[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3090-3103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1813, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1813) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and 
     highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1761, of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 1762 (to amendment No. 1761), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 1763, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 1764 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 1763), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 1765 (to amendment No. 1764), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thought I would use this opportunity 
to inform our colleagues and anyone following this transportation 
debate as to where we are.
  Yesterday, we had an opportunity to stop the filibuster and get right 
to our bill and get it done and protect 1.8 million jobs and create 
another 1 million. We didn't do that--pretty much on a party line vote. 
The filibuster continues.
  The hopeful sign we had was right before the vote when the Republican 
leader said he was open to reaching an agreement. I was hopeful that 
agreement would not contain extraneous votes. I don't think that is 
going to happen. I think we are going to face extraneous votes--to 
repeal Clean Air Act rules, to open our States to drilling that rely on 
fishing and tourism and recreation when we know the oil companies have 
millions of acres they can drill on without going to these areas that 
are so essential to our economic future just as they are to our 
environmental future. It looks as though we are going to face that and 
a vote probably on the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  Again, I am very sad we could not come together when we have a bill 
that got an 85-to-11 vote to proceed to it. We still have to face a 
filibuster and still we had to lose two votes to cut off debate. But 
the Senate, being the Senate, this is it.
  So now we have to vote. The two leaders can agree. I hope they can 
work together to achieve an agreement whereby we would have votes on 
these extraneous matters, and, hopefully, we would not have a prolonged 
debate on them because this is a highway bill. Thousands and thousands 
of businesses are waiting for us to act. By March 31, if we don't act, 
everything stops. In your State and mine all these highway projects 
will shut down with no Federal contribution at all, which is most of 
them.
  I am hopeful. I cannot report to the Senate that we have an agreement 
now, but I hope we will have one at some point today. Once we do have 
that, we have a path forward; and if we work together in goodwill, we 
can get this done.
  Frankly, I don't think we have a choice but to get it done. 
Everything, as I said, expires March 31. Here it is March 7 and we have 
a few days left before this whole thing blows up, and we will have no 
highway bill and people will be laid off.
  In this economic time, that is the last result we need. We need to 
fix our highways, bridges, and roads.
  Madam President, the occupant of the chair is a proud member of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. She has worked hard to get us 
to this day. I know she has worked hard to bring this debate to a close 
and get a path forward. We can all hope that happens today.
  I will be back on the floor with Senator Inhofe. I am hopeful the two 
of us can lead us through this bill and get this bill done. Then I 
think we can have the House follow our example of Democrats and 
Republicans working together. If they start that over there, they will 
have the bill quicker than they think, and we can finally put this 
behind us and send a message that we are functioning.
  This concept of a Federal highway system was brought to us by a 
Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower.

[[Page 3091]]

He understood logistics better than most. He knew we could not have a 
thriving economy if we could not move goods and people. So I am 
hopeful. I will be back on the Senate floor when we have an agreement 
and we can move forward.
  I will yield the floor, as I know the Senator from Vermont is here. I 
always look forward to his comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.


                            Citizens United

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, over 2 years ago, the Supreme Court 
rendered what I consider to be one of the worst decisions in the 
history of the United States Supreme Court, and that is regarding the 
case of Citizens United. In that case, the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 
decision, determined that corporations are people, and they have first 
amendment rights to spend as much money as they want on elections. I 
think when that decision first came about a lot of people in this 
country didn't pay attention to it. They looked at it as an abstract 
legal decision, not terribly important.
  Well, today the American people understand the disastrous impact that 
decision has had because what they are seeing right now on their 
television screens all across this country is a handful of billionaires 
and large corporations spending huge amounts of money on the political 
process, and the American people are asking themselves: Is this really 
what people fought and died for when they put their lives on the line 
to defend American democracy? Is American democracy evolving into a 
situation where a small number of billionaires can put hundreds of 
millions of dollars into the political process in this State and that 
State, in Presidential elections, and then elect the people who will 
govern this country?
  I believe very strongly the American people do not think that is 
appropriate, and I am very happy to say that yesterday, on Town Meeting 
Day in the State of Vermont--I think my small State has begun the 
process to overturn this disastrous Citizens United decision. We had 55 
towns at town meetings demand the Congress move forward to overturn 
Citizens United and restore American democracy to the concept of one 
person, one vote.
  What we do on Town Meeting Day in Vermont, all over our State, is 
people come together and argue about the school budget. They argue 
about the town budget. They debate the issues, and then they vote. What 
people in Vermont are saying is they do not want to see our democracy 
devolve into a situation where corporations are determining who will 
govern our Nation.
  So I am very proud that in the State of Vermont just yesterday 55 
separate towns voted to urge the Congress to move forward on a 
constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. I hope we will 
heed what the towns in Vermont are saying. I hope other towns and 
cities in States all over the country will move forward in that 
direction. I hope the day will come--sooner rather than later--where 
the Congress will entertain a constitutional amendment and bring it 
back to the States.
  Madam President, at this difficult moment in American democracy, it 
is imperative that we stand and reclaim our democracy and say to the 
millionaires and billionaires and the large corporations: Sorry, this 
country belongs to all of us. This democracy belongs to all of us and 
not just to you.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the names of the 55 towns that passed resolutions yesterday to 
overturn Citizens United.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Bolton, Brandon, Brattleboro, Bristol, Burlington, Calais, 
     Charlotte, Chester, Chittenden, Craftsbury, East Montpelier, 
     Fayston, Fletcher, Greensboro, Granville, Hardwick, Hartland, 
     Hinesburg, Jericho, Marlboro, Marshfield, Monkton, Moretown, 
     Montpelier, Newfane, Peru, Plainfield, Randolph, Richmond, 
     Ripton, Roxbury, Rochester, Rutland City, Rutland Town, 
     Sharon, Shelburne, South Burlington, Thetford Center, 
     Tunbridge, Underhill, Waitsfield, Walden, Waltham, Warren, 
     West Haven, Williamstown, Williston, Windsor, Winooski, 
     Woodbury, Woodstock, Worcester,

  I am proud to sponsor a constitutional amendment which would overturn 
Citizens United and return the power to regulate elections to Congress 
and the states. In the coming weeks and months I hope to see more 
towns, cities, counties, and states pass similar resolutions.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue of 
great importance to millions of my constituents in New York, our 
Nation's transportation system, particularly public transit. This is 
the very lifeline that millions rely on to get to and from work, to 
bring their paychecks home every single day to their families at night. 
Various proposals that have been put forth throughout the course of the 
debate in both the House and the Senate would actually slash funding 
for mass transit. The proposal advanced by the House Republicans last 
month to eliminate the mass transit account of the highway funds was a 
stunning misunderstanding of our Nation's transit needs. Cutting off 
public transit from its traditional funding source without providing 
viable alternatives is irresponsible. In fact, former Congressman and 
now Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called the House bill ``the 
worst transportation bill'' he had ever seen.
  Let me state some clear facts. New York's Metropolitan Transit 
Authority is the Nation's largest public transportation system, 
operating over 8,000 rail and subway cars and nearly 6,000 buses. On an 
average weekday, nearly 8.5 million Americans ride these trains, 
subways, and buses operated by the MTA to commute to work or to visit 
the city, which generates enormous economic revenue, not just for New 
York but for our country. Moving these riders into cars flies in the 
face of any sound environmental public policy and furthers our 
dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
  Increasing costs for our Nation's transit riders should be rejected 
out of hand by the Senate. I will continue to work with my colleagues 
to ensure that we do what is responsible and that we maintain transit 
funding to encourage the use of mass transit and reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil. I understand we have many very difficult decisions to 
make as we debate this bill, but I think stopping New York's transit 
system in its tracks is simply not a credible solution.
  I also have a few amendments for this bill. Each of them is equally 
important and they address different issues. The first one I wish to 
address affects me as a mom of two young boys who I know will want to 
be driving at 16. Kids all across America cannot wait for that day when 
they get their driver's license. But there are terrible statistics 
about teen deaths. In fact, one statistic showed 11 teens die every 
single day because of car accidents. I know every family in America has 
been affected by those horrible high school tragedies, of kids dying in 
a car accident on their way home from the big game, on their way from 
the prom, every scenario we can imagine.
  We have to give our teens better tools, better training, so when they 
get to become full-time drivers and have all the various permissions 
allowed, they are ready for that. We can imagine the scenarios in our 
own minds as parents, I know. Think about texting and driving. One 
cannot imagine how deadly distracted driving is in our country. Imagine 
the young driver who does not have a lot of judgment. Imagine the young 
driver who has five other kids in the car and they are coming back from 
the big game and they are all excited and they are all listening to the 
music and it is nighttime. Those are risky situations where we know if

[[Page 3092]]

we give those drivers more training before they are in those risky 
situations, they will be able to handle them better.
  Experts agree the graduated driver's license, basically gradually 
phasing teens into the driving experience with different 
responsibilities and different permissions as they get older, is the 
way to begin to address some of these risks. It has been a proven 
effective method in many States that have already instituted graduated 
driver's licenses. So I think we need to have a national priority, a 
priority that says they must as a State put in some basic training 
requirements, some measure of graduated driver's license, to ensure 
when these kids get on the road they have the skills and tools they 
need to keep themselves safe, their passengers safe, and the other 
drivers on the road are safe as well.
  As parents, as people who set public policy for our Nation, we should 
be making the safety and well-being and the lives of at least those 11 
teens every day who die a priority, and this is a proven way to do it 
and we can do it.
  The second amendment basically increases economic opportunity. New 
York is unusual in that we are a border State. We share a border with 
Canada. There is so much opportunity for cross-border transactions and 
cross-border commerce. This change is very simple. It gives authority 
to our States to invest in critical border crossings, such as freight 
and passenger rail systems. By providing this very simple change, 
States such as New York, California, Vermont, and Texas will be able to 
choose to enhance these crossings and increase many more economic 
engines to address our tough economy.
  The last amendment, equally important, is about jobs. How do we 
create the economic engine to get America working again? One way is to 
increase our pipeline, actually do better training for jobs that are 
available. One of the ways we can do that is this pilot program, 
already proven effective elsewhere, the Construction Careers 
Demonstration Project, amendment No. 1648. Basically, it is a proven 
commonsense strategy for at-risk workers to give them an opportunity to 
be trained in the building and construction trades so they find 
employment, they provide for their families, and we reduce 
unemployment. It is a very simple change. It is just a pilot program.
  I urge my colleagues to support these three amendments and focus on 
how we can pass a good, useful, beneficial transportation bill which 
will get our economy moving.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business 
for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Tribute To Judge Jimmie Edwards

