[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4208-4218]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROPOSING A MINIMUM EFFECTIVE TAX RATE FOR HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS--
                           MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 339, the Paying a 
Fair Share Act, which is S. 2230.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to Proceed to S. 2230, a bill to reduce the deficit 
     by imposing a minimum effective tax rate for high-income 
     taxpayers.

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for the quorum call be rescinded.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


                       Surface Transportation Act

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise today to address a simple but 
important issue about what our path forward is to building a stronger 
and safer America. I was deeply frustrated to hear earlier today that 
the Transportation bill, which was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan 
consensus in this Chamber, has gone over to the House and they cannot 
find a way forward to respond to this bill from us or find any clarity 
or certainty about whether to simply take up, debate, amend, or 
consider and enact, hopefully, our bill from the Senate or ask for 
short-term extensions of 30, 60, or 90 days.
  Madam President, as you know as a former Governor and as I know as a 
former county executive, when investing in work as important as bridges 
and highways and roads that make infrastructure, transportation, and a 
reliable and predictable future for our economy possible, nothing is 
more important than certainty. Financing major highway projects, buying 
major pieces of equipment, and hiring the crews to do the work are 
exactly the sorts of things where certainty is critical.
  I have a simple question to our friends in the other Chamber, which 
is when will they take up this bill that passed this Chamber by such an 
overwhelming margin and when will they take seriously the broad 
bipartisan input from every imaginable group in support of this.
  I was active in my previous elected role as county executive with the 
National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO. All have weighed in. In 
fact, if I remember correctly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote every 
single office at the Senate in support of this legislation, calling for 
specific action that both the Congress and administration could take 
right now to support job growth and economic productivity without 
adding to the deficit.
  This bill came out of the committee after remarkable work by Senator 
Boxer of California and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, two Senators who 
are widely viewed as being at the opposite ends of our political 
spectrum here in this Chamber.
  When I go home to Delaware, I hear folks say over and over again: Why 
can't you work together? Why can't you iron out your differences and 
put America on a clearer, straighter track toward a stronger recovery?
  Well, this is exactly the sort of bill that will accomplish that end. 
A 2-year reauthorization, a $109 billion bill that in my small State of 
Delaware would create 6,700 jobs now hangs in the balance. It will 
expire at the end of this month. Rather than take up and consider and 
hopefully pass this bill, folks in the other Chamber--and frankly, 
sadly, largely folks on the other side of the partisan aisle here--are 
refusing to do so and will instead take a short-term chip shot of an 
extension.
  I simply wanted to say, if I might, that certainty is something I 
respect from my years in the private sector. Certainty is something I 
hear from the other side of the aisle in the other Chamber all the 
time. And this is a moment when certainty can be served by the House 
taking up and passing the Senate-passed bill.
  Mr. BEGICH. Will my friend from Delaware yield for a question?
  Mr. COONS. Absolutely. I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. The Senator was a county executive; I was a mayor of a 
community. We had to deal with the real-life aftermath of what happens 
around here, especially when it comes to these extensions. I know in my 
city, when I saw these extensions from that end of the table, we always 
had to stop projects, slow them down, didn't have the money to finish 
them, winter shutdown. All it did was add costs, decrease the capacity 
of roads, and literally take projects off the list.
  In his community, the Senator had to deal with this probably like I 
had to. Did the Senator have the same kind of impact where you had to 
tell contractors: I am sorry, we don't have the money because the 
Federal Government has not done their job that they said they would do 
20-some times before and never completed it? Is that a similar 
situation?
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, the Senator from Alaska is absolutely 
right. In my county, we didn't do roads, our State does the roads, but 
we did sewers, and heavy capital investments in infrastructure would 
cost our little county tens of millions of dollars. We would be on a 
project, off a project, on a project, off a project. We were fortunate 
that our county in good times had enough money in reserve that we could 
go ahead and authorize the bond issue and authorize the project. But as 
the economy turned and as our balance sheet got tougher, we had to 
wait, we had to put things on hold, and we had to put off key projects.

