[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3428-3443]
[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. Under the previous order, 
the time until 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled 
between the two leaders or their designees. The clerk will state the 
bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       McCain modified amendment No. 1669, to enhance the natural 
     quiet and safety of airspace of the Grand Canyon National 
     Park.
       Corker amendment No. 1810, to ensure that the aggregate 
     amount made available for transportation projects for a 
     fiscal year does not exceed the estimated amount available 
     for those projects in the Highway Trust Fund for the fiscal 
     year.
       Coats (for Alexander) amendment No. 1779, to make technical 
     corrections to certain provisions relating to overflights of 
     National Parks.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I am rising to speak about the Senate's 
constitutional duty of advice and consent on judicial nominations. This 
power is enormously important. In no way did the writers of our 
Constitution envision that this body would use their power of advice 
and consent as a method of undermining the ability of the other two 
branches to perform their responsibilities.
  Indeed, throughout the history of the United States, Senators from 
both sides of the aisle have taken this responsibility of advice and 
consent very seriously. This duty requires us to put aside ideology and 
partisanship because otherwise our constituents, through our inaction, 
would be unable to obtain the speedy and public trial that is supposed 
to be their birthright as Americans.
  Americans are not thinking of their district courts in terms of red 
courts and blue courts. They are not thinking of their circuit courts 
in terms of red courts and blue courts. No, they are thinking about 
Lady Justice, about justice being delivered in an evenhanded and swift 
manner. When they see the obstruction of the judiciary that is 
emanating from the Senate, they are frustrated. They are frustrated. 
They recognize that when the judiciary is damaged and justices go 
unappointed, indeed that means delays for cases and that means their 
right to a speedy trial is taken away. They are thinking about the 
chaos that results when a case remains in limbo for too long.
  So why in the past few years have we allowed partisanship to overtake 
our duty to maintain a functional judiciary? Simply put: Some Senators 
in this body, motivated by misguided notions of partisan warfare, have 
decided to abuse the supermajority power of this Chamber in order to 
undermine the judiciary.
  This bears little resemblance to the Senate of 1976 when I first came 
here as an intern, when the power of the supermajority was recognized 
as an exceptional act of conscience to be used only for the most 
enormous issues, when a Senator would be willing to stand on the floor 
of the Senate and make his or her case before the American people as to 
why the simple majority envisioned in the Constitution for this body to 
act should be obstructed. Now we see Senators exercising their power to 
obstruct a simple majority and not coming to the floor to defend their 
position. They are afraid of public reaction to their obstruction of 
this body because they know the public expects us to be responsible in 
reviewing and voting on nominees for the executive branch and for the 
judiciary.
  The Senate of 1976 would never have entertained the idea that well-
qualified nominees would be routinely subjected to filibusters. Indeed, 
even throughout most of the last decade, this has not been the case. So 
imagine my surprise when I came here as a new Senator in 2009, 
revisiting the Chamber I came to as a youth in 1976, and I discovered 
the two Senates bore little resemblance to each other; that the 
reasonably responsive, bipartisan, collaborative body of 1976 had been 
replaced with a Senate now paralyzed due to the abuse of the filibuster 
and the supermajority.
  Instead of debate and deliberation, followed by up-or-down votes, 
Senators have even been blocking motions to proceed. In other words, 
they have been blocking the ability to debate whether to get to a bill 
in order to debate an issue--two levels removed from actual discussion 
and decisionmaking.
  In contrast to the image Americans have of the filibuster made famous 
by Jimmy Stewart, who comes to Washington and stands in the well of the 
Senate and carries on his fight and his argument in front of the 
American people until he collapses from exhaustion, now the Senator who 
filibusters can hide from the American people. They object to the 
simple majority rule, go off and have a fancy wine dinner, while 
American justice remains unfulfilled. That is not right.
  There has been egregious abuse of the filibuster across all areas, 
but it is particularly destructive in regard to judges. That is because 
we are often talking about judges everyone agrees are well qualified--
judges who pass out of committee unanimously, and judges who, when they 
reach a final vote, pass this Chamber with 80 or 90 or 95 Members 
saying, yes, that person is the right person to fill that judicial 
vacancy. So why on Earth--why on Earth--are we dragging our feet on 
these nominees when we have courts in crisis?
  Lest my colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply think we are 
raising this now because we are in the majority and they are in the 
minority, let us revisit the point in 2004, at the exact same point 
into the administration of

[[Page 3429]]

George W. Bush that we are now with this administration.
  Here is a chart that compares the two administrations. We have both 
the circuit court and the district court. This far into the 
administration of George W. Bush, the time it took to go from committee 
to being confirmed was 29 days. The time now is 131 days for a circuit 
court nominee, and getting longer with every delay we have. And for the 
district court, at this time in the Bush administration, it took 22 
days to go from committee to confirmation, whereas now, under the 
dysfunction of our current Senate, with the abuse of this current 
Senate, it is taking 93 days.
  If these bars were reversed, my colleagues in the minority would come 
to the floor and say, look what a good job we did previously and what a 
terrible job is being done now, and I would agree with them, that we 
have to be able to get folks out of committee and we have to be able to 
vote on them. We need to work together to change this situation because 
the result of these delays means there are more and more vacancies, 
more and more judicial emergencies, and where it has been declared 
those vacancies are having an emergency impact on the function of the 
judiciary.
  Let's take a look at that issue. Here we have judicial vacancies in 
recent Presidencies. In March 1996, we had 53 vacancies at that time in 
one administration. In March 2004, there were 47 vacancies under Bush. 
Now here we are with 94 vacancies in district and circuit courts, so 
virtually a doubling of those vacant positions that are preventing 
speedy and responsive trials across our Nation. That is why our Chief 
Justice has declared there is a judicial emergency in our country; that 
justice delayed is justice denied; that we, the Senate, must do a 
better job of fulfilling our responsibility under the Constitution.
  In many cases, the home State Senators for a particular circuit or 
district court nominee have done their job. They have vetted the 
candidates, forwarded the names of nominees, and the administration has 
picked one of them. Often this is a bipartisan deliberation. Yet here 
we are, even after clearing the Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan 
fashion, paralyzed on the floor of the Senate. So we have no one else 
to blame. We can't blame the home State Senators, we can't blame the 
Judiciary Committee. It is only the floor of this Chamber where there 
is obstruction by those who are basically taking an arrow and aiming it 
at the heart of justice across this Nation.
  It is time for this body to do its job, and it is time for these 
nominees to be voted on here on the floor of the Senate. It is time to 
fill those vacancies and put justices into place in order to fulfill 
our responsibility to advise and consent and to fulfill the judiciary's 
responsibility to provide justice across our Nation.
  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 legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Abrams Nomination

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I am honored to offer my support for 
the nomination of Ronnie Abrams to the United States District Court for 
the Southern District of New York. I also want to thank President Obama 
for acting on my recommendation and nominating another superbly 
qualified female jurist to the Federal bench.
  I have had the privilege of knowing Ronnie for many years. I know her 
as a fair-minded woman of great integrity. Throughout her distinguished 
legal career she has proven herself as an exceptional attorney. As the 
Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in 
the Southern District of New York, she supervised 160 prosecutions of 
violent crime, organized crime, white-collar crime, public corruption, 
drug trafficking, and computer crime. She helped shape the policy and 
management of the U.S. Attorney's Office, guiding its success in a 
broad range of high-level, high-stakes cases. Her record shows her 
commitment to justice. I can tell you she has a deep and sincere 
commitment to public service.
  There is no question that Ms. Abrams is extremely well qualified and 
well suited to serve on the Federal judiciary. I strongly believe this 
country needs women such as her serving in the Federal judiciary, an 
institution that I believe needs more exceptional women. Ronnie Abrams 
received bipartisan support among the Senate Judiciary Committee 
members. Yet because of the political games we have today, she has 
waited more than 227 days to be confirmed. As my colleague from Oregon 
pointed out, that is far longer than any nominee had been waiting under 
the George Bush administration.
  I have traveled all across New York State, at event after event, 
urging more women to enter public service. I am encouraged that women 
now make up nearly half of all our law students and about 30 percent of 
the Federal bench. For the first time in history, women also represent 
nearly one-third of the seats on trial courts, courts of appeal, and--
after the confirmations of Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan to the 
highest Court in the land--the Supreme Court.
  The Obama administration has taken significant steps toward 
maintaining and indeed increasing the representation of women in the 
Federal judiciary. Forty-seven percent of President Obama's confirmed 
nominees have been women, compared to only 22 percent of the judges 
confirmed under his predecessor.
  While it is true women have come a long way in filling the ranks of 
the legal world, we still have a long way to go to achieve equality and 
a Federal bench that is truly reflective of the American people. I 
believe it is incredibly important we reach that point of equality 
because it can bring us closer to full equality and justice throughout 
our legal system and throughout our Nation. Not only is Ms. Abrams an 
exceptional jurist, there is no doubt that having Ms. Abrams serving in 
the Federal judiciary will bring us closer to that goal.
  I ask my Republican colleagues to come together now around this 
shared value that we believe as a Nation, as a body, that everyone 
deserves justice.
  We have to work together because, as it stands, there are not enough 
judges right now to do the work our overloaded courts need them to do. 
We have to be able to hand out justice in a timely manner.
  Former Attorney General to President George W. Bush Michael Mukasey 
recently remarked that the civil litigation system has ground to a 
halt. That is not the kind of system the American people deserve, and 
we cannot let partisan politics and political bickering get in the way 
of allowing our judicial system to function properly.
  I recommend Ms. Abrams because of her dedication to the law, her 
commitment to fairness, and her ability to serve the people of the 
great State of New York with dignity and integrity. I have been very 
honored to recommend her for this position, and I urge my colleagues to 
move forward to support her confirmation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1556

  Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1556.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes amendment 
     numbered 1556.


[[Page 3430]]

  Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To permit emergency exemptions from compliance with certain 
                laws for highway construction projects)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EMERGENCY EXEMPTIONS.

       With respect to any road, highway, or bridge that is closed 
     or is operating at reduced capacity because of safety 
     reasons--
       (1) the road, highway, or bridge may be reconstructed in 
     the same general location as before the disaster; and
       (2) such reconstruction shall be exempt from any 
     environmental reviews, approvals, licensing, and permit 
     requirements.