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a new and 
successful program for at-risk youth in St. Louis--the Innovative 
Concept Academy--and about its founder, my friend, Judge Jimmie 
Edwards. Before I talk about the school and the incredible work Judge 
Edwards has done in the St. Louis community, I wish to spend a moment 
talking about his childhood roots.
  Judge Edwards grew up on the north side of St. Louis in the shadows 
of the city's Pruitt-Igoe housing project. The residents of this 
housing project faced many challenges, including drug and gang 
activity, violence, and sometimes acute poverty. But through 
discipline, hard work, and determination, Judge Edwards rose above 
these circumstances. He earned his bachelor's and law degrees from St. 
Louis University before being appointed to the State bench in 1992, and 
for 4 years he has served as the chief judge of the St. Louis Family 
Court's Juvenile Division.
  During his service on the bench, Judge Edwards became increasingly 
concerned about the number of young repeat offenders coming into his 
courtroom time and time again, only to be sent back to the same 
troubled environment that negatively influenced their behavior in the 
first place. From his own experience, he knew that offering these kids 
the opportunity for a proper education and for mentoring was absolutely 
critical to breaking the cycle.
  In 2009 Judge Edwards, together with the St. Louis public school 
district, the Family Court Juvenile Division, and the nonprofit 
organization MERS/Goodwill Industries, founded Innovative Concept 
Academy, a unique educational opportunity for juveniles who had already 
been expelled from the city's public schools and who were on parole. 
These young people, whom many would have given up on, found a 
formidable advocate in Judge Edwards and the academy. From the 
beginning, Innovative Concept Academy has been devoted to helping at-
risk youth achieve success through education, rehabilitation, and 
mentorship. Its mission--to enrich the learning environment for some of 
our most troubled kids--has resulted in second chances for these young 
men and women to dramatically improve their lives.
  At the start, Judge Edwards planned on providing educational and 
mentoring services to 30 students who had been suspended or expelled 
due to Missouri's Safe Schools Act. When he asked the St. Louis public 
schools for a building to use for the program for 30 students, they 
asked him if he wouldn't mind taking on the responsibility of 200 more. 
This was a challenge he accepted with his usual enthusiasm and can-do 
attitude.
  During the first year of its existence, the academy saw 246 students 
move through its doors. Today the academy teaches at-risk youth between 
ages 10 and 18 and has an enrollment of over 375. Some of these 
students are visiting our Nation's Capital this week with Judge 
Edwards, his wife Stacy, his daughter Ashley, and his son John, along 
with chaperones. Here today along with Judge Edwards and his family and 
chaperones are students Angel Tharpe, Deyon Smith, Tyrell Williams, and 
Nadia Jones. These are young men and women who have turned their lives 
around with the help of Judge Edwards and the academy and who serve as 
an inspiration to others in the community and, frankly, an inspiration 
to me. I am so proud of what they have been able to accomplish.
  The Innovative Concept Academy provides these students and many like 
them with so many important services--a quality education in a safe 
environment; one-on-one mentoring with school staff, counselors, deputy 
junior officers, and police; an array of extracurricular and 
afterschool activities, many of which are often new experiences for 
these students, including golf, chess, dance, classical music, and 
creative writing; uniforms, meals, and so many other necessities are 
also provided; and with tough love and important lessons about 
discipline, respect, anger management, goal setting, and follow-
through.
  All of this allows the students to meet their full potential, and St. 
Louis has seen positive results already. The academy has an attendance 
rate of over 90 percent. Let me repeat that. The academy has an amazing 
attendance rate of over 90 percent, and we are seeing significant 
improvement in these young people's grades. And the students are 
responding positively. For example, at the end of the first semester at 
the academy, the suspensions of 40 of the students ended and the 
students were supposed to return to their home school. Almost every 
student asked if they could stay at the academy because they know the 
academy is a special place where they can improve their lives.
  The innovative program has garnered national attention. Judge Edwards 
has appeared as a guest on a number of major network shows and most 
recently was honored by People Magazine as one of its 2011 Heroes of 
the Year. But, for him, it is not about the magazines or the 
interviews; for him, it is still about the kids.

[[Page 3093]]

  I am proud that Judge Edwards hails from my home State of Missouri 
and from my hometown of St. Louis. His compassion for those whom 
society may have given up on and his commonsense and innovative 
approach to solving the problems facing some of our young men and women 
are inspirational. He is compelled by his duty to serve and uplift the 
next generation no matter what the circumstances. He said it best when 
he observed that ``if the community, and that includes judges, does not 
take it upon itself to educate the children, then our community and 
what we stand for will be no more.'' This notion that we all succeed 
when we work together with a common cause and unified purpose is 
central to our American identity.
  I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating the 
Innovative Concept Academy and Judge Jimmie Edwards. The success of the 
academy and Judge Edwards' dedication and service to the St. Louis 
community should be an inspiration for everybody serving in this 
Chamber. If we could have a little bit of Judge Jimmie Edwards' 
attitude about working together, not worrying about taking the credit, 
and a can-do attitude, it is amazing what we could accomplish on behalf 
of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor for my distinguished colleague, the 
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for all the comments 
she has made about Judge Edwards, his family, and the school. This is 
truly a remarkable story. I know both of our staffs have been telling 
us for some time now of incident after incident of young people's lives 
that are being changed by this school, by a judge who decided he needed 
to get outside the courtroom to make a difference in the lives of kids.
  In fact, People magazine calls this the ``School of Last Resort.'' It 
is a chance, it is an opportunity of which many are taking advantage.
  Judge Ohmer, presiding judge of the circuit where Judge Edwards 
works, put out the following statement. He said:

       The editors of PEOPLE magazine have selected St. Louis 
     Juvenile Court Judge Jimmie Edwards as one of the 
     publication's `Heroes of the Year' for 2011. Judge Edwards 
     was profiled in a recent issue of the magazine and the 
     announcement was made in the November 7, 2011 issue.

  Quoted in this comment from his colleague, the magazine said:

       ``We chose men and women who reached across boundaries to 
     help strangers or worked within their communities to deepen 
     bonds. From Logan, Utah . . . to Judge Jimmie Edwards of St. 
     Louis who started a school for wayward teens, the 2011 
     winners never let daunting odds stand in their way,'' said 
     Managing Editor [of People magazine] Larry Hackett.

  In 2009, after watching a string of teen offenders come through his 
courtroom, Judge Edwards decided to take action. Along with 45 
community partners, he took over an abandoned school that he and I were 
talking about earlier today and opened the Innovative Concept Academy. 
Providing strict discipline, counseling, and programs such as, as my 
colleague mentioned, music, chess, and creative writing, the center 
literally has changed life after life of young person after young 
person, giving them the opportunity to graduate from high school and 
lead successful lives after they had been expelled from high school at 
an earlier time.
  These winners each received an award of $10,000 that they were able 
to use for their favorite causes, and certainly Judged Edwards has this 
cause and others.
  Quoting Judge Edwards:

       I am thrilled that our school has received this recognition 
     but also amazed at the other individuals across America 
     profiled by the magazine.

  Judged Edwards is married to Stacy, and Stacy is here today in 
Washington with two of their three children--Amy, Ashley, and John.
  His colleagues at the circuit court admire what he has done. The 
families involved, the teachers involved, the community partners 
involved admire what has happened here. MERS Goodwill, the St. Louis 
public schools, according to the judge himself, court employees, all 
the teachers and staff and volunteers at the school have made a 
difference in the Innovative Concept Academy.
  Judge Edwards said:

       By supporting our school St. Louis is refusing to give up 
     on troubled juveniles and, in turn, the students are proving 
     that hope for a better life is a universal dream.

  What a great story this is. His colleagues see him as a hero among 
us. People magazine has talked about this. I notice and like in the 
People magazine article what they refer to as Judge Jimmie's rules. 
Here are three of Judge Jimmie's rules.
  One headline is, ``No Saggy Pants.''

       Like mumbling, bad grammar and rudeness, droopy pants are 
     big no-nos [at this school]. ``Kids need to understand what 
     it means to be civilized,'' says Edwards.

  Another rule: ``No Loitering.''

       Edwards wears his kids out with after-school activities. 
     ``I expect them to be so tired that they can't do anything 
     but go [home and go] to sleep, get back up and start [the 
     day] all over again.''

  Then maybe the best rule of all: ``No Quitting.''

       ``As long as you're trying,'' says Edwards, ``you're 
     succeeding.''

  This is being proven time after time, day after day: One person can 
make a difference, and the way this one judge has made a difference is 
inspiring a lot of other people to come together and make that 
difference, and then inspiring these kids and others who care about 
them to decide that this is the school of last resort, but the school 
of last resort can produce lots of great results, and we are seeing 
that happen. I am proud this is going on in our State and hope that 
Judge Edwards's example becomes an example for community after 
community around this country.
  I yield back the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business and engage in a colloquy with my colleagues for up to 20 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I do week after 
week, as a physician who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for almost 
one-quarter of a century to give a doctor's second opinion about the 
health care law, a law that I believe is bad for patients, it is bad 
for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those 
patients--and terrible for taxpayers.
  March 23 of this year, a little over 2 weeks from now, will mark the 
second anniversary of the President's health care law being signed. Two 
years ago at this time, Democrats in Congress said the Americans would 
learn to love this law. As a matter of fact, on March 28, 2010, the 
senior Senator from New York Mr. Schumer said: As people learn what's 
exactly in the bill, 6 months from now by election time--the election 
of 2010, remember--this is going to be a plus. Because the parade of 
horribles, particularly the worries that the average middle-income 
person has that this is going to affect them negatively, those will 
have vanished and they will see it will affect them positively in many 
ways.
  Here we are 2 years later. We know that is definitely not the case. 
The health care law is more unpopular today than it was when it was 
passed and Nancy Pelosi famously said: First, you have to pass it 
before you get to find out what is in it. The more the American people 
have learned about the President's new law, the less they like it. 
Maybe that is why the White House and Democrats in Congress are