[[Page 4209]]

  I know the good Senator from Alaska, as a former mayor of Anchorage, 
also saw that happen in transportation. Is that not the case, that 
certainty was an enormous challenge when the Senator was relying on a 
Federal partner who was unreliable?
  Mr. BEGICH. Absolutely, I say to the Senator from Delaware. In 
Alaska, I chaired the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the MPO, 
which had this money that would come from this legislation. It would 
come to us, and if they delayed it here or they had these crazy 
continuations because for some reason they could not get their work 
done--and now we are seeing that on the House side. They have had 
months to work on this. I think they actually banked that we would not 
work together here, Democrats and Republicans, and get something done. 
We actually did, and a pretty significant piece of legislation about 
transportation infrastructure that is crumbling in this country got 74 
votes, bipartisan, from all spectra of political persuasions. I think 
they banked that we would fail, but we didn't. There were five weeks of 
work and a lot of compromise because we know what the impacts are on 
the street if we don't do this.
  Back home, if the House doesn't take action on a very reasonable 
bill, a bipartisan bill, what will happen in Alaska is that some of 
these projects will de-obligate, or not obligate the funds, which means 
they will delay them. That means the contractors who expected to do 
work this summer will not. And in Alaska, because we are a winter 
climate--a lot of Northern States have a similar situation--the plant 
that provides the asphalt closes usually the first part of October. So 
you have a window that shrinks very rapidly. If you are not careful, 
the net result is that you have no projects and you pay more, which 
means that the delay the House side is doing is going to cost taxpayers 
more money and there will be less jobs. In Alaska we have 18,000 jobs 
at risk. And at the end of the day, again, you get less product, fewer 
roads.
  I can only assume the experience I have here matches the Senator's 
State government that worked with the county when he was county 
executive; it is the same thing they had to go through, as the Senator 
explained on his water and sewer projects. But, as he said, times are 
different. You can't supplement it with local money, the way it used to 
be, because we don't have it.
  The economy is struggling and starting to come back. But here we are 
at a moment when the economy is moving in the right direction, and what 
are we doing? The House over there is just waiting. I think that is not 
the example we are looking for but what we are doing and what we are 
suffering through.
  Mr. COONS. What strikes me most about this, Madam President, and to 
the good Senator from Alaska, is that of all the sectors in the entire 
American economy--at least in my home State--that have suffered since 
the financial collapse of 2008, construction was hit the hardest. We 
already knew that we were far behind in investment. We have tens of 
thousands of bridges that are out of compliance with basic engineering 
standards. Half of our roads are below the standards we would expect 
from a modern economy. This is money that can and should be invested in 
putting people to work in construction, which has suffered from the 
highest unemployment. It has the support from the Chamber of Commerce 
to the AFL-CIO, where we wrestled through the tough processes here over 
several weeks, and we have a strongly bipartisan bill sitting and ready 
to go.
  There are other things we debate in this Chamber that will maybe 
create jobs, maybe won't. There is no question--even those who have the 
strongest concerns about the Federal role in our economy cannot 
disagree that Federal highway projects put people to work, strengthen 
our economy, and make us more competitive. This bill is ready to go. 
Why you would not take it up and enact it today, I cannot imagine.
  To the good Senator from Alaska, I might say Alaska may have a 
shorter summer season than we do, but if you have 18,000 jobs at risk, 
I can only imagine the kinds of calls the Senator is getting from his 
home State, as I am getting from my State, urging that the House of 
Representatives take up this strong and bipartisan bill and pass it so 
we can all move forward and create some real jobs.
  Mr. BEGICH. The Senator and I have the same situation he has 
described: Yes, we are getting those calls and they are not just--
people say this is a union thing. No, it is union, nonunion, chamber, 
environmentalists, neighborhoods, community councils. It is everybody 
you can imagine because these are real jobs, about real people, about 
real communities.
  Over there I think they think it is some theory that if they delay 
it, nothing will happen. They are wrong because the Senator and I have 
lived on that other side and had to live with the consequences of 
inaction. This is one of those bills where there is bipartisan support, 
all the groups out there from all walks of life support it, and 
everyday people understand it.
  When I was back in Anchorage getting some gas at the gas station, 
someone came up and they asked me, because why? We are about to start 
our season in the bidding process because you have to take 30, 60, 90 
days to get the bids out and then you actually have to construct. I 
think sometimes in the House they think it is some fantasy land that 
whatever they do has no effect. This does. I think the Senator said it 
very clearly, and I appreciate being allowed to ask a few questions and 
comment here. But it seems the most ridiculous thing to have Alaskans 
telling me every day to work together, create bipartisan legislation, 
whatever it might be. Here is one we have done successfully and now we 
are ready. But over there they are playing politics. They have now 
tried twice to do something this week and they still cannot get it 
moving.
  I would encourage those on the other side to move forward on the 
bipartisan bill that the Senate has passed when I know they were 
banking we would not pass it. We did it; we did our work. The American 
people are waiting for these jobs, the contractor community is ready, 
and the communities are ready. It is time to move forward.
  I thank the Senator and the Presiding Officer for allowing me to ask 
a few questions and give a little commentary.
  Mr. COONS. I thank the Senator from Alaska. As we both know from our 
former roles, when you have a short-term extension, there are costs. It 
means that folks getting mobilized, getting organized, getting ready--
you have to pull them back. When the State coffers, the county coffers, 
the municipal coffers don't have the ability to float and put in place 
the Federal funds they are waiting for, it means projects get canceled, 
people lose their jobs, opportunity and optimism that were moving 
forward get pulled back.
  We have folks in this Chamber and the other, former Governors, former 
mayors, former county executives, former business leaders, who know the 
importance of a strong and reliable Federal partnership in 
strengthening infrastructure in this country.
  I congratulate Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for working together 
so well to craft a tough, strong, capable bipartisan bill, and it is my 
plea that the Members of the other Chamber will promptly take it up, 
consider it, and pass it so we can get America back to work.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before they leave the floor, I thank 
Senator Coons and Senator Begich and Senator Shaheen for the very 
important words they gave today on behalf of the House taking up and 
passing the bipartisan Senate Transportation bill. It is interesting to 
know we also have the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, 
speaking out in favor of the House picking up and passing the Senate 
bipartisan bill. I also served as a county supervisor a long time ago, 
but I think we all understand that what we do here makes a difference.