  Mr. PAUL. The question I have for Senate is, Has your government 
gotten out of control? Have the regulators become so numerous and so 
zealous that we can't even carry on the ordinary affairs of our 
government?
  We recently had a bridge where a boat ran into the bridge in Kentucky 
and one could no longer cross the bridge because it is not there. We 
have to wait for environmental regulations and environmental studies, 
which sometimes can be 4 and 5 years, before we can repair our bridges 
and our roads during an emergency. This is crazy. This goes on even in 
regular affairs, such as trying to replace a sewage plant in our State 
or throughout the United States. Do we want to live in a country where 
we have to stop and count how many barnacles are on our bridge before 
we decide whether to rebuild the bridge? Do we want to stop and count 
how many mussels are attached to the pier before we rebuild the bridge? 
In the end we are going to rebuild the bridge anyway, but we spend a 
year's time or more wasted on these studies but in the end we are going 
to rebuild the bridge. I will give an example.
  We have a small town in Kentucky that has a sewage plant, and the 
population of the town has outgrown the sewage plant. When it rains, 
the raw sewage goes into the river. I don't know any Republican or 
Democrat who wants raw sewage in the river. So we need a new sewage 
plant in the town. But what does the EPA say? They want to count the 
mussels. They want to count the mussels in the river and then they want 
to estimate will there be more mussels or less mussels after we build a 
new sewage plant. Guess what. When we build a new sewage plant, the raw 
sewage would not go in the river, which is what we all intend and in 
the end what will happen but, in the meantime, we waste time and money.
  This small town of about 300 people is going to have to spend 
$100,000 on an EPA study to hire someone to count the mussels. While 
they are counting the mussels, they are going to have to hire someone 
to count the Indian artifacts and look for Indian arrowheads. If they 
find an arrowhead, it may delay it indefinitely. We have gone crazy as 
a country. We all want some rules. We don't want anyone to pollute our 
neighbor's property, but the EPA is out of control.
  What we need to do is in emergencies or urgencies, when a bridge 
collapses or a roadway is washed away, we don't need to spend 1 year or 
2 or 4 or 5 years doing an EPA study, which basically enriches some 
contractor that counts the mussels. We don't need to be counting the 
mussels in this stream. We need to get to repairing the bridge, which 
we are going to do anyway. We are just going to waste 1 year counting 
the mussels and paying some contractor $100,000 a year.
  So this amendment would allow States to opt out. The bridge we have 
out in Kentucky has two communities. Many people live in one community 
and have to drive to the other community. They can't get there because 
of the bridge. Do we want to wait 1 year because they have to count how 
many barnacles are on the bridge?
  This is a commonsense resolution that should pass, but I will tell 
you the way Washington works, the other side doesn't want my amendment 
to pass, even though it has common sense, so they are going to offer an 
alternative. Their alternative is to say something but do nothing. It 
is called a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. They will proudly proclaim 
we need to make it better, and, please, Mr. Regulator, make it better. 
But they will not change the law.
  Mine would actually change the law to allow communities to start 
rebuilding their bridge or repairing their road almost immediately, in 
the same location, free of the government regulations. We need to do 
this at all levels. This is a very small incremental step forward. It 
is something on which we should all agree. If we watch the vote later 
on today, we will find out we don't all agree and, instead, the other 
side is going to say: Say something; do nothing.
  This is something we need to, as a society, get started on because we 
are being killed by regulations. This is one small step on something 
that should be bipartisan. There are many more steps that need to be 
taken, because throughout our country millions of jobs are being lost 
from overzealous regulators. Millions of people's privacy and private 
property rights are being invaded by these regulators, and this is a 
very small incremental stop of the encroachment of these regulators.
  I urge support of my amendment 1556, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask my friend to withdraw the request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator withdraw his 
request for a quorum call?
  Mr. PAUL. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 1816

  Mrs. BOXER. First of all, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
call up Boxer amendment No. 1816, and I ask the clerk report the 
amendment by number.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report the amendment by number.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1816.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Federal agencies 
  should ensure that all applicable environmental reviews, approvals, 
 licensing, and permit requirements under Federal law are completed on 
          an expeditious basis after a disaster or emergency)

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

     SEC. 15__. SENSE OF SENATE CONCERNING EXPEDITIOUS COMPLETION 
                   OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, APPROVALS, LICENSING, 
                   AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that Federal agencies 
     should--
       (1) ensure that all applicable environmental reviews, 
     approvals, licensing, and permit requirements under Federal 
     law are completed on an expeditious basis following any 
     disaster or emergency declared under Federal law, including--
       (A) a major disaster declared by the President under 
     section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170); and
       (B) an emergency declared by the President under section 
     501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5191); and
       (2) use the shortest existing applicable process under 
     Federal law to complete each review, approval, licensing, and 
     permit requirement described in paragraph (1) following a 
     disaster or emergency described in that paragraph.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I just have to say Senator Paul's 
amendment is a broad overreach that would endanger the health and 
safety of the people he represents, whom I represent, and every Senator 
represents. What I have is essentially a side-by-side amendment that 
encourages and tells the agencies the Senate supports a very speedy 
process, which is already in the law, to review and approve health and 
environmental protections when we have to rebuild.
  The current law is flexible. If we look at the reconstruction of the 
bridge in Minnesota, everybody knows what happened there. It collapsed 
in August 2007, and the bridge was completely replaced by September 
2008, without these Draconian types of measures that

[[Page 3431]]

my friend puts forward. In other words, he is looking for a problem. 
The fact is we were able to see that bridge rebuilt in 1 year. That is 
amazing. No environmental laws were waived. People worked and made sure 
they all were expedited. So there is a difference between expediting a 
review, which we support. As a matter of fact, the underlying bill is 
very strong on that. We expedite reviews without giving up anything for 
the people. They can still make sure their rights are protected.
  Let's say a highway is washed away in a flood. If we were to follow 
Senator Paul's advice on his amendment, we would virtually have no 
studies to take a look at whether it makes more sense to rebuild it 
perhaps just a few feet away from where it washed out. It might avoid 
then the cascade of water that washed away in the first place. We may 
have a situation where they are rebuilding a bridge and as they put the 
foundation in they find out, through these studies--because they 
perhaps were never done before--these bridges are old, that there is a 
drinking water aquifer right below so if you move that a few feet, you 
resolve the problem. What is the point in not having information and 
making a huge mistake and rebuilding?
  We had a situation right here from an earthquake where we learned so 
much after the bridge collapsed; that if we used different materials, 
for example, it would withstand the next earthquake better. We do have 
earthquakes all the time, unfortunately, in our great State of 
California.
  So it is an overreach. It is radical. We don't want to waive all the 
protective laws that protect the drinking water of our people, that 
protect the environment. So I hope we will vote against the Paul 
amendment--I think it is very important to do that--and support my 
amendment, which basically is very clear and tells agencies they should 
use the most efficient and speedy process under the law to review and 
approve health and environmental protections.
  The bottom line is our underlying bill already includes significant 
bipartisan reforms that will ensure accelerated project delivery, 
including limiting the number of steps needed to clear a project for 
construction, easy and early coordination between agencies to avoid 
delays, incentives for accelerating the project delivery decisions. 
Amendment 1556, this amendment by Rand Paul, walks away from this 
bipartisan approach. It launches a sweeping attack on Federal and State 
health and environmental safeguards.
  When we need to rebuild a project and it involves toxic materials 
such as lead and asbestos, they have to be handled and disposed of 
properly to protect public health. Waiving all these Federal and State 
reviews endangers our people, and I hope we will vote no on amendment 
No. 1556 and yes on amendment No. 1816.
  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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am not going to call up my 
amendment that would limit the tolling federal highways, and limit 
tolling of Federal Interstates under the Pilot Program through which 
three facilities have been conditionally approved by the Department of 
Transportation. Senator Carper and I have talked, and his amendment, 
which would have expanded that, is also filed but is not going to be 
considered. Mine also was filed but it is not going to be considered.
  Here is the point, though. It is time that we have a real discussion 
and a debate about tolling. We need to bring this out. I ask the 
chairman and ranking members of the committee to have a hearing. Let's 
talk about this.
  When President Eisenhower said we need a National Highway System it 
was for the purpose of national security. That was his major purpose, 
but it has also clearly been a huge help for commerce, the ease of 
commerce and travel among our States. I don't think President 
Eisenhower ever envisioned that a State would then put tolls across an 
entire Federal highway and make the taxpayers--who have paid for 50 
years to build these highways, and not just in their States--pay again 
to use them. To me, that is not in keeping with the vision of President 
Eisenhower to have a free system that supports national defense, 
connectivity, and commerce.
  I am not going to offer my amendment and Senator Carper is not going 
to offer his amendment that would expand tolling. But I do think it is 
essential that we have a new policy for our highways that have been 
built for 50 years to give us the vision that President Eisenhower had 
of a National Highway System. We have completed it, the skeleton has 
been completed, now it is time to look at different ways of funding 
these highways. No. 1, I agree with tolling on one lane where there is 
at least the addition of a new free lane. That is fine so as long as 
you have the same number of free lanes for the people of the United 
States who have paid for these lanes and the truckers of the United 
States who are using these lanes. I do not object to tolling that adds 
new capacity, but to take all free lanes away and say we are going to 
toll the truckers and the taxpayers who have built and used these 
freeways is wrong. I think we should have a policy against it.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee is here, Senator Boxer. I ask as we move through this--and I 
do hope we have this 2-year bill, and I commend her and the ranking 
member, Senator Inhofe, for a 2-year bill that does keep our 
infrastructure going. But I hope in the future, as Congress considers a 
long-term bill, that we would have a national discussion on tolling. I 
think we should adopt a policy that says, No. 1, we are not going to 
clog the freeways already built by taxpayers with toll lanes that make 
Americans pay again; and, No. 2, that we will open up the possibility 
that States that are donor States, that are giving their hard-earned 
tax dollars to other States that now have equal ability to build out, 
that they be allowed to opt out of the Federal-Aid Highway Program and 
use their transportation dollars for their needs.
  We are a fast-growing State, as is the State of California. We need 
our highway dollars for our own priorities. I think that should be 
considered in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
Senator Boxer.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to congratulate Chairman Boxer 
and Ranking Member Inhofe for all of their hard work on this very 
important bill. This legislation is a major step forward toward 
addressing the significant infrastructure needs of our country and 
creating desperately needed jobs. I appreciate the inclusion of an 
amendment I offered which increases the Federal cost share for 
emergency relief permanent repairs in extreme disasters. My intent is 
that the provision will apply to all open disasters as of the date of 
enactment of this bill.
  Is this the chairman's understanding as well?
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to say to the Senator from 
Vermont, first of all, thank you for all of his hard work on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. The Senator focuses on jobs 
like a laser beam.
  Yes, the Senator is correct. The intent is that this provision would 
apply to all open disasters which would include the States which were 
pummeled by Hurricane Irene last year.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman for her hard work and her success.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.

[[Page 3432]]




               Amendment No. 1669, As Modified, Withdrawn

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the McCain amendment No. 1669, as 
modified, be withdrawn and the Shaheen amendment No. 1678 no longer be 
in order, as these issues were resolved in the managers' package last 
evening; further, that the Carper amendment No. 1670 and the Hutchison 
amendment No. 1568 no longer be in order as they no longer intend to 
offer these amendments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to each vote and all after the first vote be 10-
minute votes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, can I ask, what is the amendment pending 
before the body?