[[Page 3094]]

hoping this 2-year anniversary of the health care law passes quietly 
and without great fanfare, while Republicans believe the American 
people deserve to know exactly how this law is going to impact them as 
well as the health care they receive.
  So in the lead-up to the second anniversary of the law, I am going to 
talk about specific ways the law has actually made it worse for the 
American people--something I believed from the beginning would happen 
and now, 2 years later, we are seeing is specifically the case: It has 
hurt jobs, it has driven up costs, it has given Washington more control 
over Americans' health care, and I believe it has weakened Medicare.
  Today, Senator Cornyn and I are going to focus on how the law 
threatens Medicare and specifically our seniors trying to get a doctor, 
our seniors trying to get health care, and how this new Washington 
board, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, has had that 
impact. It is an unaccountable board. It is a group of unelected 
bureaucrats who will decide how to fund the care that is covered by 
Medicare.
  So I come to the floor with my colleague Senator Cornyn. He has been 
traveling around the State of Texas as I have been traveling around the 
State of Wyoming talking with seniors, visiting with them, asking about 
their needs. They have great concerns about what is happening with this 
health care law, to the point that this week the House of 
Representatives is actually working in a bipartisan way to repeal this 
Board, these unelected, Washington-appointed bureaucrats. To me, it is 
the commission that is going to ration seniors' care and make it harder 
for our seniors to see a health care provider and get the care they 
need.
  I know Senator Cornyn is leading the effort in the Senate to work 
with the House in an effort to repeal this payment board. I know 
Senator Cornyn is doing this in an effort to protect our seniors, to 
make sure our seniors get the care they need. So I would ask that the 
Senator possibly share with me and others the concerns he has and the 
concerns he has heard and ways he is hoping to address them.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to my colleague from 
Wyoming Senator Barrasso, who has been not only a Senator but a medical 
doctor and who has been on the receiving end of government policy, that 
while it may be well intended, backfires, particularly this bipartisan 
support now we have seen in the House of Representatives Energy and 
Commerce Committee yesterday, where they voted to repeal this 
Independent Payment Advisory Board--Independent Payment Advisory Board, 
IPAB--not iPOD, IPAB.
  The reason this is so important, and I would like to ask my 
colleague, from his long experience as a medical practitioner, the 
purpose of this 15-member, unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy to 
actually set prices for health care, what happens if, to the exclusion 
of all other health care reform, the IPAB or the Federal Government 
generally cuts reimbursement to providers? It would seem to me we get a 
phenomenon that we get the illusion of coverage, but we have no real 
access to health care.
  The experience we have had in Texas is, for example, Medicaid and the 
President's health care bill puts a whole lot of people into Medicaid, 
but only about one-third of Medicaid patients can find a doctor who 
will see a new Medicaid patient in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, one of 
the most populous parts of our State. I know, particularly in many 
rural areas--and I know Wyoming has a big rural population as well--
many times it is hard for seniors to find a doctor who will see a new 
Medicare patient, again, because reimbursement rates are so low.
  So I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming what his experience 
has been in that area.
  Mr. BARRASSO. My experience is exactly what the Senator describes. He 
said the words ``the illusion of coverage.'' When the President talked 
about the health care law, so often he wasn't actually talking about 
care; he was using the word ``coverage,'' and he was trying to use 
those words interchangeably. But coverage is not care, because someone 
having a card doesn't mean they can actually see a doctor. We see that 
with Medicaid now, with its low levels of reimbursement. With seniors 
already having trouble getting in to see a physician, this has a 
significant impact when a board, an independent payment advisory 
board--15 unelected bureaucrats--decides they are going to decide how 
much to pay for a doctor's visit, how much they are going to pay a 
hospital for a bypass surgery or a hip replacement, which is an area of 
my specialty. That hospital has to decide if they are going to provide 
that service. That doctor gets to decide whether they are going to see 
that patient.
  In rural communities, if the reimbursement is so low--and I have 
heard this from hospital administrators in Wyoming. If the 
reimbursement level is so low for a procedure that is primarily, if not 
exclusively, done on people of Medicare age--and we can think of those 
things that are more likely to happen with someone over the age of 65--
the hospital may ultimately decide they cannot continue to afford to 
provide those services and keep the doors open to a hospital. So 
seniors in that community will then be denied access to the care in 
their own community because the hospital will no longer do or provide 
that service, whether it is bypass heart surgery, whether it is total 
joint replacement. That senior then has to travel greater distances to 
try to find someplace to do that. The hospital may look at 
reimbursement for a procedure or different kinds of technology and say: 
The reimbursement is so low we are not going to upgrade our x-ray 
equipment or our MRI machine. Again, that community would suffer.
  Even during the debate of the health care law, we heard in many rural 
communities that 1 in 10 hospitals was likely to actually be so 
financially stressed by the health care law that they may end up having 
to close their doors over the next 10 years. I am hearing that in 
Wyoming. But it is because of this Board that the President wants to be 
the one to essentially, it looks to me, do the rationing of care.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Wyoming, it seems 
to me that what the intent is behind this Independent Payment Advisory 
Board and the President's health care law, sometimes called the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act--I think it needs to be named 
``Unaffordable Care Act'' for reasons we can go into later.
  But the purpose behind it we can all understand; that is, to try to 
contain health care costs and spending by the Federal Government 
because, of course, health care inflation is going up much faster than 
regular inflation of the Consumer Price Index.
  It strikes me that, as in a lot of the policy debates we have in 
Washington and Congress, we all agree we need to do something to 
contain costs, but we disagree about the means to achieve that 
affordability that we all know we need and to contain the inflation of 
health care costs. I would like to ask my colleague, rather than have 
Congress outsource its responsibility in this area to an unelected, 
unaccountable group of 15 bureaucrats, from which there is no appeal 
and which would have the consequence, as he said, of limiting people's 
access--because if all they are going to do is cut provider payments to 
hospitals and doctors, then fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals are 
going to be able to see those patients. Does he see an alternative that 
would perhaps help contain costs more by using transparency, patient 
choice, and good old-fashioned American competition? I am thinking, in 
particular, about the rare success we have had in the health care area 
containing costs in the Medicare Part D Program, to me, perhaps a model 
even where seniors have a choice between competing health care plans 
and where they get their prescription drugs. But because of the choices 
they have and the natural competition that occurs, we get market forces 
disciplining costs. Indeed, it is a very popular program, but the 
projected costs for Medicare Part D have come in at about 40 percent 
less than what was originally projected. It strikes me that is one of

[[Page 3095]]

the missing elements with outsourcing of this responsibility to this 
unelected, unaccountable group of bureaucrats, where the only thing 
they try to do is cut provider payments.
  Does the Senator see any alternative along the lines of Medicare Part 
D or otherwise?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I think the two key words I heard the Senator from 
Texas say are ``choice'' and ``competition'' because those things put 
the patient at the center. It is patient-centered care, not government-
centered care, not insurance company-centered care but patient-centered 
care. It is something we have been talking about for years on the 
Senate floor, at least on this side of the aisle, to put the patient at 
the center to give them the choice, as well as have the availability of 
the competition.
  The concern I have--and I was at a statewide meeting in Wyoming with 
a number of our veterans and their families and I asked the simple 
question: How many believe, under the health care law as passed, that 
they are actually going to ultimately end up paying more for their 
health care? Every hand went up, every hand. Over 100 people there in 
Casper and over 100 hands went up. They all believe they are going to 
end up paying more under the President's health care plan than they 
would have had it not been passed. That is what we are seeing from a 
lot of the research as well, the admittance that the costs are going up 
even faster under the health care law than if it hadn't been passed.
  Then we ask the critical question the Senator from Texas has referred 
to about the availability of care, the quality of care. If we asked the 
question: How many believe the availability of their care and the 
quality of their care under the President's new health care law will go 
down, again, every hand in the room went up.
  These are all people who believe this health care law, crammed 
through Congress, crammed down the throats of the American public at a 
time when they were shouting: No, we don't want this--the American 
people believe it made it worse and that they are going to end up 
paying more and getting less for something they didn't ask for at all.
  The American public did have concerns from the beginning, which is 
what generated the whole discussion about health care and reform. What 
patients are looking for is the care they need, from the doctor they 
want, at a cost they can afford. Under the President's health care law, 
they are losing all three.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his 
response. I think that shows there is an alternative to this 
outsourcing of our responsibilities to try to make care more affordable 
to this group of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and cutting 
provider payments, which actually limits access to health care.
  But I tell my colleague from Wyoming, I had an experience a couple 
years ago visiting with some folks at Whole Foods, the grocery chain 
that is headquartered in Austin, TX, where I live. John Mackey, the 
CEO, is very proud of this. They vote each year on their health care 
plan. What they have chosen--the employees choose year after year--is a 
high-deductible insurance coverage for catastrophic losses, but then to 
cover the rest of their care it is a health savings plan that actually 
Whole Foods makes contributions into, which is owned by the worker and 
could then be used to pay for their health care for their regular sort 
of routine needs.
  I remember sitting at the table with a number of the workers and 
talking about why they like this alternative so much, and it is clear: 
Because it gave them the choices we all would want for ourselves and 
our families in terms of the doctor we want and the kinds of treatment 
we want, and it provided incentives because people were spending not 
the government's money, some sort of a credit card they would never see 
the bill for, but they were spending their own money in their health 
savings account; thus, realigning incentives for not only providers but 
also for consumers in a way that creates more transparency, more 
choices, and the kind of market discipline to hold down the costs.
  I ask my colleague, my impression is, while there was great division 
in Congress over the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act, what some people call ObamaCare--60 Democrats voted for it, 
40 Republicans voted against it in the Senate--that on this issue, on 
the IPAB, Independent Payment Advisory Board, there actually is 
bipartisan support, particularly in the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee, to take out that particular provision because people now, on 
further examination, have seen how it could actually backfire in 
limiting people's access to health care.
  I would ask my colleague, does he see a way for us, on a bipartisan 
basis, to narrowly address that provision while we continue to wait on 
the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on the constitutionality 
of the individual mandate? We don't know how things, such as the State-
based insurance exchanges, will operate and the subsidies and whether 
those are going to be affordable. But on the narrow issue of repealing 
the Independent Payment Advisory Board, does he see the possibility for 
bipartisan support for that?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I believe there is going to be bipartisan support. We 
see bipartisan support in the House. I would like to see bipartisan 
support in the Senate. When you look at what fundamentally this board 
does, they make recommendations, and it is practically impossible for 
the recommendations not to automatically become law. We were elected to 
make laws, not having independent parties make the laws. American 
patients are going to be forced to accept whatever this unelected 
board's recommendations are. It is very hard for Congress to override. 
I expect, in a bipartisan way, people would say: Let's completely 
eliminate this board, which I know the Senator's legislation is 
designed to do.
  If American patients, people all across the country, suffer from the 
recommendations of the board, the way the law is written, they cannot 
challenge this unelected board in court. Americans have a right to 
challenge things but not this unelected board, as was written into the 
health care law.
  Those are the sorts of issues I hear about when people say: What if I 
can't get a doctor? What if I can't get the care I need because of the 
decisions made by the board?
  This fundamentally gets to the issue of the whole health care law, 
which took $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare not to save and 
strengthen Medicare but to start a whole new government program for 
someone else. This board, which I think we should eliminate and which I 
think is going to be hurtful for our seniors, is the group responsible 
for making the sorts of very challenging cuts from our seniors on 
Medicare--again, not to help save Medicare but to start a program for 
someone else, which is why this program is even more unpopular today 
than it was the day it was passed.
  I do believe we have a bipartisan reason to eliminate this, and that 
is why I am supporting this legislation.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would like to ask my colleague one final question. 
Whenever we talk about reforming, saving, and securing Medicare so we 
can keep the promise we made to seniors that when people reach the 
appropriate age, they can actually qualify for this benefit and it 
actually will be there for them--and people do, in fact, pay into this 
fund, and they expect to get their money's worth back--sometimes the 
charge is made that various reform proposals will destroy Medicare as 
we know it.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming, a medical doctor by 
profession, whether Medicare as we know it, as currently constructed 
under the President's health care bill, with this IPAB provision in 
place--does it have any chance of survival as it currently operates now 
with this new board of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats setting 
prices and limiting access? Because doctors and hospitals simply cannot 
afford to provide the service at that cost. Doesn't that have the 
potential to radically transform Medicare as people have come to know 
it?
  Mr. BARRASSO. My view is that people will still get a Medicare card 
in the