[[Page 4210]]

  This is one Nation under God, indivisible. There cannot be a 
circumstance where one State puts their own funding from their State 
into highways but the State next door does nothing. They cannot have 
commerce. That is why I thought Dwight Eisenhower, when he was a 
Republican President in the 1950s, said it well. He was a logistics 
expert. He is the one who started the National Highway System. He knew 
from his experience in war that you have to move goods and people. He 
also knew, in his role as President, that in order to have a strong 
economy, we have to do the same thing here at home.
  For me to see this House dither as they are doing--they are dithering 
on a bill. All they have to do is take up the bipartisan bill. For 
goodness sake, they have three-quarters of the Senate to support it, 
and all we need is 218 votes. When I served in the House for 10 years, 
what did I learn? You needed 218 votes. Tip O'Neill never cared where 
he got his votes, he just got the votes for the American people. So I 
have written letters to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, and I have 
begged them to please work with us on this bill, and all we get back 
are statements from their staff, saying: Well, we are going to do it 
our way. As Congresswoman Pelosi, the Democratic leader, said today: 
When you say my way or the highway about the highway bill, you don't 
get much done.
  I also wanted to thank Senator Klobuchar. She also held office at the 
State level. She was a district attorney, and she understands what 
happens when the Federal Government, State government, local 
government, all work together for jobs, and that is what this bill is 
about.
  So I am going to call today on the House to immediately take up and 
pass the bipartisan Boxer-Inhofe bill. I am going to ask them to 
abandon their goal of a series of extensions.
  When someone goes to buy a house, they need a mortgage. Maybe it will 
be a 10-year mortgage, 15-, 20-, or a 30-year mortgage. If the banker 
looked at them and said, We can only give you a mortgage for 30 or 60 
days, it would be very difficult, to put it mildly. It is disruptive. 
You don't know how to plan, you don't know what it is going to cost, 
you don't know if you are ever going to get the money for the house. So 
the House, by taking up these extensions, has to understand the impact.
  Today I called a press conference to let the press know what the 
impact is of these extensions. The extension means job losses. We 
started to put together a list that is coming to us from the States of 
job losses already happening in the field because of the lack of action 
by the House. I spoke to the Secretary of Transportation in North 
Carolina today. He has delayed the remaining 2012 projects totaling 
$1.2 billion that would employ 41,000 people. So 41,000 people do not 
have work, as we speak today, because the House is dithering and not 
passing the bipartisan Senate Transportation bill.
  I spoke to the officials in Nevada. As we speak, thousands of jobs 
have been lost there because the House is considering an extension 
instead of passing a bill such as our bill.
  I spoke to the officials in Maryland. Same thing, thousands of jobs. 
I spoke to the officials in Michigan. Same thing. Right now we are 
putting together a list from all across the country of job losses in 
all of our States as a result of the House failing to take up and pass 
the bipartisan Senate bill. What more bipartisanship do they need than 
to have 75 Senators support the bill? One of them was absent due to a 
funeral. So we have 74 votes for it and 22 against it. What more do 
they want?
  Anyone watching the Senate today sees how paralyzed we are. We have 
not been able to do a thing. There are filibusters on fixing the post 
offices. There are filibusters on making sure that Big Oil doesn't keep 
ripping off consumers at the pump. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster, 
filibuster. But we were able to get over all of that and pass a 
transportation bill. Why wouldn't the House be thrilled about that? Why 
wouldn't the House embrace what we did? Why would the House instead 
stand up again today and say, We are going to have a 60-day extension. 
Guess what. They pulled it. They are not having a vote on that today 
because of the uproar it is creating in the States and on the House 
floor. The House has not delivered on its promise for a bill. All the 
leadership does is complain about our bill.
  Today--I couldn't believe it--Chairman Mica said this bill is not 
paid for. Senator Baucus, Senator Thune, and others worked across party 
lines to pay for our bill. It is 100 percent paid for. And guess what 
it does. It protects 1.9 million jobs and creates another million. That 
is what our bill does. So they are pulling this vote. They are pulling 
this vote today. Good. I am glad they are pulling this vote because 
they ought to instead pass the bipartisan Senate Transportation bill.
  I want to tell you a story about what is actually happening out there 
in the economy. If we do nothing, 1.9 million jobs are gone on March 
31. If we do an extension, then you have death by a thousand cuts, a 
proportion of these jobs is lost, and it keeps getting worse with every 
extension. So it is the end of these jobs, a slow torturous end of 
these jobs.
  I want to show how many unemployed construction workers there are--
1.4 million. Why is that? When the unemployment rate is 8.3 percent, 
the unemployment rate among construction workers is 17.1 percent. Why 
is that? Because we were having a very tough housing crisis, and we are 
not out of it yet. So all of these workers who were building houses now 
were hoping to be able to build highways, build freeways, and fix 
bridges. And our bill does that. Our bill will take these people and 
put them to work. We could get this unemployment rate down to 400,000 
because we will take a million off this with the expansion of the TIFIA 
Program, which stands for Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act, which gives the money upfront for cities and States and 
gets projects built faster.
  I want to show you what it would look like if you put every 
unemployed construction worker into a football stadium. This is a Super 
Bowl stadium, and it is filled. Imagine each and every one of these 
seats is filled by an unemployed construction worker, and then close 
your eyes and imagine 13 more stadiums for a total of 14 stadiums. 
Fourteen stadiums full of unemployed construction workers, that is what 
we are facing. Yet, the House will not take up and pass the bipartisan 
Transportation bill. They are flirting with extensions, which is the 
end of these jobs, but slower and more excruciating.
  We talked about jobs, but we have to talk about businesses. These 
jobs are private sector jobs, and these businesses--over 11,000 of 
them--are construction companies that would be adversely impacted.
  I met with business owners. One man was teary eyed. He said, Senator, 
I have had to lay off 1,000 people because of the indecision here, 
because of the constant extensions we have had on the highway bill. We 
need your bill now. I said I understood. He said, I cannot look at 
another worker. He said, Extensions are like living hand to mouth. It 
doesn't work.
  If you know, again, that all you are going to get is 90 days' worth 
of Federal funding, how can you let a contract for a year? No one is 
going to go out and let a contract for 90 days for a big program that 
lasts for a year or a year-and-a-half of construction. So we just have 
to remember we are not just talking about workers; we are talking about 
the businesses that support those workers.
  I am going to show my colleagues a series of editorials. They have 
run in red States. They have run in blue States. They have run in 
purple States.
  I am going to make a statement, and I am going to stand by it: 
Everyone in America gets this except the House of Representatives. 
Everyone in America gets this except the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives, save a few of them who are courageous. Four of them 
have broken off--one of them from the Presiding Officer's home State, 
two of them from Illinois, and one of them from North Carolina. They 
said: We stand with those who say take up and pass the Senate 
bipartisan bill.