                           Amendment No. 1810

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
question is on amendment No. 1810.
  Mrs. BOXER. 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1810.
  The amendment (No. 1810) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1779

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is 
now 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 1779.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield back all time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1779) was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes of debate on 
amendment No. 1816.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I just wish to ask if it is possible, by 
unanimous consent, to permit Senator Carper to speak for 2 minutes to 
discuss an issue Senator Hutchison addressed before.
  I would ask unanimous consent if we could take a break from the 
voting.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, before I say anything, I would like to 
extend a heartfelt thanks to Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe and to 
members of our staff and your staff for their hard work. This is good 
stuff. Thank you.
  I wish to take 1 minute or so to talk about an amendment I have filed 
to this legislation with Senator Kirk and Senator Warner, to whom I 
offer my sincere thanks as well as a whole lot of organizations around 
the country which supported this legislation.
  Under current law a small number of States around the country now 
enjoy the flexibility to implement tolls on interstate highways. Under 
the amendment we filed, some additional States could choose to apply 
for that same flexibility. States would only use the toll revenues--a 
type of user fee--to pay for additional transportation investments 
along those roads that are actually being tolled.
  In Delaware and a handful of other States, interstate toll revenue is 
an important part of the State's transportation budget. Senators Kirk, 
Warner, and I believe other States should have the same option 
available to them. However, in an effort to move this critical 
transportation legislation forward, Senator Hutchison and I have both 
agreed not to offer our competing amendments to the bill.
  That being said, I filed this amendment, in part, because Congress 
needs to face the facts when it comes to transportation funding and 
declining gas tax revenues. If we are using less gas due to more 
energy-efficient vehicles, the cost of roads, highways, bridges, and 
transit continues to go up and we need to continue to pay for them. We 
cannot just keep borrowing money from around the world to do that. If 
we want to pass another Transportation bill when this legislation we 
are debating expires in 2 years, we must address structural flaws in 
the highway trust fund that are making long-term investments nearly 
impossible.
  Our respective amendments are at odds with one another, but I hope 
they represent the beginning of an honest and important conversation 
about our Nation's long-term transportation needs and how we pay for 
them in a fiscally responsible way.
  With that, I am pleased to yield the floor to whoever seeks 
recognition.


                           Amendment No. 1816

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes of debate, 
equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1816 
offered by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we have two choices on how to handle 
rebuilding and maintaining infrastructure, whether it occurs after an 
emergency or is just in the stream of regular maintenance.
  What we have done in this bill is extraordinary, and I think everyone 
would admit we have speeded up the approval process for all 
construction in the underlying bill. This was a hot issue. Senator 
Inhofe and I were coming from different places, but we reached strong 
agreement, and what we said in our amendment No. 1816 is that we 
encourage and support what we have done in the underlying bill and tell 
the agencies that after a disaster to move as fast as they can while 
protecting the people.
  What Senator Paul does in his amendment, it doesn't apply just after 
a disaster, it is anytime. So you could be fixing any problem that 
involves the most toxic materials and all the laws are waived. It is an 
overreach. It is radical. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the Boxer 
amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Paul amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, we have a bridge out between Marshall 
County and Trigg County. It takes 1 hour to go around the lake. What we 
are asking for is an exemption from onerous and overzealous regulations 
that can slow the process of rebuilding a bridge or road by years. The 
average time for an environmental review for a construction project is 
4 years.
  The other side wants to pay lip service. They want to say something 
about it but do nothing to fix the problem. The people who live in 
Marshall County and Trigg County want their bridge fixed. They want to 
get to work and not take an hour and a half to get to work.
  The way we fix this is we get rid of the redtape. The way we do that 
is by changing the law. So what I propose is that we vote against the 
say something, do nothing and vote for a reform that actually has teeth 
and would take away the redtape and allow us to immediately begin to 
repair our bridges without Big Brother obstructing the reconstruction.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from

[[Page 3433]]

Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Alexander
     Blunt
     Burr
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Grassley
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Thune
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crapo
     Hatch
     Kirk
     Lautenberg
  The amendment (No. 1816) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1556

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1556, offered by 
the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, currently, the bridge between Marshall 
County and Trigg County has been collapsed by a disaster. If you were 
to repair your bridges or repair roads that have been washed out, there 
is an enormous amount of government redtape that can slow the process 
down. On average, to get an environmental study done, it can be 4 years 
at times.
  This amendment would remove government redtape and allow us to fix 
our bridges when we have a disaster--such as a collapse--and fix our 
roads when a road is washed out.
  This is different than the alternative. The alternative we just voted 
on was: say something; do nothing. This is something that will say 
something and do something--an amendment that will get rid of 
government redtape and allow us to repair our bridges in an expeditious 
fashion.
  Often we wait years to go through the government redtape. This cuts 
through it and allows States to immediately repair and replace broken 
or collapsed bridges and roads. I urge support for and adoption of 
amendment No. 1556.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Colleagues, I think we are now at the last amendment, so 
please hear me out. If you care about your constituency, you have to 
vote no on this amendment. The implication is that the Senator is 
waiving environmental rules, health and safety rules, after a disaster. 
It is not true. Read the amendment. It is any kind of reconstruction 
for any safety purpose.
  If you have a bridge in your great State that is over 50 years old, 
it has lead and it has asbestos. Every health and safety reg that deals 
with the safe disposal of just those two toxins--let alone PCBs and 
others--they are waived. One little speck of asbestos in your lungs and 
you know what could happen.
  This is an overreach. In the base bill, in the underlying bill, 
Senator Inhofe and I have expedited reviews dramatically. We came 
together on it. It was tough negotiation. Stick with us and please vote 
no on this dangerous amendment.
  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.
  Mrs. BOXER. 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. BOXER. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could the Senator restate her point of order?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(G)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts for 
purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crapo
     Hatch
     Kirk
     Lautenberg
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having not voted 
in the affirmative, the amendment is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment fails.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my 
opposition to the Roberts amendment No. 1826, which, among other 
provisions, would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for 
drilling.
  I should start by stating that there are several provisions in this 
amendment that I would support, such as an extension of tax credits for 
our short-line railroads or those for brownfields remediation expenses. 
Unfortunately, these positives were outweighed by the negative 
provisions, several of which we have already voted on, including 
Keystone XL and offshore drilling.
  I guess it is only fitting that, in my last year to serve in the 
Senate, we

[[Page 3434]]

should be faced with this challenge once again. In 1988, I took up the 
protection of the Arctic Refuge in my first Senate campaign; and since 
then, I have made it one of my missions to protect this great unspoiled 
natural American treasure.
  Throughout the years, many colleagues have joined together in this 
important bipartisan endeavor. Today I am proud to continue the fight 
to protect the refuge alongside my colleague from Washington, Senator 
Cantwell, as well as with many others, including the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer.
  In keeping with Secretary of State George Schultz's dictum that 
``nothing ever gets settled in this town,'' some of our colleagues have 
found a new way to try and open the Arctic Refuge to drilling. 
Yesterday, they proposed that we tie the as yet unknown proceeds from 
drilling in the Arctic Refuge to the transportation bill that the 
Senate is now debating. Is there anyone in this chamber who believes 
that the purpose of this amendment is to generate revenue to rebuild 
our Nation's infrastructure? Of course not.
  Instead, the true purpose of this amendment was to try and package 
this provision, which has been defeated so many times already in the 
chamber, with other issues that Members may be inclined to support, in 
an attempt to finally jam it through.
  Well, I can tell my colleagues that no matter how it is packaged, we 
will remain steadfast in saying ``No'' to drilling in the Arctic 
Refuge.
  Proponents of drilling use two principle arguments: that drilling in 
the Arctic Refuge will lower oil prices and that it will be minimal in 
its disruption to the refuge. Let's look at these propositions more 
closely.
  With regard to the claim that drilling in ANWR could solve our 
Nation's energy crisis, the Energy Information Agency tells us that 
peak production in the Arctic Refuge would be fewer than 1 million 
barrels per day, and that peak will not be reached until 2030 at the 
earliest. At that point, if we continue our current oil consumption 
trends, the refuge would only reduce our imports of foreign oil by 3 
percent.
  To put this level of production in context, the Department of Energy 
reported in 2008 that: ``ANWR oil production is not projected to have a 
large impact on world oil prices. . . . Additional oil production 
resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of 
total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by 
somewhat lower production outside the United States.''
  Destroying one of the greatest wilderness areas in the United States, 
a region often referred to as ``America's Serengeti,'' under the banner 
of energy security would be a dubious proposition under any 
circumstances. But to despoil this wilderness when doing so would not 
really enhance our energy security would be truly senseless.
  We have plenty of untapped or unused wells and leases on public lands 
that have potential energy resources. In fact, of the 41 million acres 
of Federal lands that are leased, oil and gas companies are only 
drilling on about 12 million of those acres. Let's be sure the 
remaining 29 million acres are used effectively before we irreversibly 
ruin a beautiful natural treasure such as the Arctic Refuge.
  Proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge argue that if we drill, 
it will only be on this limited strip of land and will not alter the 
landscape. But the effects of oil wells, pipelines, roads, airports, 
housing, gravel mines, air pollution, industrial noise, seismic 
exploration, and exploratory drilling would in fact radiate across the 
entire coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.
  Look at the Prudhoe Bay oil field. When it was opened for development 
in the 1970s, the oil industry argued that it could drill safely and in 
an environmentally friendly manner. What happened? It is a sprawl of 
industrialization, emits more air pollution than many cities in the 
lower 48, and routinely sees oil and toxin spills.
  And what about the wildlife, which the refuge was established to 
protect? Crucial habitat for some of our Nation's most beloved wildlife 
species would be destroyed, and sacred land for the Gwich'in people 
would be forever lost.
  It makes no sense to destroy this awe-inspiring landscape for oil 
that won't lower prices for our consumers or give us true energy 
security.
  We all agree that we have an urgent energy problem in this country. 
However, America can balance its energy needs with our conservation 
heritage. We can implement a new, diverse energy policy--one that 
creates jobs through clean and sustainable energy solutions, even while 
protecting precious natural resources such as the Arctic Refuge.
  As I have said every time I have come to the floor to speak about the 
Arctic Refuge, the mark of greatness in a generation lies not just in 
what it builds for itself, but also in what it preserves for the 
generations to come.
  I want to close by quoting President Theodore Roosevelt, one of our 
Nation's greatest leaders: ``Our duty to the whole, including the 
unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day 
minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The 
movement for the conservation of wildlife and the larger movement for 
the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially 
democratic in spirit, purpose, and method.'' His words are even more 
relevant today; and as we consider the issue at hand, I am pleased my 
colleagues recalled those visionary words and his legacy and voted no 
on the Roberts amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I voted for the Roberts amendment No. 1826 
because we cannot make perfect the enemy of the good. Approving the 
Keystone XL pipeline and increasing access to the Outer Continental 
Shelf for drilling are practical steps we should be taking to not only 
decrease our dependence on Middle East oil but help lower the price of 
oil in the future.
  Unfortunately, in addition to these provisions, this amendment 
included several tax credit extensions that should not be extended. Tax 
credits for energy efficient appliances, alternative fuels, and 
alternative fuel vehicle refueling property should be eliminated 
permanently. The alternative fuel vehicle refueling property tax credit 
is particularly egregious. This credit would provide an additional 
subsidy to build ethanol blender pumps at private fueling stations. 
Taxpayers already gave over $20 billion to the ethanol industry through 
VEETC alone; they do not need to continue the support of this industry 
by financing its infrastructure build out.
  Although amendment No. 1826 received my vote, I feel it necessary to 
reiterate my opposition to the extension of these tax credits. 
Alternatively, I support the principles behind amendment No. 1589 that 
seeks to eliminate targeted subsidies and lower corporate tax rates.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support our contract with 
rural America for decent roads and explain an amendment the Senate 
adopted last Thursday.
  Counties lose local tax revenue due to large Federal landholding. So, 
for over a century, Congress has supported payments to counties to make 
up the difference. Secure Rural Schools and Payments in Lieu of Taxes--
known as PILT--continue that important commitment to these communities.
  Rural counties that are home to large swaths of Federal lands rely on 
these funds to keep schools warm and keep the lights on at the county 
road department. These investments are rightfully due to rural counties 
as part of their compact with the Federal Government. These funds 
support jobs in Montana, education, and important county road projects. 
For counties such as Lincoln, Beaverhead, and Ravalli in Montana, these 
payments are a lifeline. My amendment keeps that lifeline intact, and 
it does so without adding a dime to the debt.
  We are considering a 2-year surface transportation bill in the 
Senate. And let me make clear: county payments are about roads.
  Secure Rural Schools requires payments to be spent either on roads or 
on schools. Over the last decade, over 50