[[Page 3096]]

mail, but whether there will be doctors or hospitals or nurse-
practitioners or others who will accept that card is the bigger 
concern. Because of what this board may do and is likely to do under 
the demands of the health care law, those on Medicare today and those 
coming onto Medicare may have a harder and harder time finding a doctor 
and a hospital to care for them.
  Let's face it, today about 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65. 
Yesterday about 10,000 baby boomers turned 65. Tomorrow about 10,000 
baby boomers will turn 65. We need to make sure Medicare is there and 
secure for the current generation as well as the next generation and 
generations to come.
  My concern is that this board, which I know my colleague is trying to 
repeal and which I am trying to repeal, is going to make it that much 
harder for our seniors to receive the care they need from a doctor they 
want at a cost they can afford.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we approach the 2-year anniversary of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--otherwise known as 
ObamaCare--there are a lot of things you are going to hear from across 
the street at the Supreme Court of the United States on the 
constitutional challenge to this individual mandate, which is a very 
important constitutional question for the Supreme Court to decide--
whether there is any limit to the power of the Federal Government when 
it comes to forcing you to buy a product approved by the government and 
penalizing you if you do not do it, whether that is within the 
constitutional power of the Congress under the commerce clause. Then 
there are other important questions about the workability of the law, 
the affordability of the law.
  I think today we can just see if we could work together in a 
bipartisan way to repeal the IPAB requirement. Senator Reid is the only 
one, as the majority leader, who can bring it to the floor, but 
hopefully, in light of the bipartisan support this has on the House 
side, he will see fit to do that. I certainly encourage him. I know 
Senator Barrasso will encourage him to do that. I hope we can do this 
and help ensure that people, when they qualify for Medicare, do not 
just get a card but actually have a good chance--I should say better 
than a good chance--they will be able to find a doctor who will treat 
them for the price the government is willing to pay.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Senator for the efforts on his part to 
repeal this terrible idea that was a fundamental part of the 
President's proposal. It is one reason I think the health care law is 
even more unpopular today than the day it was passed and signed into 
law almost 2 years ago.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                          Wisconsin Casualties

  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to 
pay tribute to America's sons and daughters who have fallen in the line 
of duty--citizens of this great Nation who gave their lives to preserve 
the liberties upon which America was founded, the finest among us who, 
because they cherished peace, risked their lives by becoming warriors 
on our behalf.
  What could be more sacrificial than the lives our service men and 
women choose to lead? They love America, so they spend long years 
separated from their loved ones, deployed in faraway lands. They revere 
freedom, so they sacrifice their own so that we may be free. They 
defend our right to live as individuals by yielding their own 
individuality in that noble cause. They value life, yet bravely ready 
themselves to lay down their own in humble service to their comrades-
in-arms, their families, and their Nation.
  For more than 234 years, our service men and women have served as 
guardians of our freedom. The cost of that vigilance has been high. 
Since the Revolutionary War, more than 42 million men and women have 
served in our military and more than 1 million of those selfless heroes 
have given their lives. Wisconsin has borne its share of that great 
sacrifice. Since statehood, 27,000 of Wisconsin's sons and daughters 
have died in military service. Since September 11, 2001, we have lost 
143 brave souls with ties to Wisconsin. Since I took office last 
January, 13 more have perished. Statistics cannot possibly convey the 
weight of these losses. After all, statistics are merely numbers that 
could never fully communicate the qualities of these fine men and women 
whose promising lives were cut far too short. Statistics say nothing of 
their unfulfilled hopes and dreams. So instead of numbers such as 1 
million, 27,000, 143, or even 13, I would like to ask everyone to think 
for a moment about a much smaller but still staggering number, the 
number 1.
  Each of these men and women was a loved one cherished by family and 
friends. Each was a loss to their community and to this great Nation. 
Each paid a price that we must never forget. We must also remember the 
sacrifice made was not theirs alone. Every family member and friend 
left behind experiences profound loss, sadness, and grief. The tragedy 
multiplies; it is not contained. For those left behind, the pain may 
slowly subside, but the wound will never heal.
  Two weeks ago I had the privilege of bearing witness to the sacrifice 
of one of Wisconsin's fallen heroes and the courage of those he left 
behind. On February 22, a grateful Nation laid 1LT David Johnson of 
Mayville, WI, to his final rest at Arlington National Cemetery. I was 
honored to join David's loving and proud parents Laura and Andrew, his 
sister Emily, and his brothers Matthew and Michael as they said their 
final goodbyes. Out of sheer coincidence Michael was already scheduled 
to intern in my office this week and is with us today. It is fitting 
that we acknowledge his loss and sacrifice.
  The Johnson family loved their brother and son. They loved him dearly 
and our hearts go out to them. I pray that they find God's peace and 
comfort today and in the tough times ahead as they deal with this 
overwhelming and tragic loss.
  Lieutenant Johnson was only 24 years old when he died of injuries 
suffered after encountering an improvised explosion device on January 
25 while leading his men in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan.
  In addition to Lieutenant Johnson, today I would also like to pay 
tribute to the other Wisconsin heroes who gallantly gave their lives 
since I took office last January.
  Since then Wisconsin has lost SSgt Jordan Bear, U.S. Army. Staff 
Sergeant Bear, age 25, of Elton, WI, died March 1, 2012, in Kandahar 
Province, Afghanistan; SSgt Joseph J. Altmann, U.S. Army. Staff 
Sergeant Altmann, age 27, of Marshfield, WI, died December 25, 2011, in 
Kunar Province, Afghanistan; SPC Jakob J. Roelli, U.S. Army. Specialist 
Roelli, age 24, of Darlington, WI, died September 21, 2011, in Kandahar 
Province, Afghanistan; SGT Garrick L. Eppinger Jr., U.S. Army Reserve. 
Sergeant Eppinger, age 25, of Appleton, WI, died September 17, 2011, in 
Parwan Province, Afghanistan; SGT Chester D. Stoda, U.S. Army. Sergeant 
Stoda, age 32, of Black River Falls, WI, died September 2, 2011, while 
on recreational leave from duties in support of the war in Afghanistan; 
CPL Michael C. Nolen, U.S. Marines. Corporal Nolen, age 22, of Spring 
Valley, WI, died June 27, 2011, in Helmand Province, Afghanistan; SPC 
Tyler R. Kreinz, U.S. Army. Specialist Kreinz, age 21, of Beloit, WI, 
died June 18, 2011, in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan; Private Ryan J. 
Larson, U.S. Army. Private Larson, age 19, of Friendship, WI, died June 
15, 2011, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan; SGT Matthew D. Hermanson, 
U.S. Army. Sergeant Hermanson, age 22, of Appleton, WI, died April 28, 
2011, in Wardak Province, Afghanistan; SPC Paul J. Atim, U.S.

[[Page 3097]]

Army. Specialist Atim, age 27, of Green Bay, WI, died April 16, 2011, 
in Nimroz Province, Afghanistan; CPL Justin D. Ross, U.S. Army. 
Corporal Ross, age 22, of Green Bay, WI, died March 26, 2011, in 
Helmand Province, Afghanistan; Finally, 1LT Darren M. Hidalgo, U.S. 
Army. First Lieutenant Hidalgo, age 24, of Waukesha, WI, died February 
20, 2011, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan.
  May God bless and comfort their loved ones with peace. May he watch 
over those who have answered the call and are serving today and those 
who will serve in the future. May God bless America.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll of the Senate.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Honoring Doug and Samantha Levinson