[[Page 4211]]

Good for them for showing that kind of courage.
  I say to my colleagues now, it is a quarter to 5 in the evening. If 
any of them are tuning in to this discussion, listen to what these 
newspapers are saying: ``House should pass transportation bill.''

       The No. 1 priority for the House of Representatives should 
     be passing a bipartisan transportation bill--as the Senate 
     already has done on a 74-22 vote. . . .
       The Senate has done its job. . . . House Speaker Boehner 
     should drop the notion of passing an extreme Republican-only 
     House bill and do as the Senate did--craft a bipartisan bill 
     that can pass both Houses.

  This is in the Fresno Bee. It is in the reddest part of California. 
Trust me when I say that. I know. It is the reddest part of California, 
and they are asking the House to pass the Senate bill.
  Then we have, in Michigan, the Detroit News: ``Congressional Waffling 
Hurts State Roads.''

       The U.S. Senate . . . has approved a bipartisan plan. While 
     imperfect, it's better than another reprise of an outmoded 
     transportation act that already has been extended eight 
     times. . . . The disarray hardly gives States the kind of 
     revenue certainty they need to get from a Federal plan, but 
     if Boehner and House Members can't agree on their own plan, 
     they would probably be wise to take what is politically 
     possible and pass it. Pass the Senate bill.