[[Page 3435]]

percent of payments went to roads. In States like Idaho and Oregon, 
this makes up 20 percent of all highway spending in those States.
  U.S. Census survey data suggests that much of PILT is spent on 
highways too. For example, in Nevada and Iowa, counties spend one in 
six dollars on highways. In Alabama, Arkansas, and Missouri that figure 
is one in five, and in the Dakotas and Oklahoma, it is nearly one in 
three.
  Each of my colleagues has a list of the payments that went to their 
counties this year.
  Last Thursday, I and Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, Crapo, Wyden, 
Risch, Merkley, Tester, and Bennet offered an amendment to extend 
Secure Rural Schools and PILT payments for 1 additional year. The 
amendment was adopted by a vote of 82 to 16.
  This amendment was paid for with commonsense offsets. One of the 
provisions I wanted to highlight is the offset that establishes 
reporting requirements for the sale of a life insurance contract. Even 
though we know it needs a little fine tuning, it is a tax gap provision 
that has the support of all the industries affected, and we look 
forward to working with them to improve it.
  A second offset provides a new tool for Federal agencies to manage 
their workforce as well as for employees to manage their careers. 
Currently, Federal employees who are eligible for retirement cannot 
collect their retirement without quitting Federal service. This results 
in a drain on experienced Federal workers. It also encourages employees 
to leave government, even though they may want to stay.
  This proposal will allow Federal employees to phase into retirement 
by reducing their workload and receive a portion of their retirement 
benefit. It allows Federal agencies to save money because they don't 
have to hire new employees and it allows the Federal retirement trust 
fund to save money by paying only a portion of retirement benefits. And 
it is totally optional to the employee, so it is a win for the employee 
and a win for American taxpayers.
  Another offset in this proposal partially closes a loophole regarding 
roll-your-own tobacco. Congress raised taxes on tobacco to pay for the 
reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program in 2009. Tax 
rates on pipe tobacco were not increased as much as on roll-your-own 
tobacco; therefore, tobacco companies are selling bags of roll-your-own 
tobacco and labeling them as pipe tobacco. In other words, the pipe 
tobacco is masquerading as tobacco to be rolled into cigarettes to 
avoid the additional tax.
  That isn't right. We should close this loophole. The abuse is so 
prevalent that gas station owners now have cigarette rolling machines 
to facilitate the loophole. A customer purchases a bag of pipe tobacco 
and then uses the machine to roll cigarettes. This provision helps 
close this loophole by treating establishments with cigarette rolling 
machines as manufacturers and therefore subject to the Federal excise 
taxes on tobacco manufacturers. This would raise $99 million.
  This highway bill was the right place to extend Secure Rural Schools 
and PILT for rural Americans who deserve decent roads.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment. We have done great 
work for rural America.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for this 
important legislation.
  In particular, I am pleased that the legislation corrects an 
arbitrary requirement by the Federal Railroad Administration regarding 
rolling stock for high-speed rail. As a strong supporter of American 
manufacturing and high speed and intercity passenger rail service, I 
have closely followed the grant awards that FRA has and continues to 
make in this regard.
  Seven months ago, the FRA awarded nearly $730 million to six States 
to acquire new passenger diesel locomotives and bilevel passenger cars. 
The new rolling stock will be used on State-supported regional 
corridors that Amtrak operates in the Midwest, California, and Pacific 
Northwest.
  Under FRA's instructions, the States were to consider locomotives 
with 125 mph capability--even though none of the States have the 
infrastructure now or in the near term to operate service on these 
corridors at speed beyond 110 mph.
  While a 15-mph difference in train speeds may not seem like much, the 
cost difference between 125 mph and 110 mph could be very significant. 
First, new advanced 110 mph locomotives will burn less fuel and have 
lower operating expenses. Second, Federal safety standards would 
require substantially more funding for States to upgrade the 
infrastructure needed to accommodate 125 mph trains.
  With my amendment to S. 1813, States will now be able to fully and 
fairly evaluate capital and operating costs of different U.S. 
manufactured locomotives that are capable of meeting the statutory 
definition of high-speed rail, e.g., operating at 110 mph. A full and 
open process that fairly considers all locomotives that can operate at 
110 mph will increase competition and ensure we maximize value for 
taxpayers.
  Mr. President, we need to bring successful high-speed rail service to 
America soon, with trains built with American technology by American 
workers. I want to thank the leadership of the Commerce Committee, 
particularly Chairman Rockefeller for his support in working with me 
and with my staff on this important issue.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it has now been more than 890 days since 
the last long-term surface transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, expired. 
And what has Congress accomplished since September 30, 2009, when it 
comes to crafting a new Federal policy regime for our roads, bridges, 
mass transit, and safety programs? Sadly, Congress has managed once 
again to successfully abandon its responsibility to the American people 
by adopting a series of eight short-term extensions since 2009. In 
effect, Congress has placed our national transportation policy on 
``Auto-Pilot'' for more than 2 years.
  So my question is this: Why has the time for procrastination long 
since passed and the time for urgent action finally arrived? First, we 
face the March 31 expiration of the current, eighth short-term highway 
bill extension. So, it is imperative that the Senate approve a new 
highway bill promptly in order for us to extricate ourselves from this 
vicious cycle of robotically approving short-term extension after 
short-term extension. That is not legislating and it is not fair to the 
American people. Not at all.
  Secondly and more broadly, the Senate faces a larger and more serious 
deadline: ensuring the solvency of the highway trust fund, which has 
been the primary funding source for all Federal roads, bridges, mass 
transit, and safety programs for decades. The trust fund is running out 
of money, and rapidly.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, reports that the 
highway trust fund will be bankrupt by October, barring action on a 
comprehensive highway reauthorization bill. If this looming specter 
does not signal a clarion call to move a bill, I don't know what does.
  The legislation before us, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century, or MAP-21, is a 2-year highway authorization that takes a 
modest step in the right direction toward meeting the March expiration 
deadline as well as the urgency of shoring up the trust fund. Now, is 
this the bill I wish we were debating? Frankly, I would have preferred 
a much stronger, 6-year highway bill--the kind of legislation which, I 
would like to add, is the norm and not the exception. Indeed, Congress 
has traditionally approved highway and mass transit bills not by 
limited extensions or quick-fix panaceas but for the long-term. That 
was true for the 2005 highway bill, it was true for the 1998 highway 
bill, and it was true for the 1991 highway bill. All of these measures 
were 6-year authorizations. All of them enjoyed bipartisan consensus. 
And what was the result?
  The longer time frames engendered greater certainty, especially for 
those States whose expiration dates for construction seasons are much 
shorter. Now, if only the past were actually prologue in this case. If 
only today we

[[Page 3436]]

were actually debating a multiyear authorization and not putting more 
dents in the can that we are kicking further and further down the 
road--a road that needs to be repaired, I might add. If only we were 
deliberating policy that fostered more than a modicum of 
predictability. But we are not, and that is a problem.
  It is a problem for David Bernhardt, Maine's transportation 
commissioner, who has observed that ``given the choice between a short-
term and a long-term extension, the long-term extension is preferable 
as it provides more certainty and predictability for our construction 
season.''
  It is a problem for the Maine Better Transportation Association, 
which has stated that ``Maine's rural transportation system--our roads, 
rail, ports--are woven into the future viability of every Maine 
business; the uncertainty created with no long-term reauthorization 
creates uncertainty, impeding job creation and investment.''
  What we have as a consolation prize is a ``accept a half a loaf or 
get nothing'' proposition. So if this venerable Chamber can't muster 
the will to produce a new long-term highway reauthorization bill--and 
there is no reason, unfortunately, to think otherwise--then at the very 
least, can there be any doubt whatsoever that we must break the current 
cycle of short-term extensions and that a 2-year authorization will 
have to suffice for now?
  As far as the State of Maine is concerned, MAP-21 is a slight 
improvement over present law. MAP-21's $109 billion in funding for 
2012-2013 will provide Maine with $195 million this year and $198 
million next year, up from the $192 million Maine received last year. 
While I would have preferred if Maine were receiving larger increases 
in funding, because its transportation funding needs are serious, I am 
nonetheless pleased to see Maine receive an increase in Federal 
transportation funding.
  A strong Federal highway reauthorization bill will help Maine 
maintain our bridges and roads, while we wait to invest in the future 
for the demands of the 21st century. We are considering this measure as 
a stop-gap at a time when my State of Maine contains twice as many 
miles of poor roads, 548 miles, as we have of very good roads, only 265 
miles, and at a time when 369 bridges are currently classified as 
structurally deficient, which means that 15.4 percent of our bridges 
require significant repair, well above the 11.4 percent national 
average.
  Indisputably, the 2-year time frame of this bill is woefully short, 
and in total, this bill fails to make the requisite investments 
necessary to bolster our transportation infrastructure. That said, 
working within the strictures of a 2-year authorization bill, there are 
some elements of MAP-21 that I would like to briefly highlight--
provisions I was particularly pleased to see incorporated.
  This bill reduces burdensome redtape and bureaucracy that represent 
major speed bumps in streamlining. For example, it takes the more than 
150 highway infrastructure programs and consolidates them into five 
core programs that address highway and bridge construction and 
maintenance, freight improvements, safety, and nonmotorized 
transportation. These changes will eliminate the bottlenecking 
emanating from Washington and will allow States to focus on their 
individual areas of concern rather than Federal mandates. As ranking 
member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
and one who is fighting tooth and nail to curb meddlesome bureaucratic 
rigamarole, this undertaking is welcomed indeed.
  Furthermore, MAP-21 rightly places a premium on enhancing vehicle 
safety by making significant, vital changes to vehicle standards. In 
the 21st century, cars are no longer just mechanical machines, they are 
high-tech, complex systems with the capacity to diagnose and 
communicate critical problems and convey that information to drivers. 
This bill takes this new reality into tremendous account and will 
codify industry standards for electronic data, providing cars with 
electronic data recorders that will serve as the black boxes of new 
cars and help investigators determine the cause of crashes and prevent 
future accidents.
  I am also particularly proud of the leadership of the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation evident in its 
portions of MAP-21, and for that I want to express gratitude to my 
longtime friend and colleague, our chairman, Senator Rockefeller, who 
serves with me on both the Senate Commerce Committee and the Finance 
Committee.
  Specifically, I want to recognize Chairman Rockefeller for his 
collaboration with me and for supporting my antifraud amendment, which 
is included in the underlying bill. My amendment will ensure that 
brokers of transportation services have the skills and knowledge 
required to aid in transportation of shipments within the rules of the 
law, marking a major reform of the brokering process which will ensure 
that commercial truck drivers are paid for their work.
  I want to publicly thank Barry Pottle, president of Pottle 
Transportation in Maine, who brought to light that some fraudulent 
brokers were successfully contracting commercial truck drivers to 
deliver freight, but then these brokers would not pay the truck drivers 
for the work they had performed. In effect, these fraudulent brokers 
were repeatedly taking advantage of truck drivers. When Barry alerted 
me to this deplorable outrage, I started drafting an amendment to end 
this scam immediately. I am very pleased this common-sense solution has 
been included in the MAP-21.
  I would also like to thank the bill's managers, Chairman Boxer, and 
Ranking Member Inhofe for accepting my three amendments to the bill.
  The 2005 highway bill provided Maine's Department of Transportation 
with the flexibility to draw upon Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
program funds to cover the operating expenses of The Downeaster, 
Amtrak's passenger rail service in Maine.
  I am pleased that my amendment to continue this policy, which 
enhances flexibility for States to focus funding on local priorities, 
was accepted by the bill managers. At issue is an undertaking that 
curtails congestion and improves air quality in a State that prizes the 
outdoors for recreation and tourism. We certainly did not want to turn 
away passengers coming to and from my State who patronized The 
Downeaster to the tune of half a million trips in 2011--or equivalent 
to nearly 40 percent of my State's population riding the train once in 
a single year?
  In addition, I was pleased to work with Senators Cardin, Klobuchar, 
Rubio, Wicker, Rockefeller, and Tester to develop an amendment that has 
been accepted by the bill managers that will streamline the process for 
veterans with equivalent military driving experience to acquire 
commercial driver's licenses, also known as CDLs. I should also thank 
the many veterans service organizations, including the Air Force 
Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Fleet Reserve 
Association, and American Legion, which lent their expertise and 
support to this effort. Furthermore, I would like to thank 
Representative Randy Hultgren, whose leadership resulted in a similar 
provision being included in the House version of this bill, which 
provided the inspiration for the language before us today.
  As my colleagues would undoubtedly agree, it is unconscionable that 
our Nation's veterans, including those who have most recently returned 
from service in Iraq and Afghanistan, find themselves facing 
unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles as they seek to transition into a 
civilian profession for which they have already received world-class 
training provided by our Federal Government.
  Instead, at a time when job creation is our No. 1 priority, our 
government should be working to eliminate redtape, delays, costs, and 
unnecessary testing--where it is prudent to do so--to allow veterans to 
quickly pursue and secure employment in the private and public sectors.
  Indisputably, Congress has made milestone strides over the past year, 
including the passage of provisions in

