
rules, the FMCSA reviewed existing fatigue research and worked with 
nongovernmental organizations like the Transportation Research Board of 
the National Academies and the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety. HOS regulations are designed to continue the downward trend in 
truck driving fatalities and maintain motor carrier operational 
efficiencies.
  Unfortunately, compliance with HOS regulations is often spotty due to 
inaccurate reporting by drivers as they are only required to fill out a 
paper log, a tracking method that dates back to the 1930s. Inaccurate 
reporting may result from an honest mistake or an intentional error by 
a driver seeking to extend his work day. These inaccuracies can lead to 
too much time on the road, leaving the driver fatigued and placing 
other drivers at risk. After listening to the many interest groups and 
experts on this issue in meetings and Commerce, Science and 
Transportation Committee hearings, I have come to learn that there is 
an available and affordable twenty-first-century technology that can 
ensure accurate logs,

[[Page 4810]]

enhance compliance, and reduce the number of fatigued drivers on the 
road. They are being used today, and they are producing results. I 
believe that widespread utilization of these devices as soon as 
possible will significantly reduce further loss of life resulting from 
driver fatigue.
  Our legislation will require motor carriers to install in their 
trucks an electronic device that performs multiple tasks to ensure 
compliance with HOS regulations. These devices must be engaged to the 
truck engine control module and capable of identifying the driver 
operating the truck, recording a driver's duty status, and monitoring 
the location and movement of the vehicle. Requiring electronic log 
books that are integrally connected to the vehicle engine as this bill 
requires will dramatically increase the accuracy of information 
submitted for hours of service compliance. Our bill will also require 
these recording devices to be tamper resistant and fully accessible by 
law enforcement personnel and Federal safety regulators only for 
purposes of enforcement and compliance reviews.
  While I understand that some drivers may be reluctant to transition 
to electronic logging devices, I strongly believe that the safety 
benefits of the use of these devices far outweigh the costs. I don't 
want to see more lives lost due to driver fatigue resulting from log 
book manipulation. I also believe that with the rapid development of 
electronic technology, especially in the wireless telecommunications 
area, we will see strong competition among EOBR manufacturers and 
reduced costs for these technologies. In addition, the price of these 
products should go down as the demand increases through regulatory 
requirement to utilize this equipment.
  Senator Alexander and I are not alone in calling for this technology 
to be more widely used by commercial vehicles. There are a number of 
Senators, including Senator Lautenberg, who have long been strong 
proponents of implementing the use of this technology. In addition, 
multiple Federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations have 
recognized the benefits of this technology and called for its 
widespread use.
  For example, Mr. Francis France of the Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance stated at the April 28, 2010, Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation hearing on Oversight of Motor Carrier 
Safety Efforts that,