  Newspapers all over the country--look at this one: ``Road to 
Compromise.'' One would think the House would embrace this. What are 
the American people telling us? We are viewed--we in the Congress--as 
fighting constantly. Our approval rating is 10 percent. I don't know 
who represents that 10 percent, but it is probably the Presiding 
Officer's family, my family, and the family of my colleague from 
Missouri.
  Why is that? We can't work together. We proved today on two bills 
that we can't get together. But we proved a couple of weeks ago, after 
5 weeks of debate, we could do it on the Transportation bill.
  When Senator Inhofe and I agree, my goodness, that is a day. We don't 
agree on so many things, believe me. We are struggling over anything 
that has the word ``environment'' in it. He is fighting to overturn the 
EPA clean air rules, and I am fighting him to keep them. He doesn't 
want that much oversight on nuclear accidents; I want more oversight. 
He says I don't do enough oversight on things he wants oversight on. 
Listen, we argue. We respect each other. We like each other. We 
disagree with each other. But on this we came together. What more does 
Boehner want? What more does Cantor want?
  Speaker Boehner is putting at risk 55,000 jobs in Ohio, and Leader 
Cantor is putting at risk 40,000 jobs in Virginia. Don't they care 
about the businesses and the workers there?
  This headline says the ``Road to Compromise.'' This is the Ohio Akron 
Beacon, from the heartland:

       On Wednesday, 74 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, 
     joined together in a real accomplishment. They approved a 
     two-year bill. . . . The timing couldn't be better. . . . 
     What will the House do? It should take the cue of the Senate 
     and quickly approve the legislation that won bipartisan 
     support.

  It couldn't be more clear. That is Ohio.
  I will tell my colleagues I have never seen such an array of 
newspapers from all over the country.
  This one is the Chicago Sun-Times: ``For a Better Commute, Pass 
Transportation Bill.''

       The Senate just delivered a gift to the House: A bipartisan 
     transportation bill at a time when America really could use a 
     lift. Here's hoping the House Republicans don't mess it up. . 
     . .

  Well, hope against hope. So far, I feel very worried--very, very 
worried. The whole program expires on Friday and all they can come up 
with is extensions, and then they don't even have the votes for that. 
How bad would it be for them to give me a call, give Senator Inhofe a 
call, and say: We are going to come over and sit down and bring the 
bipartisan leadership of the committee--there are four of them--bring 
the bipartisan leadership of the Senate, and let's hammer out 
something.
  What is happening over there? Speaker Boehner is the Speaker of the 
House not Speaker of the Republicans. He needs to work with the 
Democrats. I don't expect they will love each other, my goodness. We 
don't expect miracles, but we should expect them to work together.
  I remember fondly my days in the House with Tip O'Neill and Bob 
Michel. Couldn't have better friends. Did they agree on everything? No. 
Did they work on everything? Yes. I remember those days. I was a whip 
at a certain point in the House, and they used to call us together and 
we would come back and say: There are 25 Democrats who can't vote for 
this Democratic bill. You know what Tip O'Neill would do? He would say: 
Fine, I will call Bob Michel and see if he has 25 votes for me. They 
saw that they might have had 20 and they didn't have 25 and they had to 
compromise the bill. And they did it. That is why I decided I loved 
legislating.
  I loved working on this bill with my friend Senator Inhofe. I loved 
working with my staff and his staff. Our staffs became almost like 
family. I would encourage Speaker Boehner to take a page out of this 
book.
  I see the Senator from Louisiana on the Senate floor. He and I go at 
it on a number of issues. We work together. We even put on this bill 
the Restore Act--a bipartisan piece of legislation that is going to 
make sure the gulf can rebuild and get paid back for the suffering that 
went on there. Did California get a lot out of that? No. But the 
country will get a lot out of that because the gulf is a region we care 
about. It is where we get a lot of our energy. It is where we get a lot 
of our seafood. We need to work together.
  So Senator Vitter and I don't agree on a lot of subjects, and we go 
at it pretty hard in the committee. But on this we agreed.
  So let's look at a few others, and then I will yield the floor after 
we go through the rest of these.
  ``Highway Bill Would Boost Stability.'' This is Mississippi. This is 
one of the reddest States in the Union. I beg Speaker Boehner to open 
his ears and hear me:

       A two-year, $109 billion highway bill that passed the U.S. 
     Senate this week buoys the hope of interest groups like 
     roadbuilders and the travel industry that the House can be 
     prodded by the Senators' action to pass its own bill before a 
     March 31 expiration date. . . .
       This bill has no earmarks. . . .
       Mississippi could derive major benefits.
       I am just saying, when we have editorials from Mississippi 
     for a bill, we know it is a bipartisan bill.