[[Page 3437]]

the National Defense Authorization Act and the VOW to Hire Heroes Act 
that require the Federal Government to identify equivalencies in 
military and civilian job skills and to carry out a pilot program to 
reduce or curb barriers to providing credentials, certifications, and 
licenses to qualified veterans. These yeoman efforts are vital and 
timely, and they dovetail with our amendment, which directly addresses 
one specific opportunity to remove roadblocks to veteran licensing.
  Over the past decade, many of our veterans safely drove large trucks 
on some of the most dangerous roads in the world. They have also safely 
operated these same vehicles on local, State, and national highways 
during their service, demonstrating their capabilities and 
qualifications to operate similar vehicles as civilian commercial 
drivers. As such, our amendment requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to immediately convene a joint study with the Secretary 
of Defense, the States, and other stakeholders to assess the barriers 
to obtaining a CDL faced by our current servicemembers and veterans who 
possess the proper training and experience to operate commercial 
vehicles. As part of this study, the Secretary of Transportation must 
make recommendations for legislative, regulatory, and administrative 
actions necessary to overcome these challenges, and, most important, 
upon completion of the study, the Secretary must implement those 
recommendations for which he has the legal authority.
  Although specific CDL requirements are a responsibility of the 
States, our amendment will ensure that the Secretary of Transportation 
and the Secretary of Defense take a leadership role in helping States 
to understand the extraordinary skills and experience driving large 
vehicles that many of our veterans bring to the table when they apply 
for a CDL. As a result, I am very hopeful that our efforts here will 
soon eliminate unnecessary barriers to CDL licensing for qualified 
veterans. And, perhaps of equal importance, by adopting our amendment, 
we will have established a template for legislation that this and 
future Congresses may follow for streamlining licensing and 
certification processes for our Nation's veterans.
  Quite simply, our best and bravest deserve nothing less than our 
Nation's unwavering support and gratitude upon their return home, in 
order to rightly honor their enormous sacrifices. Frankly, who better 
for any job than those trained to be the greatest fighting force on the 
planet?
  Mr. President, overall, I will agree that in the case of this highway 
bill we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good--that a 2-
year authorization is preferable to yet another round of extensions. 
But make no mistake, Congress has failed to do its due diligence in 
addressing this highway bill over the last 2 years. It is because of 
that negligence that we have placed ourselves in the unenviable 
position of having to play beat the clock, as both the House and the 
Senate must confront a fast-approaching March 31 deadline when the 
current extension expires.
  This bill represents the best we can offer the American people right 
now, but it is not and I know my colleagues will agree--indicative of 
the best this institution can offer. The American people deserve 
better.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are long overdue to reauthorize our 
Nation's transportation programs. The last reauthorization, SAFETEA-LU, 
expired in September 2009. Since then there have been seven short-term 
extensions, and the most current extension expires on March 31. I am 
pleased the Senate is finally voting on a bill, S. 1831, Moving Ahead 
for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21. A path forward for 
action on the House bill is still unclear so we may indeed need another 
short-term extension.
  MAP-21 enjoys the strong support of a broad cross-section of 
organizations ranging from the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
and the American Public Transportation Association.
  This bill will improve the mobility of people and commerce while 
reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. Investing in the 
construction and maintenance of our roads, bridges, public transit 
systems, trails, and rail infrastructure means people and goods move 
more efficiently and that improves our international competitiveness. 
And investing in infrastructure will create badly needed jobs. It is 
one of the most obvious things we can do to help boost the economy as 
it struggles to emerge from the great recession.
  So I will vote yes on final passage of S. 1813. MAP-21 is a 
bipartisan, 2-year bill that provides level funding with increases to 
account for inflation. The bill would provide $109 billion over 2 years 
for surface transportation programs. Given the difficult budget climate 
this has to be viewed as a victory.
  Our State transportation agencies need to be able to do long-term 
planning and a 2-year bill helps that cause, and is surely better than 
the short-term extensions we have been living under. Given the negative 
budget climate and the difficulty we had finding the revenue to offset 
the highway trust fund shortfall, a 2-year bill is what is possible, 
though I would have preferred a longer term bill.
  Under MAP-21's highway title, Michigan will get more than $1.1 
billion per year for 2 years, slightly more than under the current 
bill. Under the transit formulas, Michigan is projected to get a little 
over $131.3 million per year for 2 years, a little more than we got 
last time in formula funds. When it comes to public transit, Michigan 
is an all-bus State except for the People Mover in Detroit. Whereas the 
highway title takes great pains to ensure that the distribution of 
highway revenue among States is largely unchanged, the transit title 
changes the distribution of transit revenue among States to favor those 
States with rail transit infrastructure over States like Michigan that 
do not yet have rail transit. In an effort to keep Michigan whole in 
terms of transit funding, I cosponsored an amendment to restore funding 
to both urban and rural bus programs. I am pleased provisions of that 
amendment have been adopted in the managers' package.
  My primary area of concern with this bill is in the formula for 
distributing funds to States and a lack of true donor equity based on 
contributions to the highway trust fund. Historically, about 20 States, 
including Michigan, have been ``donor'' States, sending more gas tax 
dollars to the trust fund in Washington than are returned in 
transportation infrastructure spending. Each time the highway bill has 
been reauthorized, I have joined Members from other donor States to try 
to correct this inequity in highway funding and we have made progress. 
In 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents back on our Federal gas 
tax dollar. That went up to about 80 cents in 1991, 90.5 cents in 1998, 
and 92 cents in 2005. Unfortunately, there simply isn't enough money 
this time around to improve the rate of return for donor States without 
taking funding from donee States, which we don't have the votes to do.
  Further undermining donor State efforts is the trend starting in 2008 
of nonuser-fee money going into the trust fund. Before that, the trust 
fund was purely user-fee funded, primarily with gas taxes contributed 
from each State. When gas tax revenues started declining with increases 
in fuel economy and people driving less because of the recession, 
billions of dollars were transferred from the general fund to keep the 
trust fund solvent. Thus the blurring of the line between what was paid 
into the trust fund by States versus what is given back to States in 
Federal highway dollars which is now both gas taxes and general revenue 
monies. This means when calculated in dollar terms, donor States, 
including Michigan, are getting back more money than they put into the 
trust fund, or well more than 100 cents on the dollar. When you look at 
the percent, or share, contributed to the trust fund versus the 
percent, or share, paid out compared to other States, an inequity among 
donor and donee States remains.
  Overall, Michigan Department of Transportation, MDOT, officials view

[[Page 3438]]