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

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

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

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

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

  I have also heard from Administrator Ferro of the FMCSA on her 
thoughts of how EOBRs would enhance compliance and improve highway 
safety. The FMCSA recently implemented a rule to require that these 
devices be mandated for truck drivers and trucking companies that have 
been found to be noncompliant with FMCSA rules. These rules will be 
effective in June 2012. It is my understanding that the FMCSA is 
looking to expand these requirements to include more motor carriers, 
and I support those efforts as they reflect the qualities and intent of 
this legislation.
  Finally, in addition to the support from safety advocates and federal 
transportation safety officials, I have also heard from a number of 
Arkansas trucking companies currently utilizing this technology. These 
companies have experienced reductions in driver fatigue, increases in 
compliance, and reductions in insurance premiums. The executives of 
these companies, which include J.B. Hunt and Maverick U.S.A. among 
others, support the expanded use of these devices to increase 
compliance, improve highway safety, and level the playing field among 
the industry. I agree with their views on the importance of widespread 
utilization of this safety and compliance device.
  The Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act, if enacted, will 
require the Department of Transportation to issue regulations within 
eighteen months from enactment to require commercial motor vehicles 
used in interstate commerce to be equipped with electronic onboard 
recorders for purposes of improving compliance with hours of service 
regulations. The regulation will apply to commercial motor carriers, 
commercial motor vehicles, and vehicle operators subject to both hours 
of service and record of duty status requirements three years after the 
date of enactment of this Act. This population represents a vast 
majority of drivers and carriers who operate trucks weighing 10,001 
pounds or more involved in interstate commerce. It will cover one 
hundred percent of over-the-road, long-haul truck drivers.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to recognize the importance of 
this technology in saving lives on our nation's highways and 
interstates. I also ask for their support for this legislation and help 
in moving it to the President as quickly as possible. It is my hope 
that we move this legislation through the Senate no later than the 
Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation that the Senate will 
take up in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Rockefeller, and 
        Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 699. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to carry out a 
program to demonstrate the commercial application of integrated systems 
for long-term geological storage of carbon dioxide, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Department of Energy 
Carbon Capture and Sequestration Program Amendments Act of 2011, along 
with Senators Barrasso, Rockefeller and Murkowski. It is critical that 
we work toward reducing our greenhouse gas footprint while producing 
safe and secure, clean energy here in America. I believe this bill will 
go far to incentivize early project developers to start reducing carbon 
dioxide emissions through carbon capture and geologic sequestration.
  This bipartisan bill establishes a national program through the 
Department of Energy to facilitate up to 10 commercial-scale carbon 
capture and sequestration projects. There is a clear need to address 
both the issues of liability and adequate project financing for early-
mover projects. The program in this bill is a strong step to building 
confidence for project developers demonstrating that the projects will 
be conducted safely while addressing the growing concerns of reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities, such as coal and 
natural gas power plants, cement plants, refineries and other carbon 
intensive industrial processes. Such an early movers program will go 
far also assisting project developers and regulators to better 
understand and characterize any risks which may be associated with 
long-term geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide.
  In addition, this legislation maps out a clear framework for long-
term assurance for geological storage sites. It is essential to 
consider the issue of safe, long-term storage of carbon dioxide and 
take the steps needed for site stewardship during the injection phase, 
directly after site closure and for long-term preventative maintenance 
of the geologic storage facility.
  Many stakeholders associate maintenance issues with liability 
concerns. In my view, these are two separate issues. Maintenance is 
essential for reducing risk and limiting liabilities at a storage site, 
and it is critical to have robust monitoring, accounting, and 
verification of an injected carbon dioxide plume at each of the storage 
sites

[[Page 4811]]

that would continue well past site closure. With a proper site 
maintenance program developed for each project, risk will be minimized 
and developers will have greater confidence that liabilities will not 
be incurred. This legislation will require science-based monitoring and 
verification of the injected carbon dioxide plume throughout the life 
of the project to well beyond the closure phase. This bill is 
consistent with the current efforts to provide a strong regulatory 
framework for safe geologic storage of carbon dioxide through the 
Underground Injection Control Program under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act.
  As carbon capture and sequestration projects grow in both scale and 
number, there will be an increasing need to train qualified regulators 
to oversee the permitting, operation, and closure of geologic storage 
sites. This bill also creates a grant program whose goal is to train 
personnel at State agencies which will oversee the regulatory aspects 
of geologic storage of carbon dioxide.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 699

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. LARGE-SCALE CARBON STORAGE PROGRAM.