  Let's take a look at some others: ``A Solid Transportation Bill.'' 
This comes from Oregon, the Register Guard, an editorial:

       By an impressive bipartisan vote of 74 to 22, the Senate on 
     Wednesday passed a two-year blueprint for transportation. The 
     House should move quickly to approve the Senate measure. If a 
     transportation bill is not approved and signed into law by 
     April 1, the government will lose its ability to pay for 
     Federal transportation projects.

  So now we have Mississippi, Oregon, Illinois, and Ohio. I don't 
remember all that I read.
  ``Bipartisanship in Senate Moves Transportation Bill.'' This is 
Oklahoma, another deeply red State:

       With rare bipartisanship, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday 
     passed a much-needed and much-delayed national transportation 
     bill that could create jobs and fund road projects. . . .
       The country's infrastructure has been ignored for too long 
     and is in dire straits. This is an important and necessary 
     extension of the transportation bill. It will make needed 
     improvements to our infrastructure, and it is a real job-
     creator. . . .

  I am telling my colleagues that I am buoyed by these editorials 
because these editorials from Republican papers and Democratic papers 
are nonpartisan. They are all urging us to act.
  ``Transportation Funding Held Hostage in the House.'' Fort Worth 
Star-Telegram, Texas--another red State:

       What an exciting thing to see the Senate pass a surface 
     transportation bill last week on a 74 to 22 vote. Such 
     bipartisan support for maintaining and improving this crucial 
     part of the national infrastructure makes it almost seem like 
     the good old days in Washington. . . .
       At one point, [House Speaker Boehner] said he would put the 
     Senate bill before the House. Earlier, he said House 
     Republicans

[[Page 4212]]

     might go for an 18-month extension. . . . It's beginning to 
     look like Boehner doesn't have a clue what the House will do. 
     . . .
       Does this sound familiar? Does it remind you of the 
     congressional follies of last summer, the reality-TV drama 
     and brinksmanship of the debate over raising the federal debt 
     limit.

  I can't reach Speaker Boehner. He doesn't answer my letters. Cantor 
doesn't answer my letters. They just have spokespeople who put 
something out there. What is wrong with talking to each other? What 
happened to those days?
  Now, it goes on, and I am going to go through these: ``Pass This 
Transit Bill.'' This one is the Miami Herald:

       In an all too rare display of bipartisanship, the Senate, 
     by a vote of 74 to 22 last week, passed a transportation bill 
     of vital interest to South Florida and the rest of the 
     country. . . .
       This uncompromising approach is why public approval of 
     Congress stands at 10 percent or below in recent polls. Mr. 
     Boehner should urge the members of his caucus to set aside 
     their job-killing intransigence and accept the bipartisan 
     Senate version before funding runs out.

  So here is the thing--I will wrap up--there is a clear path to 
success, and it is not painful. It is not painful. Speaker Boehner and 
Leader Cantor should abandon their idea of these endless extensions. We 
have proven today through the State organizations and by talking to 
State officials in all of our States that jobs are already being lost 
because of the uncertainty, the dithering--that is my word--and the 
fact that they are talking about extensions. Extensions are no good. 
Extensions mean job losses--41,000 jobs already lost today as of now in 
North Carolina and thousands in other States because States do not have 
the ability to up-front the Federal share. They are counting on us.
  Our bill is fully paid for in a bipartisan way. Our bill has not one 
earmark. Our bill takes 90 programs down to 30. It is streamlined. It 
is made efficient.
  We have, in a bipartisan way, added the Restore Act. We added ways to 
fund rural districts for their schools by the timber receipts. This is 
a good bill, and this is a bill that is truly a work product of 
everyone in this Chamber. Even those who ended up voting no had 
something to do with it and helped us get it through.
  So there is a clear path. They pulled their 60-day extension off the 
floor of the House, and that is a good thing. Now they should put the 
Senate bill on the floor and both sides should embrace it and pass it.
  Let me tell my colleagues a signal it will send to our people at 
home: It will send a signal of job growth in the future, a signal that 
we are working together, a signal that we are going to get out of this 
recession, a signal that we put aside politics for the good of these 
hard-hat workers and the companies that employ them. They deserve it. 
They got hurt by Wall Street. Everybody in the country did. But for 
these construction workers, because of all this messing around with 
these mortgage-backed securities, it killed the construction industry 
and housing.
  We have a chance to help some of the hardest working people in our 
Nation. I call on the House leadership to take a page out of our 
bipartisan book here and pass the Senate bill.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Missouri.