the bill favorably, particularly the program consolidation, increased 
flexibility, realistic performance management, and provisions to 
expedite project delivery. MDOT's director wrote to me that he is eager 
to see a long-term transportation authorization bill enacted because it 
is vital to providing the stability needed to improve transportation 
planning and project development.
  There are no earmarks in this bill and nearly all discretionary grant 
programs allocated by the Federal Highway Administration would be 
eliminated. The result is that most funding is allocated to the States 
by formula.
  MAP-21 proposes a new core program intended to direct funds to 
infrastructure segments that are particularly critical to freight 
movement. It allows the Wayne County Aerotropolis project to apply for 
grants under the freight program by specifically identifying as 
eligible an ``Aerotropolis'' transportation system defined as a planned 
and coordinated multimodal freight and passenger transportation network 
providing efficient, sustainable, and intermodal connectivity to a 
defined region of economic significance centered around a major 
airport.
  MAP-21 makes substantial changes to transportation planning 
requirements at all levels, including using performance management 
through the planning process. It requires that State and metropolitan 
planning organizations, MPOs, include performance measures and targets. 
Along with these increased technical responsibilities, the bill raises 
the designation threshold for MPOs from those serving a population of 
50,000 to those serving a population of 200,000, unless the Governor 
certifies certain technical criteria are met.
  This could have been a problem for a number of Michigan mid-sized 
MPOs, including those in Battle Creek, Jackson, Holland, Bay City, and 
Saginaw. The MPOs in these cities have expressed concern to my office 
that they could lose their MPO designation. They argue that their 
organizations are comprised of local elected officials who are in the 
best position to determine local transportation needs, and this 
proposal could exclude local officials and their constituents from 
participating in the transportation decisionmaking process if the 
Governor does not certify them.
  I agree that this local expertise in the planning process is valuable 
and that it should be retained. The MDOT officials who work with and 
rely on these organizations assured my office the State would want the 
existing mid-sized MPOs in Michigan to retain their MPO designation. I 
cosponsored an amendment to grandfather in existing MPOs so that they 
are not at risk of losing their MPO designation and with it the 
planning funds needed to operate, and I am pleased a modified version 
of this amendment was accepted.
  I am also pleased the bill includes an amendment I authored with 
Senator Conrad which was adopted by voice vote. It would give Treasury 
a discretionary power to fight against tax evasions. Under the PATRIOT 
Act, Congress gave the Treasury the power to take a range of measures 
against foreign financial institutions or jurisdictions that it finds 
to be of ``primary money laundering concern.'' The Levin-Conrad 
amendment would authorize Treasury to impose the same types of measures 
on the same types of entities if Treasury finds them to be 
``significantly impeding U.S. tax enforcement.'' Treasury could, for 
example, prohibit U.S. banks from accepting wire transfers or honoring 
credit cards from those foreign banks. This amendment, which is similar 
to a provision that I introduced as part of a broad offshore tax bill 
for several Congresses, has been scored as raising over $1 billion over 
10 years.
  I am pleased the bill managers worked with me to include language 
regarding the need to fully use the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for 
operating and maintaining our Federal navigation channels, including 
the 69 Federal harbors and channels in Michigan. These ports and 
harbors support jobs, advance economic activity, and bolster exports. 
Maintaining these waterways is not only important for our economy and 
international competitiveness, but properly maintaining these harbors 
and ports keeps freight off of our highways and rails, relieving 
congestion and improving the environment.
  Somehow, keeping our ports and harbors in good repair has not been a 
priority in budgeting and funding decisions. This sense of the Senate 
on harbor maintenance acknowledges the shortfall, and states that ``the 
amounts in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should be fully expended 
to operate and maintain the navigation channels of the United States.'' 
This affirmative statement puts the Senate on record in supporting full 
funding for our Federal ports and harbors, and is a good step forward 
in addressing this unfair situation. Every year, hundreds of millions 
of dollars collected from shippers are deposited into the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund but never spent, despite the fact that our 
Nation has a significant navigational maintenance backlog. Collecting 
fees from shippers and not using these revenues for their intended 
purpose is not only unfair, it threatens jobs and economic growth.
  Including this important language in the Senate bill is an important 
first step to correcting our harbor maintenance problem, yet much work 
remains. I hope the House will take action on a transportation 
reauthorization bill so that we can work out any differences in 
conference committee. Along with my colleagues, I will be urging the 
conferees to retain and strengthen the harbor maintenance language to 
reflect S. 412, a bill I sponsored and which currently has 35 
cosponsors, which would provide an enforcement mechanism to ensure that 
all of the funds deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are 
used for their intended purposes: for the operation and maintenance of 
our Nation's harbors.
  This bill takes some important steps to support green automotive 
technology. I am pleased that the bill supports the expansion of 
electric vehicle infrastructure by allowing highway funds to be used 
for new charging stations at existing or new parking facilities funded 
through the law. It also includes a provision authored by Senator 
Carper to include vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure 
improvement projects among the projects eligible to be carried out 
under the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.
  I am proud of the fact that Michigan has two fixed guideway projects 
under development that will go through the Federal Transit 
Administration's, FTA, New Starts Program which will provide Federal 
funding to build them. These projects, one in Grand Rapids and a two-
part interconnected project in Detroit, will finally bring light rail 
and bus rapid transit to Michigan to supplement our current all-bus 
system. I have worked closely with the Banking Committee to secure 
changes to the New Starts Program that will benefit Michigan's 
initiatives. I am pleased to report that this bill modifies the New 
Starts Program in a way that is favorable to these Michigan projects, 
including the Detroit project which has a more complex set of 
circumstances.
  Michigan is developing two connected projects in Detroit: a streetcar 
circulator that will distribute riders within the downtown core along 
Woodward Avenue, built mostly with private funds, and a regional bus 
rapid transit network on multiple corridors leading into downtown 
Detroit, which will need Federal New Starts funds. Because it is 
largely privately funded, the streetcar project will be able to advance 
before everything is in place at both the State and Federal levels to 
submit the New Starts application for the entire program. FTA officials 
have told me they interpret the bill's ``Program of Interrelated 
Projects'' language as providing ample opportunity for the streetcar 
circulator project in Detroit's Woodward Avenue corridor and the 
connected bus rapid transit project in the same corridor to meet the 
New Starts requirements to apply as a single program and that one 
project can be built before the other project within a reasonable 
timeframe and still be eligible. This is reassuring as we work to

[[Page 3439]]

advance this important project through the New Starts Program.
  In conclusion, MAP-21 is a consensus, bipartisan bill that represents 
our best hope to get a longer term transportation bill enacted. I urge 
my colleagues to support it and I hope the House of Representatives 
will also adopt it.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, given that the Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee was unable to mark up the National Rail System 
Preservation, Expansion, and Development Act of 2012 prior to floor 
consideration of S. 1813, I wanted to make a quick statement to thank 
Ranking Member Hutchison for her help in reaching agreement on the bill 
so the Senate could consider it as part of this measure. In my formal 
floor statement, I mention the virtues of and the needs for this bill. 
To provide more clarity about the Committee's intention with the 
provisions, I ask unanimous consent that this section-by-section 
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    TITLE V--THE NATIONAL RAIL SYSTEM PRESERVATION, EXPANSION, AND 
                        DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

     SEC. 35001. SHORT TITLE.

       This section provides that the title may be cited as the 
     ``National Rail System Preservation, Expansion, and 
     Development Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 35002. REFERENCES TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

       This section would stipulate that, except as otherwise 
     expressly provided, all amendments in this act would be made 
     to title 49, United States Code.

 Subtitle A--Federal and State Roles in Rail Planning and Development 
                                 Tools

     SEC. 35101. RAIL PLANS.

       This section would require the Secretary of the Department 
     of Transportation (DOT) to develop a long-range national rail 
     plan within a year, with the input of Amtrak, the Federal 
     Railroad Administration (FRA), and Surface Transportation 
     Board (STB), and a broad range of industry stakeholders. The 
     national rail plan would implement a national policy and 
     strategy to support, improve, and further develop existing 
     and future high-speed and intercity passenger rail 
     transportation and freight rail transportation. The plan 
     would be subject to refinement by regional and State rail 
     plans.
       This section would require the plan to have a national map 
     with prioritized designations of existing and developing 
     markets. This section would also require the plan to define 
     corridors and service categories. This section would also 
     specify the content the national rail plan is to address.
       This section would require regional rail plans that would 
     serve to refine and implement the national rail plan, along 
     with a map and phasing plan for new corridors. This section 
     would specify the requirements for regional plans, and 
     require yearly updates to the plans.
       This section would update state rail plan requirements to 
     require that state rail plans be consistent with regional and 
     national plans, while synching rail with other state planning 
     goals. The section would require state rail plans to refine 
     and advance the implementation of the national rail plan. The 
     section would require minimum standards for state rail plans, 
     along with procedures for review. The section would specify 
     the contents of the state plans. This section would require 
     state plans to identify rail capital projects, along with 
     their potential benefits and financing.
       The section would institute state and federal transparency 
     requirements for all rail plans, to provide adequate and 
     reasonable notice to comment to the public, other agencies, 
     and stakeholders. The section would also define the terms 
     being used in the chapter.

     SEC. 35102. IMPROVED DATA ON DELAY.

       This section would require guidance from the Secretary 
     within a year for developing automated or improved means for 
     measuring on-time performance delays.

     SEC. 35103. DATA AND MODELING.

       This section would require the Secretary to conduct a data 
     needs assessment to determine what data is needed to support 
     the development of intercity passenger rail. The section 
     would specify the parameters of the assessment.
       This section would require the Secretary to develop or 
     improve modeling capabilities to support intercity passenger 
     rail development. This section would also require the 
     Secretary to improve benefit-cost analysis guidance and 
     training for applicants to the intercity grant programs.

     SEC. 35104. SHARED-USE CORRIDOR STUDY.

       This section would require the Secretary to conduct a 
     shared-use corridor study to evaluate means to best support 
     the further development of high-speed and intercity passenger 
     rail. The section would specify the content of the study.

     SEC. 35105. COOPERATIVE EQUIPMENT POOL.

       This section would improve the Next Generation Corridor 
     Equipment Pool Committee created by section 305 of the 
     Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) 
     and require that it create an equipment pooling entity that 
     would lease or acquire, maintain, manage and allocate 
     equipment to support State-supported service. Amtrak would be 
     permitted to transfer equipment to the entity.
       This section would permit the entity to be eligible for 
     intercity passenger rail capital grants.

     SEC. 35106. PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT AND PLANNING.

       This section would modify PRIIA to increase by \1/2\ 
     percent the amount of appropriations available to the 
     Secretary for project management oversight and joint capital 
     planning.

     SEC. 35107. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CAPITAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       This section would make improvements and clarifications to 
     the intercity passenger rail, congestion, and high-speed rail 
     grants. This section would amend the cost-share requirements 
     for grants and otherwise prioritize grant funding pursuant to 
     the national, regional, and state rail plans. It would 
     require applicants and recipients to provide sufficient 
     information and justification to the Secretary to assist with 
     grant-making. This section would authorize grants to be 
     transferred to Amtrak if it would facilitate the completion 
     of the grant.

     SEC. 35108. LIABILITY.

       This section would clarify commuter railroads liability 
     standards. This section would require a study regarding 
     options for clarifying and improving liability requirements 
     and arrangements necessary for supporting intercity passenger 
     rail.

     SEC. 35109. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.

       This section would establish a disadvantaged business 
     enterprise program applicable to rail programs. It would 
     require the Secretary to make at least 10 percent of amounts 
     available from the rail grant programs available to small 
     business concerns owned and controlled by at least 1 or more 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.
       This section would also require each state to produce an 
     annual listing of disadvantaged small business concerns in 
     the state, along with details. This section would require the 
     Secretary to develop uniform criteria for State governments 
     to use in certifying whether a small business concern 
     qualifies under this section. States would be required to 
     fulfill minimum reporting requirements concerning 
     disadvantaged business enterprises.

     SEC. 35110. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.

       This section would require the Secretary to complete a 
     study and provide recommendations relating to workforce 
     development needs in the passenger and freight rail industry. 
     The results would be due within a year of enactment and would 
     be submitted to the committees of jurisdiction.

     SEC. 35111. VETERANS EMPLOYMENT.

       This section would require the Secretary to conduct a study 
     and provide recommendations relating to the best means to 
     provide preference to veterans in the awarding of contracts 
     and subcontracts.

                           Subtitle B--Amtrak

     SEC. 35201. STATE-SUPPORTED ROUTES.

       This section would permit the Secretary to award grant 
     funds to States to cover operating costs that exceed those 
     that States paid prior to the implementation of the cost 
     allocation methodology required by section 209 of PRIIA. It 
     would also require the Secretary to provide transition 
     assistance guidance once the appropriate methodology is 
     completed by the Surface Transportation Board. This guidance 
     would include criteria to phase-out the operating support by 
     2017, a grant application process, and policies governing 
     financial terms. This section would also clarify the criteria 
     for grants, and stipulate that the federal share of costs can 
     be up to 100 percent.