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this Friday will mark 5 years 
since FBI agent Bob Levinson disappeared while on a business trip as a 
retired FBI agent. He was on a business trip to Kish Island in the 
Persian Gulf. It is a part of Iran. That is 5 long years that his wife 
Christine has been without a husband and 5 long years that her seven 
children have been without their father.
  Over those 5 years I have spoken so many times about Bob--a retired 
FBI agent and a resident of south Florida--from the floor of the Senate 
and so many other venues. Just yesterday I met with his wife Christine 
after she joined FBI Director Robert Mueller and Deputy Director Sean 
Joyce in announcing a $1 million reward for information leading to 
Bob's safe return. So in southwest Asia billboards will soon start to 
appear announcing that $1 million reward, and it is in southwest Asia 
that we know Bob is being held.
  Today I wish to talk about his children because tomorrow in Miami the 
Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI will honor Bob's two 
youngest children--his son Doug and his daughter Samantha, both of 
whom, along with their other siblings, have persevered through this 
very difficult time.
  Doug was in the seventh grade when Bob disappeared. This year he will 
graduate from high school, on his way to college. He has excelled 
academically and athletically and has grown to almost his father's 
height. Bob will be shocked at how tall Doug is, but he will be even 
more proud of all that his son has accomplished.
  Samantha, Bob's daughter, was in high school when Bob disappeared. In 
just a few weeks she will graduate from college. Samantha has been a 
resident adviser and a proud member of her sorority. She interned at 
Disney where she hopes to work after graduation. Again, when her father 
returns, he will be so proud.
  To honor Bob's children, and standing in solidarity with one of their 
own, the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI will award to Doug 
and Samantha scholarships to assist with the cost of college. I thank 
that society and those agents who have protected us so much over the 
years. I thank them for their service and for their kindness. I 
congratulate Doug and Samantha for all they have accomplished under 
such very difficult circumstances.
  To Christine Levinson, this heroic woman who has stood so strong in 
the midst of great adversity for 5 years--I say to Christine and her 
children that this government will not rest, none of us will rest until 
we have brought Bob home. I look forward, as do so many, to that day of 
celebrating with them and celebrating with all of Bob's friends and his 
former colleagues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll of the Senate.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first, I want to say how important roads and 
bridges are. We are on the highway bill, and that is one of the main 
advantages the United States has had--having excellent transportation. 
Of course, that is particularly important in my own State because we 
want people to be able to get to the first national park, which is 
Yellowstone National Park, and another gorgeous park, the Grand Teton 
National Park, and a place called Fossil Butte National Monument, where 
people can actually fish for 60 million-year-old fish. We have a spot 
in the middle of the State where people can help dig up dinosaur 
bones--and if you dig one out by yourself, you get it named after you--
or the first national monument, Devils Tower, which is up in the 
northeast corner. And, of course, we are a corridor between those 
Western States too. So we know how important roads and bridges are. We 
need to do that, and we need to do it now, but we should do it the 
right way.
  So I want to refer to an amendment I have filed, No. 1645. My 
amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would allow the gas 
tax to be adjusted with inflation--not with the price of gas, with 
inflation. This is not a new idea, and it certainly is not a very 
popular discussion point, but this is the debate the Senate needs to 
have.
  The long-term viability of the highway trust fund is incredibly 
important to our States. The underlying proposal the Senate is debating 
would pay for transportation and infrastructure projects and programs 
for the next 2 years, but it does not address the future of these 
programs, nor do the financing proposals fit within the timeframe of 
the bill. I have serious objections to paying for 2 years of spending 
with 10 years of revenue.
  Let me stop on that issue for a moment. We are spending money in 2 
years that it will take us 10 years to generate. How can we tell the 
American people we are serious about the deficit and serious about 
spending when we allow money to be spent five times as fast as it comes 
in?
  If the Senate wants to keep the highway programs viable through a 
trust fund instead of subjected to the general fund, which any 
accountant or banker would say is bankrupt, we need to either cut 
spending or generate more revenue. Those are the two choices.
  A lot of work has gone into the bill before the Senate. Four 
committees have worked on it. Four committees have filed amendments 
that have been included in the version we are seeing. I appreciate that 
many of my colleagues are trying to reduce the mandates on the States 
as well as consolidate and eliminate programs. That is good. Those are 
steps we need to take. Even with some serious streamlining, however, 
the highway trust fund will not have the revenues needed to meet the 
current obligations of the fund. We can certainly give States more 
flexibility in how they prioritize the Federal funds they receive.
  We should not and cannot ignore that with this bill we are just 
buying time. Buying time is something the Federal Government has been 
doing for decades, and that has gotten us into this serious financial 
mess. We are buying time with borrowed money. The borrowing is pretty 
dubious, and some of it is from countries we would rather not be 
borrowing from.
  I want to share some charts with you. You may only be able to discern 
what I say, and what I say is what appears in the Senate Record, not 
the charts.
  These have a lot of numbers on them. I am an accountant, so I get 
excited over numbers. Too many numbers, but it still makes the point. 
What we have is the highway trust fund balances, starting in 1993, 
which was the last time we passed the gas tax. That was 18.3 cents. 
This column shows the total revenue received. For the most part they 
have been going up, which means more gas has been bought.
  But here are the expenditures, and you will see what effect that has 
had on the closing balance in the trust fund. We have had quite a few 
years when there was some money in there--right after 1993 when the gas 
tax more closely matched the cost of construction, and as we get out 
here in 2001, we

[[Page 3098]]

can see that it drops significantly and keeps dropping. At balance, at 
the end of 2012, it is going to be $11.4 billion. Of course, we are 
spending more than that just in this one bill.
  So next year it will be a minus $2.8 billion and $18.7 billion, and 
then $34.7 billion. Those are deficits I am talking about, deficits in 
the trust fund, which means in those years we are going to have to get 
the money from somewhere else. It winds up in 2016 at being a $50.7 
billion deficit to the trust fund. That is what we are doing generally 
with all of our accounting, but it shows up here in something that I do 
not think anybody in America denies is absolutely necessary. We have to 
have roads and bridges.
  So if my amendment were enacted, what kind of an adjustment to the 
tax rate would we see? If this amendment had been enacted last year, in 
2011, this January--the tax does not go into effect until the year 
after the inflation is measured. This January the tax would have 
increased by one-half of one penny--one-half of one penny. The price of 
a gallon fluctuates more than that on a daily basis. In fact, I was 
watching on television the other night, and the lady was showing the 
high price of gas, and she showed a sign out in front of the pumps. 
Just as she was about to leave, she said: Wait a minute. While I have 
been talking, the price has gone up 20 cents.
  So we are seeing some huge changes there, but not with the gas tax. 
If we had enacted the indexing in 1993, the last time Congress adjusted 
the gas tax, there would have been an increase of 11 cents in the 
gasoline tax over 19 years. Excluding the one-tenth of 1 cent that is 
added to the base tax rate for the leaking underground storage tanks, 
the rate would adjust from 18.3 cents a gallon in 1993 to 29\1/2\ cents 
per gallon today.
  That is what this chart shows. It shows the amount of inflation there 
was each of those years, so the amounts the gas tax would have gone up 
in each of those years to provide a fund that would actually help us 
with building the roads and bridges, and it would be at 29.5 cents per 
gallon today.
  In that same timeframe gasoline prices have risen from $1 per gallon 
to $3.50 per gallon or more. It was $4 in the example I was giving off 
the television. If we had enacted indexing in 2005 under the last 
highway bill, there would have been only a 3\1/2\-cents-per-gallon 
adjustment. I estimate there would have been increased revenue in the 
highway trust fund by over $18 billion from the gas tax alone.
  So this is the chart that shows what would have happened if we had 
indexed it in 2005, what the CPI index would have been and what the 
adjustment would have been. So that would have been a change of 3.5 
cents per gallon, hardly noticeable in the price of gas we have today. 
But the trust fund would have had $18 billion, which we need to be able 
to spend. Very important.
  In 1993 the gas tax of 18.3 cents was included in the $1 of gas, and 
there was also State taxes included in the $1 gasoline price, 18 cents 
out of a dollar. Now the 18 cents is part of $4 a gallon.
  Don't you think construction costs have increased based on the cost 
of a gallon of gas alone? Remember, the gas tax is what paid for roads 
and bridges but cannot anymore, causing us to use very bad financing 
methods--stealing from pension funds with no way to pay it back, using 
10 years' of projected revenue to pay for 2 years' of construction.
  What do we do for the money in 2 years? Roads and bridges will always 
need construction. Our economy runs on construction. The construction 
industry has mixed feelings about my proposed amendment. They are for 
it as long as it does not bring the bill down. My intent is not to 
bring the bill down but, rather, to make it a viable bill. Of course, 
my amendment will not make it a viable bill all by itself. The Bowles-
Simpson Commission deficit report said we needed to increase the gas 
tax by 5 cents a year for 3 years to have a viable fund.
  Here are the quotes from that deficit commission. The President 
appointed the deficit commission. They looked at everything, and on 
highways and bridges alone, this is what they came up with: 15-cent-
per-gallon increase in the gas tax over a 3-year period; limit spending 
to match the revenues the trust fund collects. That is what we are 
failing to do with this current bill.
  Once fully implemented, a 15-cent increase would generate an 
additional $24 to $27 billion per year for the highway trust fund. Each 
1-cent increase would generate about $1.6 to $1.8 billion per year. 
That is from that deficit commission that was trying to figure out how 
to get ourselves out of the hole we are in right now. This is what they 
came up with just for the highway fund.
  So with my amendment, it indexes with inflation. It does not start 
until next year. It is just a way to test the waters to see if there is 
enough courage in this body to take a very minimal step. My amendment 
does not solve the shortfall of the highway trust fund, nor would it 
fully pay for this legislation. It is just a small step in the right 
direction. It is a step in getting the highway trust fund back to what 
it was created to be, a dedicated pot of money to pay for the roads, 
funded by those who use the roads.
  We need to take this step and a lot of other steps if we are going to 
fix our money problems and fund programs as intended. The National 
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform--that is that Simpson-
Bowles Commission--supported a 15-cent increase in the gas tax to be 
gradually adjusted over a 3-year period. Once fully implemented, a 15-
cent increase, as I said, would provide $24 to $27 billion per year. 
That is what we need for roads and bridges.
  The Commission also recommended that Congress enact a limitation so 
that the spending could not go beyond revenues. That seems like a 
fairly commonsense approach. Spend only what we generate. We could use 
that around here. Of course, that principle is something we need to 
enact in the overall budgeting in Washington.
  Let's be clear. The tax rate and gas prices are two very separate 
issues. Folks might think that as the price of fuel goes up, so does 
the Federal gas tax. That is not true. Whether the price of gas is $1 
per gallon or $4 per gallon, the Federal tax remains the same. Again, 
the fund collected 18.3 cents from every dollar of gas in 1993. 
Construction costs have increased, and now we only collect the same 
18.3 cents for a $4 gallon of gas. If we were being successful with 
some alternate means of transportation, the amount of gas would go down 
as people used those other ones, but it is not.
  I am sensitive to the fact that the gas prices are high right now. I 
am always looking for ideas on how we can work to bring those prices 
down. With the distances we have to travel in Wyoming alone, high fuel 
prices have a disproportionate effect on the residents of my State.
  The President said there is not a silver bullet to bring the prices 
down. That is certainly true if we look at his administration's 
policies, having done everything possible to increase the price of 
fuel. While there might not be a silver bullet, there are a number of 
actions that will make a real difference.
  One reason gas prices are high is that the supply is limited, and 
tensions in the Middle East have further strained that supply and 
encouraged speculators.
  To fix the supply problem, we should be producing American energy 
wherever it is possible. Instead of blocking production the President 
should be encouraging us to develop American energy in Alaska and off 
the Outer Continental Shelf and on Federal land. Yes, production is up, 
but it is not from Federal lands. That is shut down. It is coming from 
private land where a permit does not take a lifetime of investment and 
delay. Federal lands are down 12 percent in production. We should be 
enacting policies that encourage energy production on public lands in 
Wyoming and other Western States rather than relying on oil from the 
Middle East and Venezuela.
  President Obama should approve the Keystone XL Pipeline so we can get 
as much supply as possible from friendly nations such as Canada before 
they feel forced to sell it all to China, who is buying up energy 
worldwide. China understands that in 20 years the country