                               Gas Prices

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this week the majority brought a bill to 
the floor to talk about gas prices and energy-producing companies. That 
was yesterday. Today the majority brought another bill and tried to 
move away from that bill. We ought to be talking about gas prices. We 
should be talking about what impacts so many families and so many 
businesses and so many individuals.
  I talked to somebody on the phone just yesterday, a friend of mine 
from St. Charles, MO, where gasoline is about $3.50 a gallon. That is a 
little lower than it is maybe in other places where it is $3.90, the 
national average, though I am sure we can find a place in St. Charles 
where the gas is $3.90. But my friend talked about gas prices, how it 
affects his business, the restaurant business.
  I have said on this floor before, when American families stand before 
that gas pump and the cost goes from $40 to $50 to $60 to $70, almost 
every family in America watches those numbers and thinks of something 
they were going to do that week or that weekend that they are not going 
to do. Certainly, if you are in the restaurant business, as my friend 
is, you know that.
  But he said: I was at the gas station just yesterday, and there was a 
woman there in a car with a child. She said: Could you just give me $5? 
I don't think I can get home with the gas I have. I don't have any 
money. I need to put a little more than a gallon of gas in the car just 
to know I can get home. Could you put $5 of gas in the car for me?
  He said: I put $20 of gas in the car. And $20, at $3.90 a gallon--the 
national average--does not last very long.
  People who are putting $5 or $10 in their gas tanks are not doing it 
because they love to go to the gas station. They are doing it because 
they cannot afford to put the gas they need in the car to do the things 
they need to do.
  The national average hit $3.90 just a day or two ago, and it is on 
the way up now. It is more than double what it was in January 2009 when 
gasoline was about $1.90 or $1.91 a gallon.
  People feel this. I cannot think of a meeting I have had in the last 
2 weeks with any group who did not have some story about how energy and 
gas costs were impacting them.
  Now, why we would have a bill on the Senate floor that would raise 
gasoline prices I have no idea. But that is the bill that is on the 
floor. I think the idea is that the majority is wanting to blame 
somebody else rather than the President's energy policies. The American 
people do not accept that.
  I asked people in Missouri to talk to me about some of the challenges 
they are having with these skyrocketing fuel prices. Remember, the 
President, in the fall of 2008, said at the San Francisco Chronicle, 
under his energy policies, energy costs would ``necessarily 
skyrocket.'' So I guess he has to believe his policies are doing 
exactly what he thought they would do. But here is what they are doing 
to people all over America.
  Trent Drake, a farmer in southwest Missouri, who raises soybeans, 
corn, wheat, and cattle, told me--of course, like every farm--he is 
heavily dependent on fuel, in his case diesel fuel. His fuel bill went 
up 125 percent over last year. That is more than twice the fuel bill he 
had last year.
  Roger Lang, who owns a company, Byron L. Lang Inc., in Jackson, MO, 
told me a majority of all the profits they are making are now going 
back into paying the fuel costs, which, of course, means they cannot 
look at profits they made and think: What can we do for better benefits 
or better wages or to hire more employees? They have to think: How much 
higher is this gasoline bill going to go? How much higher is my energy 
bill going to go under the energy policies we are working under now?
  According to Roger Lang, if something is not done, he believes this 
one issue will end his business. A business his family has been 
operating since 1947 would be ended because we have energy policies 
that do not make sense.
  Linda Yaeger, who is the executive director of the Older Adults 
Transportation Service--I do not know what it is called everywhere 
else; it is called the OATS system in Missouri--provides transportation 
for seniors and people with disabilities in 87 of our 115 counties.
  For every penny gas goes up, Linda said it costs her program $15,250. 
For every penny that gas goes up in 87 counties all over Missouri--
essentially, for vans and buses that take seniors and handicapped 
people where they need to go--for every penny gas goes up, it costs 
$15,250. And for every penny that is a loss of the equivalent of 10,000 
one-way trips for the people they serve. Multiply that $15,250 by the 
200 pennies gasoline has gone up in the last 3 years and suddenly we 
have a budget that does not do what we would hope it could do for the 
people they serve.
  The Ozarks Food Harvest in Springfield, MO, where I live is a 
regional