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

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

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Industrial source.--The term `industrial source' 
     means any source of carbon dioxide that is not naturally 
     occurring.
       ``(2) Large-scale.--The term `large-scale' means the 
     injection of over 1,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year 
     from industrial sources into a geological formation.
       ``(3) Secretary concerned.--The term `Secretary concerned' 
     means--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the 
     Chief of the Forest Service), with respect to National Forest 
     System land; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to land 
     managed by the Bureau of Land Management (including land held 
     for the benefit of an Indian tribe).
       ``(b) Program.--In addition to the research, development, 
     and demonstration program authorized by section 963, the 
     Secretary shall carry out a program to demonstrate the 
     commercial application of integrated systems for the capture, 
     injection, monitoring, and long-term geological storage of 
     carbon dioxide from industrial sources.
       ``(c) Authorized Assistance.--In carrying out the program, 
     the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements to 
     provide financial and technical assistance to up to 10 
     demonstration projects.
       ``(d) Project Selection.--The Secretary shall competitively 
     select recipients of cooperative agreements under this 
     section from among applicants that--
       ``(1) provide the Secretary with sufficient geological site 
     information (including hydrogeological and geophysical 
     information) to establish that the proposed geological 
     storage unit is capable of long-term storage of the injected 
     carbon dioxide, including--
       ``(A) the location, extent, and storage capacity of the 
     geological storage unit at the site into which the carbon 
     dioxide will be injected;
       ``(B) the principal potential modes of geomechanical 
     failure in the geological storage unit;
       ``(C) the ability of the geological storage unit to retain 
     injected carbon dioxide; and
       ``(D) the measurement, monitoring, and verification 
     requirements necessary to ensure adequate information on the 
     operation of the geological storage unit during and after the 
     injection of carbon dioxide;
       ``(2) possess the land or interests in land necessary for--
       ``(A) the injection and storage of the carbon dioxide at 
     the proposed geological storage unit; and
       ``(B) the closure, monitoring, and long-term stewardship of 
     the geological storage unit;
       ``(3) possess or have a reasonable expectation of obtaining 
     all necessary permits and authorizations under applicable 
     Federal and State laws (including regulations); and
       ``(4) agree to comply with each requirement of subsection 
     (e).
       ``(e) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall condition 
     receipt of financial assistance pursuant to a cooperative 
     agreement under this section on the recipient agreeing to--
       ``(1) comply with all applicable Federal and State laws 
     (including regulations), including a certification by the 
     appropriate regulatory authority that the project will comply 
     with Federal and State requirements to protect drinking water 
     supplies;
       ``(2) in the case of industrial sources subject to the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), inject only carbon 
     dioxide captured from industrial sources in compliance with 
     that Act;
       ``(3) comply with all applicable construction and operating 
     requirements for deep injection wells;
       ``(4) measure, monitor, and test to verify that carbon 
     dioxide injected into the injection zone is not--
       ``(A) escaping from or migrating beyond the confinement 
     zone; or
       ``(B) endangering an underground source of drinking water;
       ``(5) comply with applicable well-plugging, post-injection 
     site care, and site closure requirements, including--
       ``(A)(i) maintaining financial assurances during the post-
     injection closure and monitoring phase until a certificate of 
     closure is issued by the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) promptly undertaking remediation activities for any 
     leak from the geological storage unit that would endanger 
     public health or safety or natural resources; and
       ``(B) complying with subsection (f);
       ``(6) comply with applicable long-term care requirements;
       ``(7) maintain financial protection in a form and in an 
     amount acceptable to--
       ``(A) the Secretary;
       ``(B) the Secretary with jurisdiction over the land; and
       ``(C) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; and
       ``(8) provide the assurances described in section 
     963(c)(4)(B).
       ``(f) Post Injection Closure and Monitoring Elements.--In 
     assessing whether a project complies with site closure 
     requirements under subsection (e)(5), the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall determine whether the recipient of 
     financial assistance has demonstrated continuous compliance 
     with each of the following over a period of not less than 10 
     consecutive years after the plume of carbon dioxide has 
     stabilized within the geologic formation that comprises the 
     geologic storage unit following the cessation of injection 
     activities:
       ``(1) The estimated location and extent of the project 
     footprint (including the detectable plume of carbon dioxide 
     and the area of elevated pressure resulting from the project) 
     has not substantially changed and is contained within the 
     geologic storage unit.
       ``(2) The injection zone formation pressure has ceased to 
     increase following cessation of carbon dioxide injection into 
     the geologic storage unit.
       ``(3) There is no leakage of either carbon dioxide or 
     displaced formation fluid from the geologic storage unit that 
     is endangering public health and safety, including 
     underground sources of drinking water and natural resources.
       ``(4) The injected or displaced formation fluids are not 
     expected to migrate in the future in a manner that encounters 
     a potential leakage pathway.
       ``(5) The injection wells at the site completed into or 
     through the injection zone or confining zone are plugged and 
     abandoned in accordance with the applicable requirements of 
     Federal or State law governing the wells.
       ``(g) Indemnification Agreements.--
       ``(1) Definition of liability.--In this subsection, the 
     term `liability' means any legal liability for--
       ``(A) bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death;
       ``(B) loss of or damage to property, or loss of use of 
     property; or
       ``(C) injury to or destruction or loss of natural 
     resources, including fish, wildlife, and drinking water 
     supplies.
       ``(2) Agreements.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the receipt by the Secretary of a completed application for a 
     demonstration project, the Secretary may agree to indemnify 
     and hold harmless the recipient of a cooperative agreement 
     under this section from liability arising out of or resulting 
     from a demonstration project in excess of the amount of 
     liability covered by financial protection maintained by the 
     recipient under subsection (e)(7).
       ``(3) Exception for gross negligence and intentional 
     misconduct.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     not indemnify the recipient of a cooperative agreement under 
     this section from liability arising out of conduct of a 
     recipient that is grossly negligent or that constitutes 
     intentional misconduct.
       ``(4) Collection of fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall collect a fee from 
     any person with whom an agreement for indemnification is 
     executed under this subsection in an amount that is equal to 
     the net present value of payments made by the United States 
     to cover liability under the indemnification agreement.