[[Page 3099]]

with the energy will have the power. I am not talking about electrical 
power; I am talking about world power.
  Gas prices are high because of the regulatory uncertainty created by 
the administration's relentless pursuit of policies that are designed 
to make energy more expensive under the guise of halting climate 
change. Rather than arguing over new taxes for the oil and gas 
industry, we should be working to rein in the Environmental Protection 
Agency to stop those regulations that make it impossible for businesses 
to plan.
  We have a permitting problem. When I hear the lecture about the 
number of acres leased for exploration but not being drilled, I get 
angry. I am usually not angry. Leased parcels include land that has no 
oil. When you buy a lease, you buy a package, and then you drill where 
the oil or gas is within that package. Also, there are millions of 
acres ready to be drilled, but the leaseholder cannot get the 
bureaucrats to turn loose the permits.
  Of course, Energy Secretary Chu recently confirmed that his energy 
policy is to create conservation by having our gas prices reach the 
same level as Europe. Well, unless we do something with the gas tax at 
his desired $7 a gallon, we will still only get 18.3 cents a gallon for 
the critical highway fund.
  If we were really trying to match cost to construct with revenue, the 
radical suggestion would be for the gas user fee--and it is a user fee. 
If you do not drive on the roads, you do not need to buy the gas. You 
do not need to pay the tax. So it is a user fee. But it would be a 
percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas if we were really being 
radical.
  But be clear, we are not doing that. We are probably not doing any of 
this. We need to do everything we can to lower gas prices. I am working 
to do just that. In fact, we are debating some of these issues on this 
legislation because the majority refuses to debate them using regular 
order. However, the issue of gas prices is entirely separate from the 
issue of determining how we should pay for highways.
  We have set up a trust fund that is supposed to take care of road and 
bridge needs. I might mention that changing the formula to miles driven 
would just be to increase the gas user fee while hiding the increase. 
That is not the way to do it. We should be honest about whatever kind 
of an increase we are putting on this user fee. That is the wrong way 
to do it. If we do not add more revenue to the trust fund, we should 
cut our spending to the amount of money we have in the trust fund. That 
is, again, what the Simpson-Bowles report said.
  I know there a lot of sensitivities in talking about the rate of gas 
tax or any other tax. There is no doubt that individuals and businesses 
are still stressed in this economy and are struggling to make ends 
meet. People in rural States such as Wyoming have few options. They 
have to drive long distances for many of their needs. Several of my 
colleagues have said to me: This just is not the time to be talking 
about the gas tax.
  I must ask: When will the time be right? Members of Congress do not 
want to tackle this topic when the economy is strong nor do they want 
to tackle the topic when we have economic challenges. When revenues to 
the highway trust fund were meeting the needs of the highway program, 
no one wanted to consider that there might be a time when the revenue 
could not keep up with the needs to maintain our highway system.
  We are pennies away from insolvency of the highway trust fund. When 
is the right time to talk about the revenue stream for the highway 
trust fund? We need to start today. My amendment is a small step to 
address the long-term viability of the highway trust fund. It is a 
small step to get us moving toward living within our means and 
maintaining our roads with the money we have not the money we wish we 
had.
  I probably cannot get a vote on this minimal increase, but it does 
test the water. I would be happy to revise my amendment to any 
reasonable level that Senators would support. We cannot continue to 
kick this conversation down the road for another 2 years. We cannot lie 
to our constituents about the state of the highway trust fund. We 
should not steal from other trust funds, and we should not do 
unapproved long-term financing for short-term projects. We have a 
mechanism to pay for the road programs, a dedicated funding stream paid 
for by those who use the roads.
  I hope my colleagues will take a hard look at my amendment, take a 
look at the plan under Simpson-Bowles, and study the numerous ideas out 
there. Let's have a real debate on how to preserve this dedicated 
funding for our roads.
  In Wyoming, we have an optional sales tax for projects by communities 
and counties. The construction project is stated, and the people get to 
vote for this increase in their taxes. As long as the money is used to 
pay for the promised projects, the voters continue to approve 
additional projects with additional taxes. It has happened for 30 years 
in Wyoming. People will allow focused taxes for what they know they 
need if they believe that is what it will be spent for. And I say they 
know the needs for roads and bridges.
  When is it the wrong time to do the right thing? I believe most 
everyone in this Chamber knows this is the right thing. Most of our 
constituents will see it that way too. A vocal few won't, but the 
reason congressional approval is at a record low is because so many 
live in fear of taking the votes that will fix the problems. We have a 
chance to change that with this amendment. I hope my colleagues will 
take a serious look at it and fund the highway fund the way it was 
intended.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Benefits of Free Enterprise

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor to talk about 
how free enterprise helps people achieve earned success and thus helps 
them pursue true happiness. Today I want to talk about another moral 
benefit of free enterprise--its effectiveness in reducing poverty and 
promoting economic mobility.
  This is an important conversation to have since President Obama has 
made income and class inequality the centerpieces of his reelection 
campaign. For example, in his Osawatomie, KS, speech last year, he 
said:

       This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and all 
     those who are fighting to get into the middle class. I 
     believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair 
     shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone 
     plays by the same rules.

  He followed up with similar themes in the 2012 State of the Union 
speech, saying that he believes in ``an America where hard work paid 
off, responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they 
tried--no matter who you were, where you came from, or how you started 
out.''
  Of course, these are quintessential American values in no dispute. 
But the President's soaring rhetoric is at odds with his main policy, 
which is to achieve greater economic equality not by equal opportunity 
but through forced redistribution of wealth. For example, the President 
has proposed a litany of tax increases, such as the so-called Buffet 
rule, higher marginal income tax rates, and higher taxes on investment. 
New taxes don't lift anybody, but they do tear some people down.
  The President also proposes more government spending to redistribute 
the new tax dollars collected. Redistributionist programs have a role, 
of course, as government safety nets. They help, for example, people 
who are ill temporarily, down on their luck, or not able-bodied. But, 
unfortunately, they do not cure poverty. If they did, poverty would no 
longer exist in America.
  The only permanent cure for poverty and the only system capable of 
producing massive increases in economic

[[Page 3100]]

mobility is free enterprise. Senator Mark Rubio put it well when he 
said that ``the free enterprise system has lifted more people out of 
poverty than all the government anti-poverty programs combined.'' As we 
will see in a moment, economic data confirms this is true.
  As Arthur Brooks and Peter Wehner wrote in their book called ``Wealth 
and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism,'' before the rise 
of free enterprise; that is, for most of human history, life was 
``bleak, cruel and short.'' Life expectancy was low, infant mortality 
was high, disease was rampant, and food was scarce. Education was only 
for the wealthy. Indeed, the wealthy were the only people who lived in 
relative comfort.
  But the emergence of free enterprise roughly two centuries ago helped 
to change all that. As the free enterprise system took root, 
particularly in Western Europe, protectionist measures eased, trade 
increased, and businesses accumulated capital to grow and create new 
jobs. People pursued their self-interests free of state coercion or 
corruption, and the economic benefits flowed to every strata of 
society. As Brooks and Wehner note, ``Markets, precisely because they 
are wealth generating, also end up being wealth distributing.''
  By every universal measure, life has improved dramatically in free 
market societies. Literacy, basic living standards, and life expectancy 
have increased, while disease and starvation have plummeted. Child 
labor has been eradicated. As free enterprise has spread during the 
last two centuries, the world's average per capita income has 
skyrocketed by about 10 times. These are major moral achievements. Yes, 
some people are richer than others, and that is true in all nations 
whether characterized as market economies or not. But where it exists, 
free enterprise has helped make the poor make tremendous gains, and 
they continue to climb. In the modern era of globalization, we have 
seen this on an unprecedented scale. Since 1970, as economic freedom 
has grown in developing countries such as China and India, the number 
of people living on $1 a day has plunged by 80 percent, according to a 
recent study.
  What about President Obama's arguments that free enterprise has 
harmed middle-class prosperity? Over the past quarter century, economic 
studies have shown otherwise. Indeed, as Hoover Institution fellow 
Henry Nau pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal article, middle-
income earners have become richer and many have leaped into the upper-
middle class. Between 1980 and 2007, a period Nau calls ``the Great 
Expansion,'' the United States grew by more than 3 percent per year and 
created more than 50 million new jobs, ``massively expanding a middle 
class of workers,'' in Nau's words.
  Nau continues:

       Per capita income increased by 65 percent, and household 
     income went up substantially in all income categories. . . . 
     In the past three decades, households making more than 
     $105,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars doubled to 24 percent 
     from 11 percent.

  These are remarkable increases in wealth. What policies produced this 
expansion? Again quoting Nau:

       Precisely the free-market policies of deregulation and 
     lower marginal income-tax rates that [President] Obama 
     decries.

  If the President wants to increase class mobility and prosperity and 
build on the successes of the ``Great Expansion,'' then he must turn 
away from the statist policies that have dominated his 3 years in 
office. As Brooks and Wehner write:

       The answer is not less capitalism, it is better 
     capitalists.

  And I would add, that includes the President and his advisers.
  Most fundamentally, our policies must reward hard work and merit for 
the simple reason that people are more successful and industrious when 
they get to keep more of the fruits of their labor.
  That is what we call earned success. Their prosperity flows to others 
when they open businesses, create jobs and new products, compete for 
workers, raise wages, and invest their profits, which can then be lent 
to other entrepreneurs. But when market forces are restricted--when 
taxes are too high and regulations are too stifling--entrepreneurship 
loses its appeal. If people think outcomes are predetermined by the 
government, they don't have incentives to compete.
  A 2005 study by economists Alberto Alesina and George-Marios 
Angeletos underscores the point. They found that beliefs about 
meritocratic rewards are self-fulfilling. They concluded that if a 
society thinks people have a right to enjoy the fruits of their effort, 
it will choose low taxes and have lower tolerance for redistribution. 
Effort will be high in these places. Conversely, they found that if 
citizens believe the system is rigged and that luck and connections, 
not merit, are the key determinants of success, then they will demand 
forced wealth redistribution and effort will be lower in these places.
  Simply put, if people think the system is inherently unfair, it will 
wind up that way. That is precisely what has happened in countries such 
as Spain and Greece, where outcomes are divorced from effort, and, to a 
large measure, bureaucrats and special interests dictate who gets 
economic rewards.
  Since everyone does better when effort is rewarded, then protecting 
merit-based success is a moral issue. Indeed, the first American 
immigrants left countries with too little opportunity for advancement 
to come here and earn rewards based on merit and be the masters of 
their own destiny. Polls have shown that, over the years, Americans 
have not grown tired of the merit-based system but instinctively 
support it. U2 singer Bono colorfully explained why individual 
determinism in America is so great:

       In America, the guy looks up at the mansion on the hill and 
     says, ``One day, if I really work hard, I am going to live in 
     the mansion on the hill.'' In Dublin, they look at the 
     mansion on the hill and say, ``One day I'm going to get that 
     [guy].''