     SEC. 35202. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS 
                   ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       This section would clarify the responsibilities of the 
     Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory 
     Commission and establish a deadline for it to develop the 
     access cost methodology required by PRIIA. It would require 
     FRA to work with Amtrak and the Commission to develop a 
     service development plan and the Commission to develop a 
     long-range Northeast Corridor strategy. It would also 
     establish a deadline for the Commission to complete its 
     Northeast Corridor Economic Development report.

     SEC. 35203. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL IMPROVEMENT 
                   PLAN.

       This section would require Amtrak to complete a refined 
     vision for an integrated program of improvements on the 
     Northeast Corridor, along with a business and financing plan 
     to accompany it. This section would require the Secretary to 
     provide support, assistance, oversight, and guidance to 
     Amtrak in preparing the plan.

[[Page 3440]]

       This section would require the submission of the plans the 
     Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory 
     Commission and the FRA.

     SEC. 35204. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.

       This section would require the Secretary to complete a plan 
     and schedule for a programmatic environmental review for the 
     Northeast Corridor. This section would require the plan to be 
     completed within 90 days and the full environmental review be 
     completed within 3 years after enactment. It would also 
     clarify that the Secretary shall not preclude making funds 
     available for the purchase of high-speed rail equipment that 
     complies with Federal standards; however, it does not 
     override the Secretary's discretion to awards funds.

     SEC. 35205 DELEGATION AUTHORITY.

       This section would permit the Secretary to delegate to 
     Amtrak authority and responsibility for environmental 
     reviews.

     SEC. 35206. AMTRAK INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       This section would codify the existing Amtrak Inspector 
     General authorization of appropriations from PRIIA and 
     reaffirm the office's responsibilities. This section would 
     also clarify the Department of Transportation Inspector 
     General's and Amtrak Inspector General's ongoing duty to 
     assess the progress made by DOT and Amtrak in implementing 
     PRIIA.

     SEC. 35207. COMPENSATION FOR PRIVATE-SECTOR USE OF FEDERALLY-
                   FUNDED ASSETS.

       This section would affirm that the Secretary may require 
     that private entities taking exclusive use of capital assets 
     built or improved with federal funds provide compensation to 
     the United States. This section is intended to discourage the 
     practice of selling or leasing passenger rail infrastructure 
     built with Federal funding to a private entity so that it can 
     increase profits for its shareholders, rather than use 
     profits to further the public's demand for a better passenger 
     rail system. This section is intended to encourage 
     responsible public private partnerships that will help deploy 
     a more robust intercity and high-speed rail system in the 
     United States and protect taxpayer investment into this 
     system. Alternatively, the Committee feels that, instead of 
     always requiring the private entity to pay back funds to the 
     Treasury, at times it may be appropriate that the Secretary 
     require that the entity invest those funds back into the 
     passenger rail system to help expand capacity and 
     performance.

     SEC. 35208. ON-TIME PERFORMANCE.

       This section would prohibit Amtrak from paying host 
     railroads incentive payments where the on-time performance of 
     any intercity passenger rail train averages less than 80 
     percent for any two consecutive quarters and the failure to 
     meet such performance levels is solely the responsibility of 
     the host railroad.

     SEC. 35208. BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

       This section would make a technical correction to PRIIA to 
     ensure the proper political balance on the Amtrak Board of 
     Directors.

                  Subtitle C--Rail Safety Improvements

     SEC. 35301. POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL.

       This section would clarify the Secretary is permitted to 
     review amendments to positive train control (PTC) 
     implementation plans and would establish time frames for 
     those review. This section would also require an annual 
     review of compliance with plan.
       This section would require revise the deadline for the 
     Secretary to report on the progress of railroad carriers in 
     implementing PTC systems to June 30, 2012. This section would 
     also grant the Secretary authority to extend the 
     implementation deadline for a passenger rail service entity 
     in yearly increments after the Secretary makes a 
     determination that implementation is infeasible for reasons 
     beyond the entity's control, but in no case beyond December 
     31, 2018. This section requires that, in evaluating whether 
     to grant an extension, the Secretary consider the risk level 
     of the lines for which the rail carrier is seeking the 
     extension.

     SEC. 35302. ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY FOR RAILROAD 
                   REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING.

       This section would make explicit that positive train 
     control system costs are eligible for Railroad Rehabilitation 
     and Improvement Financing (RRIF). It would also permit costs 
     of labor and materials associated with installing positive 
     train control to be considered collateral of the purposes of 
     the RRIF loan program.

     SEC. 35303. FCC STUDY OF SPECTRUM AVAILABILITY.

       This section would require the Secretary and Chairman of 
     the Federal Communications Commission to conduct an 
     assessment of the spectrum needs and availability for 
     implementing PTC systems, and issue recommendations to 
     resolve problems.

                        Subtitle D--Freight Rail

     SEC. 35401. RAIL LINE RELOCATION.

       This section would make improvements to the Rail Line 
     Relocation grant program.

     SEC. 35402. COMPILATION OF COMPLAINTS.

       This section would require the Surface Transportation Board 
     to establish and maintain a database of complaints received, 
     and post the list quarterly on the STB's website. This 
     section would require the Board to receive the permission of 
     those submitting informal complaints for them to be posted.

     SEC. 35403. MAXIMUM RELIEF IN CERTAIN RATE CASES.

       This section would revise the maximum amount of rate relief 
     available to railroad shippers. The section would also 
     establish periodic reviews by the Board and revise the 
     amounts as necessary.

     SEC. 35404. RATE REVIEW TIMELINES.

       This section would establish specific timelines for the STB 
     to follow in stand-alone rate challenges. The deadlines would 
     apply, unless a request from a party or due process issues 
     are an issue.

     SEC. 35405. REVENUE ADEQUACY STUDY.

       This section would require the STB to initiate a study to 
     provide further guidance on how to apply its revenue adequacy 
     constraint. It would require the STB to consider whether to 
     apply the revenue adequacy constraint using a replacement 
     costs to value the assets. The study would provide public 
     notice, comment, and an opportunity for hearings. The study 
     would be due within 180 days of enactment, and the results 
     would be reported to the committees of jurisdiction.

     SEC. 35406. QUARTERLY REPORTS.

       This section would require the STB to provide quarterly 
     reports to the committees of jurisdiction on its progress 
     toward addressing issues raised in unfinished regulatory 
     proceedings.

     SEC. 35407. WORKFORCE REVIEW.

       This section would require the Chairman of the STB to 
     conduct a review of the Surface Transportation Board 
     workforce, and would require the Chairman to use the review 
     to assist in the development of a comprehensive, long-term 
     human capital improvement plan.

     SEC. 35408. RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT 
                   FINANCING.

       This section would allow the Secretary to accept the net 
     present value of a future stream of state or local subsidy 
     income as collateral to secure a loan for railroad 
     rehabilitation and improvement. It would also require the 
     Secretary to submit a report to relevant Committees with 
     recommendations for improving the Railroad Rehabilitation and 
     Improvement Financing program.

                   Subtitle E--Technical Corrections

     SEC. 35501. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       This section would make numerous technical corrections to 
     PRIIA legislation, and to Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

     SEC. 35502. CONDEMNATION AUTHORITY.

       This section would correct an existing reference to the 
     Interstate Commerce Commission in statute.

  Subtitle F--Licensing and Insurance Requirements for Passenger Rail 
                                Carriers

     SEC. 35601. CERTIFICATION OF PASSENGER RAIL CARRIERS.

       This section would require the STB to establish a 
     certification process to authorize a person to provide 
     passenger rail transportation over a line subject to the 
     Board's jurisdiction. It would also grant the Board authority 
     to grant certificates and issue regulations relating to the 
     safety and insurance operations of passenger rail entities, 
     including Amtrak. It would not apply to freight railroads 
     providing or hosting passenger rail transportation over its 
     own line, tourist, historical, or excursion passenger rail 
     transportation, or other railroad that has obtained 
     construction or operating authority from the Board. The 
     provision is intended to make sure that passenger rail 
     operators, are sufficiently qualified, which is consistent 
     with the Federal government's authority in other 
     transportation industries.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, every day tens of millions of 
Americans take to the roads, board buses, use Amtrak, to get to work, 
drop off their kids at school, or visit friends and family. Our 
transportation system binds our vast and diverse Nation together.
  All too often, our crumbling and inadequate transportation 
infrastructure makes all of these daily trips nothing short of 
unbearable. This issue is more than just a problem of personal 
inconvenience. Our aging transportation system is costing our economy 
with lost productivity. It is hurting our ability to export goods. It 
is precluding us from generating the economic growth necessary to 
create the jobs our economy needs.
  There is no disagreement that we need to improve the efficiency and 
capacity of our transportation system. We have heard a lot in the 
debate over this bill about the need to rebuild our crumbling bridges 
and expand our congested highways. But we also need to make sure that 
we have the safest transportation system possible.
  Safety is not an ancillary part of this debate. Reducing the number 
of fatalities on our nation's roads and rails must be the focus of this 
bill as it has been for previous transportation bills. It is one of the 
most important responsibilities we have in Congress.
  That is why I am here.

[[Page 3441]]