[[Page 4812]]

       ``(B) Amount.--The Secretary shall establish, by 
     regulation, criteria for determining the amount of the fee, 
     taking into account--
       ``(i) the likelihood of an incident resulting in liability 
     to the United States under the indemnification agreement; and
       ``(ii) other factors pertaining to the hazard of the 
     indemnified project.
       ``(C) Use of fees.--Fees collected under this paragraph 
     shall be deposited in the Treasury and credited to 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       ``(5) Contracts in advance of appropriations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary The Secretary may enter into agreements of 
     indemnification under this subsection in advance of 
     appropriations and incur obligations without regard to 
     section 1341 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the `Anti-Deficiency Act'), or section 11 of title 41, 
     United States Code (commonly known as the `Adequacy of 
     Appropriations Act').
       ``(B) Limitation.--The amount of indemnification under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $10,000,000,000 (adjusted not 
     less than once during each 5-year period following the date 
     of enactment of this section, in accordance with the 
     aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index since 
     the previous adjustment under this subparagraph), in the 
     aggregate, for all persons indemnified in connection with an 
     agreement and for each project, including such legal costs as 
     are approved by the Secretary.
       ``(6) Conditions of agreements of indemnification.--
       ``(A) In general.--An agreement of indemnification under 
     this subsection may contain such terms as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to carry out the purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(B) Administration.--The agreement shall provide that, if 
     the Secretary makes a determination the United States will 
     probably be required to make indemnity payments under the 
     agreement, the Attorney General--
       ``(i) shall collaborate with the recipient of an award 
     under this subsection; and
       ``(ii) may--