  Free markets breed a culture of aspiration and mobility, in which 
people reject the politics of envy and instead focus on their own 
advancement and their own success. If our goal is to foster such a 
positive culture of achievement, then we must eschew class warfare in 
favor of the free-market policies that have done so much to boost 
prosperity both at home and abroad.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the amendment I have 
offered with my friend, Senator Casey from Pennsylvania, on the highway 
bill, amendment No. 1540.
  In my State, and I think in the whole country, the question we hear 
over and over again is: Where are the private sector jobs? What can we 
do to get the economy back on track?
  There are very few places the Federal Government can create private 
sector jobs. One of the few places we can do that is in public works, 
such as the highway bill, where most of the work to build a new bridge 
or a new highway is done by competitive bid and by private sector 
employers and private sector employees. While we probably take a 
different approach to how we get there, I think all of us understand it 
is critical we work together to find common ground to create jobs and 
to create economic growth.
  This infrastructure bill could be--and I hope it turns out to be--a 
good start. There is no doubt that infrastructure is the foundation of 
our economy. Quality transportation is vital to connect people and 
communities, to connect people to the places they work, to connect the 
products they make to the places they need to go. That doesn't happen 
without a good infrastructure program and one that maintains and 
expands as needs to be the infrastructure that we have. I am very 
hopeful this bill can provide that additional element to getting our 
economy back on track.
  At the heart of the problem for small towns and for local governments 
in so many States, and particularly in Missouri, is the bridge system 
that is not

[[Page 3101]]

part of the Federal structure. It is the so-called off-system bridge 
network, where local communities are responsible for bridges.
  Missouri has perhaps more bridges than any other State. I was in one 
of our counties just recently where the county itself--and we have 115 
counties. So unlike some of the Western States, the counties aren't 
huge. They are designed to be compact, and people could get across them 
in the 1820s and 1830s in 1 day, before automobiles. So we have lots of 
counties, and 1 of them has 148 bridges. Our smallest county by 
population, with only 4,000 people, has 100 bridges. So every 40 people 
in that county are essentially responsible for maintaining a bridge, 
and bridges are expensive. That off-system bridge network carries 
schoolbuses, emergency vehicles, lots of agricultural products, 
families going about their daily routine. Without those bridges, that 
local infrastructure doesn't work.
  What we are suggesting and calling for in this amendment is simply to 
continue the current policy. I am not talking about any new money for 
bridges. We are not talking about any new program for bridges. But the 
bill itself doesn't continue the 15 percent of the bridge funds that 
has been allocated for some time now to local government. This would 
continue to have that same 15 percent going to local governments.
  There are almost 600,000 bridges in the country--more than 590,000, 
and 50 percent of those are considered off-system, and approximately 28 
percent of that 50 percent are currently considered deficient. Thirty-
two percent of the bridges in Missouri in the off-bridge system are 
considered deficient. They either aren't adequate for the traffic they 
now carry or are in need of repairs. One out of three bridges in our 
State needs an investment.
  The new penalty section of the underlying bill that would replace the 
current off-system bridge program makes that program even more 
uncertain at times when communities and job creators need it the most. 
Without our amendment, States would only have to sustain the previous 
number of deficient bridges every other year in order to avoid 
investing in their off-system bridges. It is a formula that doesn't 
work. It might work in big communities that have lots of miles that 
they maintain, but I doubt that. I think this makes an inconsistent 
investment in bridges all over the country.
  Our amendment ensures that counties are not left bearing the full 
responsibility of these off-system bridges. If they are left bearing 
that full responsibility, many of these bridges will not be fixed. This 
has been a major source of funding for counties working on bridges. 
This amendment would give States and counties the proper tools and 
resources and the assurance of a steady flow of funding in order to 
invest in the Nation's bridges.
  Additionally, the amendment establishes a procedure where the 
Transportation Secretary can rescind this requirement if State and 
local officials determine they have inadequate needs to justify these 
expenditures. In other words, if they can't justify spending the money 
in their State, then the Federal Government clearly doesn't have to 
allocate that 15 percent to local communities and to States for the 
off-system program.
  When I listen to community leaders, and certainly when I listen to 
county commissioners, this is a topic that comes up in most of our 
counties with great concern. The counties where it doesn't come up 
wouldn't have to apply for the money. That 15 percent, allocated 
appropriately, will make a big difference.
  Community leaders and job creators are looking for things that allow 
them to prepare for a more certain future. They need the ability to 
look beyond 6 months or 1 year to plan and anticipate how they are 
going to repair bridges, which bridges they are going to look at this 
year, which bridges they will then put off until next year. But right 
now, they would have no way of knowing whether there would be any 
Federal assistance to these communities. We need to be sure we provide 
this certainty for off-system bridges if we are going to promote job 
creation and economic development. We have to work together in the 
Nation's Capital to make smart investments in our Nation's 
transportation system if we are going to provide communities and job 
creators with greater certainty to prepare for the future.
  I wish to thank Senator Casey for his hard work on this issue. I am 
glad to join him on this amendment. It is critical to the State of 
Missouri and many other States. The National Association of Counties, 
the National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, the 
National Association of County Engineers, the American Public Works 
Association, the National Association of Regional Councils, and the 
National Association of Development Officials are all in support of 
this amendment. I hope we have it included in the amendments we get to 
vote on, and I urge my colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort to 
create more certainty for local governments.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         WIND TURBINE SUBSIDIES

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, today in the Wall Street Journal 
there coincidentally was an editorial on the subject about which I 
speak, and this was entitled ``Republicans Blow With the Wind. Another 
industry wants to keep its tax subsidies.'' It is about the possibility 
that the Senate will be asked--maybe as early as the next few days 
during the debate on the Transportation bill--to extend yet 1 more year 
the Federal taxpayers' subsidy for large wind turbines.
  I would like to take a few minutes to say why I don't believe we 
should do that, and I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks 
the Wall Street Journal editorial be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I believe it is time for Congress to 
stop the Big Wind gravy train. Subsidies for developers of huge wind 
turbines will cost taxpayers $14 billion over 5 years, between 2009 and 
2013, according to the Joint Tax Committee and the Treasury Department. 
This is more than the special tax breaks for Big Oil, which Congress 
should also end. $6 billion of these Big Wind subsidies will come from 
the production tax credit for renewable energy, which Congress 
temporarily enacted in 1992. The prospect for the expiration of this 
tax break at the end of this year has filled the Capitol with lobbyists 
hired by investors wealthy enough to profit from the tax breaks. 
President Obama even wants to make these tax credits permanent. 
According to the Wall Street Journal, this is a ``make or break 
moment'' for wind power companies.
  There are three reasons the Big Wind subsidies should go the way of 
the $5 billion annual ethanol subsidy, which Congress allowed to expire 
last year. First, we cannot afford it. The Federal Government borrows 
40 cents of every dollar it spends. It cannot justify such a subsidy, 
especially for what the Nobel Prize-winning U.S. Energy Secretary calls 
a ``mature technology.''
  Second, wind turbines produce a relatively puny amount of expensive, 
unreliable electricity. Wind produces 2.3 percent of our electricity, 
less than 8 percent of our pollution-free electricity. One alternative 
is natural gas, which is abundant, cheap, and very clean. Another 
alternative is nuclear. Reactors power our Navy and produce 70 percent 
of our pollution-free electricity. Using windmills to power a country 
that uses one-fourth of all of the world's electricity world would be 
the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats.

[[Page 3102]]

  Finally, these massive turbines too often destroy the environment in 
the name of saving the environment. When wind advocate T. Boone Pickens 
was asked whether he would put turbines on his Texas ranch, Mr. Pickens 
answered: No, they're ugly.
  A new documentary movie, ``Windfall,'' chronicles upstate New York 
residents debating whether to build giant turbines in their town. A New 
York Times review of this film reported this:

       Turbines are huge: Some are 40 stories tall, with 130-foot 
     blades weighing seven tons and spinning at 150 miles per 
     hour. They can fall over or send parts flying; struck by 
     lightning, say, they can catch fire. Their 24/7 rotation 
     emits nerve-racking low frequencies (like a pulsing disco) 
     amplified by rain and moisture, and can generate a 
     disorienting strobe effect in sunlight. Giant flickering 
     shadows can tarnish a sunset's glow on a landscape.

  Let's consider the three arguments one by one. First, the money. For 
all we hear about Big Oil, you may be surprised to learn that special 
tax breaks for Big Wind are greater. During the 5 years from 2009 to 
2013, Federal subsidies for Big Wind equal $14 billion. I am only 
counting the production tax credit and the cash grants that the 2009 
stimulus law offered to wind developers in lieu of the tax credit. An 
analysis of that stimulus cash grant program by Greenwire found that 64 
percent of the 50 highest dollar grants awarded--or about $2.7 
billion--went to projects that had begun construction before the 
stimulus measures started.
  Steve Ellis, the vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told 
Greenwire:

       It's essentially funding economic activity that already 
     would have occurred. So it's just a pure subsidy.