  I am proud that the Commerce Committee plays the central role in 
improving the safety of not only our transportation system, but the 
vehicles that travel upon it.
  Consider this: More than 90 Americans a day die on the road. This 
bill aims to bring that number down. Horrific bus crashes, as my 
colleague from Texas knows all too well, have happened in every State. 
This bill includes provisions from Senator Hutchison that sets new 
tough standards for their safety. Hazardous materials, including deadly 
chemicals and explosives, move alongside minivans and motorcycles. This 
bill sets standards to improve the safety of their transport to 
minimize the risks to the public. The rail system has proven to be 
relatively safe but all too avoidable accidents happen--both in 
passenger and freight rail. This bill sets higher standards for safety.
  The dangers and challenges never stop. And so we need to step up, 
respond to what is happening and make our transportation system as safe 
as it can be.
  Let me offer some specifics about what exactly is in the Commerce 
title of bill.
  We have the safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, or NHTSA, as we call it around here.
  NHTSA has led the way in raising safety standards on our roads and 
highways. Last year, highway deaths fell to their lowest levels in more 
than 60 years. But by reasonably asking more, we can save more lives.
  Some of NHTSA's most visible efforts center on reducing drunk driving 
fatalities. Last year, they dropped 5 percent, which is good but again 
we can do more. We can prevent more senseless deaths from drunk 
driving. We can make sure fewer families have to suffer the agony of a 
teenager's life cut short by a drunk driver.
  This bill recognizes the success and builds on it with new grant 
programs and help for States to reduce drunk driving and increase 
seatbelt use.
  It has an entire section on distracted driving, a growing crisis in 
this country that killed 3,000 people last year. Think about that: 
3,000 people across the country dead because drivers were not paying 
attention to the road.
  My State, West Virginia, is proactive on this. The General Assembly 
has tackled the issue and things will get better. This bill follows the 
same path: it creates grants so that States can fight this just as they 
have with drunk driving and seatbelt use.
  This bill also gives new authority for the government to control 
imports of defective motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Again, 
our priority is safety and it is something that I am proud to 
emphasize.
  Let me tell you about another section in this bill. It's the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, which is aimed at reducing 
truck and bus crashes.
  Did you know truck crashes killed 3,675 people on our highways in 
2010 alone? The death toll is going up even though overall traffic 
fatalities are down. We need to reverse this trend.
  In this bill, we work towards safer roads through the use of 
modernized technology and data. For example, we can put electronic on-
board recorders on buses and trucks to cut back on fatigue-related 
accidents. These ``black boxes'' will make our highways safer and we 
must embrace the technology.
  There is more to the Commerce Committee's title than just vehicle 
safety provisions. Our bill includes the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Safety Improvement Act, which requires uniform standards 
for the safe loading and unloading of hazardous materials on and off 
rail tank cars and cargo tank trucks.
  In this bill we make commonsense improvements to safety, such as 
establishing a program where shippers can electronically share 
information with carriers, emergency responders and enforcement 
personnel.
  Also, included is a provision to assist with the data collection that 
will help DOT make smart investments; this authorizes DOT's Research 
and Innovative Technology Administration, RITA, and enhances its 
ability to spur innovation in transportation research.
  I started my remarks by talking about how often our roads are 
overlooked. We collectively drive on 90,000 miles of crumbling highways 
and under and over 70,000 structurally damaged bridges. Our neglected 
infrastructure costs us $130 billion a year. We deserve better and this 
bill will get us there.
  In closing, I want to make two final points.
  First I would like thank all of my colleagues for their good word on 
this effort. Senator Boxer, Senator Johnson, Senator Baucus, the 
leadership, we all worked hard to get to this point.
  Second, I want to note that the art of legislating is finding 
compromise and common ground. I know some are unhappy with this bill, 
there are parts of it I would like to change myself. But the final 
product is good for West Virginia, good for the American people and an 
important step forward.
  Mr. President, I rise today to thank Chairman Baucus for the work he 
did on the Finance title of the transportation bill which we have just 
passed. He and his staff worked with me on a number of amendments both 
in the committee and on the floor, and their hard work has made this a 
better bill.
  I am particularly pleased that Chairman Baucus chose to include a 
provision of mine which closes the so-called ``Reverse Morris Trust'' 
loophole. This provision has allowed many profitable companies engaging 
in reorganizations to avoid paying tens of millions of dollars in 
corporate taxes, while loading up companies with debt and laying off 
hardworking employees. This bill would finally stop that practice.
  I also want to thank Senator Stabenow for graciously agreeing to 
modify her amendment extending expiring energy tax credits and 
deductions at my request so that the mine safety equipment and mine 
rescue team training tax incentives I have long championed could be 
included. These energy-related provisions should be a part of any tax 
extenders package and Senator Stabenow and her staff worked closely 
with me to try and advance mine safety through this bill and their 
efforts are much appreciated. Though her amendment was defeated, we 
will continue to work together to extend these important credits along 
with the alternative fuels tax credits--which support coal based 
fuels--and the refined coal tax credit which were also included in her 
amendment.
  I will also briefly mention two items that were not included in this 
bill, both of which I filed as amendments at the Finance Committee's 
mark-up, that I hope to see acted upon this year.
  One is the Steel Industry Fuel Tax Credit which expired at the end of 
2010. This credit, which I have worked with a number of members of this 
body to enact and extend over the years, including the Finance 
Committee's ranking member, Senator Hatch, provides an important 
incentive to one our Nation's most important sectors, the steel 
industry. This credit encourages companies engaged in steel production 
to use a recycling process that both produces reliable energy and makes 
each plant more environmentally sound. I intend to advocate for this 
credit's reinstatement and hope that it will be included in a tax 
extenders package later this year.
  Finally, I want to mention an issue of great importance not only to 
West Virginia but a number of States around the country. Multi-employer 
pension plans have come under increased hardship in recent years due to 
a combination of investment losses and business participants exiting 
the plans. The victims, through no fault of their own, are retirees. 
Ultimately Congress needs to address pension stability for all 
retirees, but in the meantime, I have introduced S. 621, the Coalfield 
Accountability and Retired Employee Act. This legislation would 
safeguard the pensions of retired mineworkers--the hard working men and 
women who have helped power this country.
  If the government does not work with multi-employer plan participants 
and employers, these retirees face the risk of reduced benefits down 
the road, and the Federal Government risks assuming billions of dollars 
of liabilities. This legislation is important to the people of my State 
and I will continue

[[Page 3442]]

to work to prevent these retirees from losing the benefits they worked 
so hard to earn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will take just a minute to talk about the 
bill we are going to vote final passage on in just a few minutes. I 
cannot say it enough--I have said it a lot, I will continue to say it--
this is a wonderful opportunity for the Senate and a great 
accomplishment for our country. What I say just now I have said many 
times because it feels so good to say it. One of the most progressive 
Members of this body and one of the most conservative Members of this 
body got together and said they wanted to do a bill that was good for 
the American people, a bill that will save or create 2.8 million jobs. 
We have had some scuffles along the way, but that is what the Senate is 
all about. The rules of the Senate sometimes demand scuffles, as 
difficult as they are. We now have a bill that will pass, and it will 
have a significant bipartisan vote.
  I so appreciate Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe helping us work 
through this bill. But for them we could not have done the bill. 
Frankly, Senator McConnell and I could not have accomplished this. But 
with these two fine Senators working to move some of the obstacles in 
the path, we were able to do this. As late as yesterday, we were unable 
to get this done. I so appreciate their hard and good work.
  As everybody knows, I am a very good friend of Barbara Boxer's. We 
came to Washington together 30 years ago. What a lot of people don't 
know about is the very close personal relationship I have with Jim 
Inhofe. One of the finest letters--and it brings tears to my eyes, 
frankly--that I received during my wife's illness was a letter from him 
expressing his friendship to me and, of course, saying they would say 
prayers for my wife. So this is, for me, an opportunity to talk about 
how good the Senate can be. I am proud of every one of you for working 
our way through this.
  Before propounding a unanimous consent request, I want to say that 
Senator McConnell and I have reached an agreement on the judges. He 
will explain it to his caucus, as I will to mine. It is something that 
I feel is in keeping with what we do here. It is like all matters we do 
here legislatively--it is an effort to work out a compromise.


                         Cloture Votes Vitiated

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all of the 
cloture votes scheduled for 2:30 today be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I associate myself with the excellent 
remarks of the majority leader about Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe. 
They have worked together in a collegial way to bring us to this point 
on the highway bill.
  The majority leader and I have worked out an agreement to go forward 
and handle the judges. Also, I am pleased that he has agreed to turn to 
the jobs bill next. I think that is something everybody in the Senate 
will be pleased about. So I am happy to say we have reached an 
understanding, which we will have an opportunity to explain to our 
colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have learned in my years in the Senate, 
especially since Senator Leahy took over the Judiciary Committee, that 
I don't do anything with the Judiciary Committee--especially with 
judges--that I don't clear first with Senator Leahy. He has been an 
integral part of our agreement on the judges issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have had very friendly conversations with 
Senator Reid and Senator McConnell during the past couple of days. 
Having served with both of them for a long time, I know that when an 
agreement is made, it is an agreement we will stick to. I am aware of 
the agreement. I compliment both the Democratic leader and the 
Republican leader for their help in moving this forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I simply want to thank both leaders for 
their kind remarks. Really, I have to say that Senator Inhofe and I and 
our staffs really became a close family as we worked through this bill. 
I am so moved by the way we were able to come together, all of us. Even 
those on the other side and this side who had amendments that were 
tough, it was difficult, but we got through it.
  I urge a resounding ``aye'' vote. I know you will not agree with 
everything, but we tried to work with each one of you. I urge a strong 
``aye'' vote. Let's get the House to pass our bill. This is a jobs 
bill, and 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield back our time, but Senator Inhofe 
has something to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I will make this very brief. 
I appreciate the comments of the majority leader. It was not necessary, 
but it is very meaningful to me personally.
  Also, about Senator Boxer, she and I are at opposite extremes on many 
issues. I have always said that conservatives should be big spenders in 
two areas: national defense and infrastructure. We have to look at this 
in the future so that we don't have to go through it again. I thank all 
of those on her side and on my side who helped to move this forward.
  I thank Ruth VanMark, who has been with me for 22 years. She is now 
getting off of probation.
  Again, I thank all of you for your cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Toomey

[[Page 3443]]



                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crapo
     Hatch
     Kirk
     Lautenberg
  The bill (S. 1813) was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider and to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am delighted that the surface 
transportation bill that we just passed includes a very important 
provision that will help to stabilize the level of contributions that 
employers will have to make to their defined benefit pension plans.
  When I talk with employers in Montana and throughout the country, one 
of the biggest drawbacks they cite for sponsoring a pension plan for 
their employers and the biggest reason most employers decide not to 
sponsor a plan is the inability to predict how much it is going to 
cost. Employers have to make a guess as to how much their benefits will 
be in future years, discount that value to the present, and make a 
contribution today that will meet that obligation. This is all in 
addition to guessing other variables, such as how long their employees 
will work for them and how long they will live after retirement.
  We all worked hard in 2005 and 2006 to develop pension funding rules 
that work, so that assets will be in the plan to meet the employer's 
promise to its employees. However, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 
did not, and could not, account for the unforeseeable slide in asset 
values in 2008 and now the historically low interest rates that 
employers have to use in valuing their obligations.
  As a result of the artificially low interest rates today, employers 
will have to put about twice as much into their plans this year as they 
did last year, according to the Society of Actuaries, and that steep 
increase in required contributions will continue until 2016. There is 
nothing that will discourage an employer from keeping its plan or 
creating a new one than this kind of steep and unexpected increase in 
required contributions.
  The bill we passed today provides significant stabilization in the 
interest rates that employers have to use in determining their 
contributions, and employers will be able to use the rules immediately.
  I am pleased that we were able to do this for employers. More 
important, the provision is good for employees because it helps to keep 
pension plans viable. I remain open to other proposals that will help 
employers to continue to provide a secure retirement for employees and 
their families.
  Mr. RUBIO. Today, I voted against final passage of the Transportation 
bill that was considered in the Senate.
  While modernizing America's infrastructure is an important goal that 
government can play a role in advancing, S. 1813 crashes into our 
Nation's hard fiscal realities and makes it impossible for me to 
support. The bill spends too much, at a level of $109 billion over the 
next two years. This is despite the fact that the Highway Trust Fund is 
going broke, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that the 
fund will be insolvent sometime in 2013. Sadly, this is not a new 
issue. Taxpayers have already spent $34.5 billion to bail out the trust 
fund in recent years, and I see nothing in this bill that will prevent 
this from happening again. With our national debt on course to exceed 
$16 trillion by year's end and taxpayers already struggling under the 
weight of Washington's fiscal policies, this legislation paves the way 
toward yet another bailout.
  Instead of making reforms that empower States instead of bureaucrats 
in Washington, the bill relies on Washington-style accounting gimmicks 
and proliferates costly mandates that sharply raise the cost of highway 
spending to the American taxpayer. I agree with my colleagues that we 
need to pass a transportation bill, but not when we cannot meet the 
financial obligations that the bill requires. Therefore, I did not 
support it.

                          ____________________