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

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

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

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the Secretary of Transportation, shall 
     establish a program to provide grants for employee training 
     purposes to State and tribal agencies involved in permitting, 
     management, inspection, and oversight of carbon capture, 
     transportation, and storage projects.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to carry out 
     this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 
     through 2020.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Thune, Mr. Johnson 
        of South Dakota, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico):
  S. 703. A bill to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 703, the 
Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 
2011, otherwise known as the HEARTH Act.
  For far too long, bureaucratic red tape has prevented Indian tribes 
from pursuing economic development and homeownership opportunities on 
tribal trust lands. For many years, Indian tribes have expressed 
concerns about the Federal laws and regulations governing surface 
leases of tribal trust lands.
  The delays and uncertainties inherent in the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs' lease approval process, as well as the restrictions on the 
duration of lease terms, create serious barriers to the ability of 
tribes to plan and carry out economic development and other land use 
activities on tribal lands.
  The HEARTH Act would give Indian tribes the discretion to adopt their 
own surface leasing regulations and, once those regulations are 
approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the authority to enter into 
surface leases of tribal lands without any further approval of the 
Secretary. The HEARTH Act would provide our nation's Indian tribes with 
new tools with which to expedite the productive and beneficial use of 
their lands.
  In the 111th Congress, the Committee on Indian Affairs approved a 
very similar version of this bill but the full Senate did not act on 
the measure.
  Before I conclude, I would like to thank Senator Akaka, the 
Committee's new Chairman, for his leadership on this issue and for 
agreeing to cosponsor this bill with me. I would also like to thank 
Senators Thune, Tim Johnson, Tester, and Tom Udall for cosponsoring 
this important legislation.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to help us expand economic 
opportunity on tribal trust lands by moving S. 703 expeditiously.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today speak as an original cosponsor 
of an amendment to the Long Term Leasing Act of 1955. I am pleased to 
be an original cosponsor on this legislation which was introduced by my 
colleague on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. Barrasso.
  The Helping, Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership 
Act of 2001, also known as the HEARTH Act of 2011, amends the Long Term 
Leasing Act of 1995. That act allows tribes or individual Indians to 
lease their lands for up to 25 years for certain purposes, including 
economic development, housing, education, agricultural, and natural 
resource development. The current act requires the Secretary of the 
Interior to approve each individual lease. It can take up to 2 years 
for each lease to be approved. Often this bureaucratic delay leads to 
the loss of economic development and other opportunities for tribes.
  Since the enactment of the Nonintercourse Act of June 30, 1834, and 
predecessor statutes, land transactions with

[[Page 4813]]