  According to President Obama's new budget, Big Oil receives multiple 
tax subsidies. Doing away with them would save about $4.7 billion a 
year in fiscal year 2013 or about $22 billion over 5 years it says. So 
far it sounds like Big Oil with $22 billion, is bigger in subsidies 
than Big Wind with $14 billion. But here is the catch: Many of the 
subsidies that the President is attacking oil companies for receiving 
are regular tax provisions that are the same or similar to those other 
industries receive. For example, Xerox, Microsoft, and Caterpillar all 
benefit from tax provisions like the manufacturing tax credit, 
amortization or depreciation of used equipment that the President is 
counting as Big Oil subsidies.
  Of course, wind energy companies also benefit from many similar tax 
provisions. But the production tax credit that benefits wind is in 
addition to the regular Tax Code provisions that benefit many 
companies. So the only way to make a fair comparison is to look only at 
subsidies that mostly benefit only oil or only wind, and by that 
measure wind gets more breaks than oil.
  The Heritage Foundation has done an analysis showing that if Big Oil 
received the same type of production tax credit as Big Wind, then the 
taxpayer would be paying Big Oil about $50 per barrel of oil when 
adjusted for today's prices. According to a 2008 Energy Information 
Administration report, Big Wind received an $18.82 federal subsidy per 
megawatt hour, 25 times as much as per megawatt hour as subsidies for 
all other forms of electricity production combined.
  The production tax credit became law in 1992. Its goal was to jump-
start renewable energy production. While it is advertised as a tax 
credit for renewable energy, according to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, 75 percent of the credit goes to wind developers. Here is how 
it works: For every kilowatt hour of electricity produced from wind, 
turbine owners receive 2.2 cents in a tax credit. For example, if a 
Texas utility buys electricity from a wind developer at 6 cents a 
kilowatt hour, the Federal taxpayer will pay the developer another 2.2 
cents per kilowatt hour. This 2.2-cent subsidy continues for the first 
10 years that the turbine is in service. This 2.2-cent credit is worth 
3.4 cents per kilowatt hour in cash savings on the tax return of a 
wealthy investor. Wind developers often sell their tax credits to Wall 
Street banks or big corporations or other investors who have large 
incomes. They create what is called a tax equity deal in order to lower 
or even eliminate taxes. This is the scheme our President, who is 
championing economic fairness, would like to make permanent.
  Energy expert Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer prize winner, says the 
price of oil during 2011, when adjusted for inflation, is higher than 
at any time since 1860. It therefore makes no sense whatsoever to give 
special tax breaks to Big Oil. Neither does it make sense to extend 
special tax breaks to Big Wind, a mature technology. For every $3 saved 
by eliminating these wasteful subsidies, I would spend $2 to reduce the 
Federal debt and $1 to double research for new forms of cheap, clean 
energy for our country.
  The second problem with electricity produced from wind is there is 
not much of it, and since the wind blows when it wants to, and for the 
most part, it cannot be stored, it is not reliable. For this reason the 
claims in newspapers about how much electricity wind produces are 
misleading because of the difference between the capacity of an energy 
plant and its actual production.
  Daniel Yergin says the U.S. installed capacity for wind power grew at 
an average annual rate of 40 percent between 2005 and 2009. In terms of 
absolute capacity, Yergin writes in his book The Quest, that growth in 
capacity was the equivalent to adding 25 new nuclear plants. But Yergin 
writes: In terms of actual generation of electricity, it was more like 
adding nine reactors. This is because nuclear plants operate 90 percent 
of the time while wind turbines operate about one-third of the time.
  As an example, the Tennessee Valley Authority constructed a 29-
megawatt wind farm at Buffalo Mountain at a cost of $60 million. It is 
the only wind farm in the Southeast.
  We read in the papers about a 29-megawatt wind farm, but that is not 
its real output. In practice, Buffalo Mountain has only generated 
electricity 19 percent of the time, since the wind doesn't blow very 
much in the Southeast. So this wind farm, sounding like a 29-megawatt 
power plant, only generates 6 megawatts. TVA considers Buffalo Mountain 
to be a failed experiment. In fact, looking for wind power in the 
Southeast is a little like looking for hydropower in the desert.
  So one problem with this Big Wind subsidy is that it has encouraged 
developers to build wind projects in places where the wind doesn't blow 
or the wind doesn't blow.
  Finally, there is the question of whether in the name of saving the 
environment wind turbines are destroying the environment. These are not 
your grandma's windmills. They are taller than the Statue of Liberty, 
their blades are as long as a football field, and their blinking lights 
can be seen for 20 miles. Not everyone agrees with T. Boone Pickens 
that they are ugly but, when these towers move from television 
advertisements into your neighborhood, you might agree with Mr. 
Pickens. Energy sprawl is the term conservation groups use to describe 
the march of 45-story wind turbines onto the landscape of ``America the 
Beautiful.''
  If the United States generated 20 percent of our electricity from 
wind, as some have suggested, that would cover an area the size of West 
Virginia with 186,000 wind turbines. It would also be necessary to 
build 12,000 new miles of transmission lines.
  The late Ted Kennedy and his successor Senator Scott Brown have both 
complained about how a wind farm the size of Manhattan Island will 
clutter the ocean landscape around Nantucket Island.
  Robert Bryce told the Wall Street Journal that the noise of turbines, 
the ``infra sound'' issue, is the most problematic for the wind 
industry. ``They want to dismiss it out of hand, but the low frequency 
noise is very disturbing,'' he explains. ``I interviewed people all 
over, and they all complained with identical words and descriptions 
about the problems they were feeling from the noise.''
  Theodore Roosevelt was our greatest conservation President, and his 
greatest passion was for birds. Birds must think wind turbines are 
Cuisinarts in the sky.

[[Page 3103]]

  Last month, two golden eagles were found dead at California's Pine 
Tree wind farm, bringing the total count of dead golden eagles at that 
wind farm to eight carcasses. And the Los Angeles Times reports that 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ``has determined that the six golden 
eagles found dead earlier at the 2-year-old wind farm in Kern County 
were struck by blades from some of the 90 turbines spread across the 
8,000 acres at the site.'' That puts the death rate per turbine at the 
Pine Tree wind farm at three times higher than at California's Altamont 
Pass Wind Resource Area, which has 5,000 turbines that kill 67 golden 
eagles each year.
  Apparently eagle killing has gotten so commonplace that the U.S. 
Department of the Interior will grant wind developers hunting licenses 
for eagles. In Goodhue County, MN, a company wants to build 48 turbines 
on 50 square miles of land, and to do that it has applied for an 
``eagle take'' permit which will allow it to kill a certain number of 
eagles before facing penalties.
  I have figured out how such a hunting license squares with federal 
laws that will put you in prison or fine you if you kill migratory 
birds or eagles. Nor have I figured out how it squares with the Fish 
and Wildlife Service fining Exxon $600,000 in 2009 when oil development 
harmed protected birds. Do not the same laws protecting birds apply to 
both Big Wind and Big Oil?
  Surely, there are appropriate places for wind power in a country that 
needs clean electricity and that has learned the value of a diverse set 
of energy sources. But if reliable, cheap, and clean electricity 
without energy sprawl is our goal, then four nuclear reactors--each 
occupying 1 square mile--would equal the production of a row of 50-
story wind turbines strung along the entire 2,178-mile length of the 
Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine.
  According to Benjamin Zycher at the American Enterprise Institute, a 
1,000-megawatt natural gas powerplant would take up about 15 acres 
while a comparable wind farm would take up 48,000 to 60,000 acres. And, 
of course, even if someone built all of those turbines, you would still 
need the nuclear or gas plants for when the wind doesn't blow.
  Our energy policy should to be, first, double the $5 billion Federal 
energy budget for research on new forms of cheap, clean, reliable 
energy. I am talking about such research for the 500-mile battery for 
electric cars, for commercial uses of carbon captured from coal plants, 
solar power installed at less than $1 a watt, or even offshore wind 
turbines.
  Second, we should strictly limit and support a handful of jumpstart 
research and development projects to take new technologies from their 
research and development phase to the commercial phase. I am thinking 
here of projects like ARPA-E, modeled after the Defense Department's 
DARPA, that led to the internet, stealth, and other remarkable 
technologies. Or the 5-year program for small modular nuclear reactors.
  Third, we should end wasteful, long-term, special tax breaks such as 
those for Big Oil and Big Wind. The savings from ending those subsidies 
should be used to double clean energy research and to reduce our 
Federal debt.
  For a strong country, we need large amounts of cheap, reliable, clean 
energy, and we need a balanced budget. This is an energy policy that 
could help us do both.

                               Exhibit 1

                     Republicans Blow With the Wind


         Another Industry wants to keep its taxpayer subsidies

       Congress finally ended decades of tax credits for ethanol 
     in December, a small triumph for taxpayers. Now comes another 
     test as the wind-power industry lobbies for a $7 billion 
     renewal of its production tax credit.
       The renewable energy tax credit--mostly for wind and solar 
     power--started in 1992 as a ``temporary'' benefit for an 
     infant industry. Twenty years later, the industry wants 
     another four years on the dole, and Senator Jeff Bingaman of 
     New Mexico has introduced a national renewable-energy mandate 
     so consumers will be required to buy wind and solar power no 
     matter how high the cost.
       The truth is that those giant wind turbines from Maine to 
     California won't turn without burning through billions upon 
     billions of taxpayer dollars. In 2010 the industry received 
     some $5 billon in subsidies for nearly every stage of wind 
     production.
       The ``1603 grant program'' pays up to 30% of the 
     construction costs for renewable energy plants (a subsidy 
     that ended last year but which President Obama calls for 
     reviving in his budget). Billions in Department of Energy 
     grants and loan guarantees also finance the operating costs 
     of these facilities. Wind producers then get the 2.2% tax 
     credit for every kilowatt of electricity generated.
       Because wind-powered electricity is so expensive, more than 
     half of the 50 states have passed renewable energy mandates 
     that require utilities to purchase wind and solar power--a de 
     facto tax on utility bills. And don't forget subsidies to 
     build transmission lines to deliver wind power to the 
     electric grid.
       What have taxpayers received for this multibillion-dollar 
     ``investment''? The latest Department of Energy figures 
     indicate that wind and solar power accounted for a mere 1.5% 
     of U.S. energy production in 2010. DOE estimates that by 2035 
     wind will provide a still trivial 3.9% of U.S. electricity.
       Even that may be too optimistic because of the natural gas 
     boom that has produced a happy supply shock and cut prices by 
     more than half. Most economic models forecasting that 
     renewable energy will become price competitive are based on 
     predictions of natural gas prices at well above $6 per 
     million cubic feet, more than twice the current cost.
       The most dishonest claim is that wind and solar deserve to 
     be wards of the state because the oil and gas industry has 
     also received federal support. That's the $4 billion a year 
     in tax breaks for oil and gas (which all manufacturers 
     receive), but the oil and gas industry still pays tens of 
     billions in federal taxes every year.
       Wind and solar companies are net tax beneficiaries. 
     Taxpayers would save billions of dollars if wind and solar 
     produced no energy at all. A July 2011 Energy Department 
     study found that oil, natural gas and coal received an 
     average of 64 cents of subsidy per megawatt hour in 2010. 
     Wind power received nearly 100 times more, or $56.29 per 
     megawatt hour.
       Most Congressional Democrats will back anything with the 
     green label. But Republican support for big wind is a pure 
     corporate welfare play that violates free-market principles. 
     Last week six Republican Senators--John Boozman of Arkansas, 
     Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Charles Grassley of Iowa, John 
     Hoeven of North Dakota, Jerry Moran of Kansas and John Thune 
     of South Dakota--signed a letter urging their colleagues to 
     extend the production tax credit.
       ``It is clear that the wind industry currently requires tax 
     incentives'' and that continuing that federal aid can help 
     the industry ``move towards a market-based system,'' said the 
     letter. What's the ``market-based'' timetable--100 years? In 
     the House 18 Republicans have joined the 70 Member wind pork 
     caucus. Someone should remind them that in 2008 and 2010 the 
     wind lobby gave 71% of its PAC money to Democrats.
       Here's a better idea. Kill all energy subsidies--renewable 
     and nonrenewable, starting with the wind tax credit, and use 
     the savings to shave two or three percentage points off 
     America's corporate income tax. Kansas Congressman Mike 
     Pompeo has a bill to do so. This would do more to create jobs 
     than attempting to pick energy winners and losers. Mandating 
     that American families and businesses use expensive 
     electricity doesn't create jobs. It destroys them.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________