Indian tribes were prohibited unless specifically authorized by 
Congress. Congress enacted the act of August 9, 1955, commonly known as 
the Long-Term Leasing Act to overcome the prohibitions contained in the 
Nonintercourse Act. The Long-Term Leasing Act permitted some land 
transactions between Indian tribes and non-Federal parties--
specifically, the leasing of Indian lands. The act required that leases 
of Indian lands be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and 
limited to terms of 25 years.
  Today, each individual lease of Indian lands still requires approval 
by the Secretary of the Interior. The HEARTH Act of 2011, would allow 
each tribe to develop its own leasing regulations. Those regulations 
would then be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval. 
Thereafter, the tribes would be able to approve their own leases, so 
long as they are consistent with their regulations.
  This amendment to the Long-Term Leasing Act will have a significant 
impact on streamlining the leasing process for tribes. It will reduce 
delays in entering into economic development opportunities, providing 
housing and developing natural resources on Indian lands.
  I thank Mr. Barrasso for his leadership on this critical legislation. 
My cosponsors are well aware of the positive impact this legislation 
will have economic opportunities for tribes. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting the passage of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Schumer, and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 704. A bill to provide for duty-free treatment of certain 
recreational performance outerwear, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Outdoor 
Act. In the Pacific Northwest, spending time in the great outdoors is a 
part of life. Our magnificent mountains, our clear rivers and streams, 
and our majestic forests provide for a quality of life that is, in my 
view, unparalleled. Unfortunately, the outerwear that enables us to 
enjoy these wonderful treasures is more expensive than it needs to be. 
This is because under current law, the United States imposes steep 
tariffs on outdoor performance outerwear like jackets and pants used 
for skiing and snowboarding, mountaineering, hunting, fishing and 
dozens of other outdoor activities.
  These high tariffs--and let us call them what they are, taxes--were 
originally implemented to promote an import substitution policy. They 
were imposed to discourage American consumers from buying outerwear 
that was manufactured overseas, even if those were superior products. 
Today, there is no domestic outerwear industry to really protect with 
these tariffs, yet consumers are still paying through the teeth for 
products like snow pants and rain jackets. These tariffs are hammering 
the pocketbooks of millions of American consumers, and they harm the 
businesses that are engaged in promoting enjoyment of the great 
outdoors.
  But we can fix this in a way that helps American producers better 
compete globally in an environmentally sustainable manner, and relieves 
consumers of artificially high costs. But it is more than just reducing 
costs and promoting innovation.
  To me, the Outdoor Act is also about encouraging our kids and members 
of our community to get outside, to be active, and to appreciate and 
protect our natural treasures. I want to associate myself with the 
efforts of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, who is leading an important 
initiative to get people--especially kids--moving and eating healthier. 
I see the Outdoor Act, which makes getting outside to hike, bike, or 
fish more affordable as complementary of the First Lady's efforts.
  I am proud that this legislation enjoys support from both sides of 
the political aisle and especially pleased that my friend, Senator 
Crapo from Idaho, is helping to lead the charge with this initiative. 
Furthermore, I am happy that this legislation is supported by domestic 
textile and apparel companies as well as the performance outerwear 
designers and retailers. This all makes sense given that it will spur 
outdoor recreation and consumption of goods to support these 
activities. The outdoor recreation industry accounts for $730 billion 
dollars and 65 million jobs across the United States, with 73,000 jobs 
in Oregon. With this bill, we can potentially create even more jobs by 
increasing the purchasing power of consumers of outdoor goods, by 
saving them money on unnecessary tariffs.
  The U.S. OUTDOOR Act eliminates the import duty for qualifying 
recreational performance outerwear, bringing duties that can be as high 
as 28 percent down to zero. It also establishes the Sustainable Textile 
and Apparel Research, STAR, fund, which invests in U.S. technologies 
and jobs that focus on sustainable, environmentally conscious 
manufacturing, helping textile and apparel companies work towards 
minimizing their energy and water use, reducing waste and their carbon 
footprint, and incorporating efficiencies that help them better compete 
globally. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this legislation and 
to work with me to move it toward becoming law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 707. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further 
protection for puppies; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it might come as a surprise to some to 
learn that dog breeders who sell animals directly to consumers over the 
internet are not subject to any Federal regulation. Under the Animal 
Welfare Act, wholesale dog dealers have to have a Federal license and 
are subject to U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection. Wholesale dog 
dealers typically sell their puppies to retail pet stores. But the law 
exempts any ``retail pet store'' from the same licensing and inspection 
requirements, because there was a day when you bought a dog either from 
a licensed breeder or from a store, who bought their dogs from a 
licensed breeder.
  While it is not defined in statute, the exemption for retail pet 
stores has been interpreted to mean any outlet that sells dogs directly 
to the public. With the advent of the internet, many people buy puppies 
and dogs from breeders that are not licensed. There are plenty of 
responsible breeders across the country who care about and take great 
pains to properly look after the dogs in their care. But this statutory 
loophole leaves the door wide open for unscrupulous and negligent 
commercial dog breeders.
  Today, I am reintroducing the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety, or 
PUPS, Act with my colleague Senator Vitter. The PUPS Act would require 
breeders who sell more than 50 dogs a year directly to the public to 
obtain a license from the USDA.
  This licensing process is simple and inexpensive, but it allows for 
better oversight of the facilities that keep dogs to ensure that they 
are complying with minimum Federal standards.
  The media regularly reports stories about dogs rescued from 
substandard facilities--where dogs are housed in stacked wire cages and 
seriously ill and injured dogs are routinely denied access to 
veterinary care. This inhumane treatment has a direct bearing on the 
physical and mental health of the dogs. I have heard from veterinarians 
in Illinois, who share heart-breaking tales of families who welcomed 
new puppies into their homes, only to learn later that the animals had 
serious health or behavioral problems. In some cases, these puppies 
could be treated, but often at great expense to their owners.
  My bill would also require that dogs and puppies housed at all 
licensed breeding facilities have space to run around, something we all 
know dogs love to do, on a surface that is solid, or at the very least 
non-wire.
  It is my hope that extending and improving oversight of this industry 
through the PUPS Act will help protect the welfare of puppies and dogs 
in Illinois and across the country. Americans should feel confident 
about the health and well-being of the dog that they welcome into their 
family.

[[Page 4814]]


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

                          ____________________