[[Page 4213]]

food bank that serves one-third of the State of Missouri, delivering 
about 1 million pounds of food a month. Bart Brown, who runs the Ozarks 
Food Harvest, cannot, obviously, predict--as none of us can--these gas 
prices. But they did just have to raise their delivery costs from 4 
cents a pound to 6 cents a pound. So there is a 50-percent increase in 
the delivery costs to the Food Harvest in getting food to people's 
homes.
  The charities of America are incredible in their ability to make 
money last, to stretch a dollar, to do everything they can to make 
their contributions have real impact. The Food Harvest--I have been to 
a lot of these food banks, and they benefit from getting food from 
people who are food producers, the processors who have an overrun or 
they have a damaged box or they have whatever is still perfectly good, 
but they are willing to make it available to somebody else because it 
does not quite fit the way they do business.
  But when they have to increase their delivery costs by 50 percent 
just because gas has gone up--gas has gone up 100 percent. So if they 
increase their delivery costs by 50 percent, I guess they are still 
trying to make the most of the situation in which they find themselves. 
It is not the only part of the cost, but it is a big part of the cost. 
That is going to have a big impact on all the people in one-third of 
the counties in Missouri that get food from the Ozarks Food Harvest.
  Meanwhile, a lot of my colleagues on the other side have already 
admitted this tax hike on American energy producers would do nothing to 
lower gas prices. This clearly is a messaging bill. But why, if they 
were trying to divert attention away from the President's energy 
policies, they bring this bill to the floor is a surprise to me.
  In May 2011--a year ago--the bill's sponsor, Senator Menendez, 
acknowledged:

       Nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing 
     gas prices.

  Well, why would they be talking about it if they could be spending 
the same time doing things that would reduce gas prices. The American 
people believe the government could have an impact on gas prices. I 
believe the government could have an impact on gas prices. This bill we 
are talking about is not even designed, according to the sponsor, to 
reduce gas prices.
  Senator Begich said the proposed tax hikes ``won't decrease prices at 
the pump for our families and small businesses.'' He may or may not be 
for the bill, but he certainly has figured out what the bill would do.
  Senator Baucus noted ``this is not going to change the price at the 
gasoline pump. That's not the issue.''
  Well, what is the issue? Maybe we ought to figure out what the issue 
is. Families think it is the issue. Families think, when they see that 
sign go up three different times maybe in a week--that the price goes 
up--that there is some issue we ought to be dealing with. Senator 
Schumer admitted this bill ``was never intended to talk about lowering 
prices.''
  Probably this bill was never even intended to be on the Senate floor. 
I assume the majority brought this bill to the floor thinking 
Republicans would not want to talk about this topic of whatever tax 
policies are designed to encourage more American production. But why 
wouldn't we want to talk about that? Why wouldn't we want to have more 
American energy of all kinds?
  Senator Landrieu told Americans this bill ``will not reduce gasoline 
prices by one penny.'' She is absolutely right.
  Even the majority leader, who brought the bill to the floor, said 
this bill ``is not a question of gas prices.''
  So, really, this bill maybe is not a question of anything we ought to 
be talking about, so let's talk about what we should be talking about. 
We ought to be talking about what increases American energy. The 
shortest path to more American jobs is more American energy--the jobs 
that produce energy and the jobs that benefit from competitive energy 
prices.
  We are not some little European country. I know in the fall of 2008, 
before the President chose him, the Secretary of Energy said our 
problem was that our gasoline prices were not as high as the gasoline 
prices in Europe, where at that moment they were $8 or $10 a gallon.
  I do not think that is our problem at all. In fact, we are not a 
European country. We are the United States of America. We are a big 
country. Our transportation needs are different. Our energy needs are 
different. We generally do not walk to work or we generally do not only 
benefit from food products and other products that come from 5 or 10 
miles away. That is not who we are. That is not who we are going to be. 
We need to have energy policies that work for us.
  Congressional Republicans in the House and the Senate have long 
supported a plan that uses all American energy. In fact, at the State 
of the Union Message, one of the few smiles on the Republican side of 
the aisle that night was when the President said he was for an ``all-
of-the-above'' energy strategy because that is what we have been for 
for a long time, and mean it. That can include wind and solar, 
renewable, biomass, shale gas, shale oil, coal, nuclear--all of the 
above.
  It seems to me the message has not gotten through to the regulators 
and the legislators that we need to be doing all we can to find more 
American energy--all of these things, every one I mentioned: Nuclear, 
big and small; natural gas. We now think we have more natural gas than 
anybody in the world. Let's go after it. Let's use that resource to the 
advantage of our economy.
  They all have bipartisan support, and I think there is bipartisan 
support for investing in the future. Let's figure out what comes next 
in the energy world, but it will not come quickly, and our economy 
could not afford for it to come quickly. If we decide: OK, tomorrow we 
are not going to drive cars powered by gasoline, that would be a huge 
mistake. It would be an equally huge mistake if we decided 10 years 
from tomorrow none of us will be driving cars powered by gasoline. We 
do not even know what the next power source will be. We are going to 
use these fossil fuels for a while, and we should use them to our 
benefit.
  Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk 
about raising taxes on domestic energy and domestic energy 
manufacturers--tax hikes that absolutely will be passed along to 
consumers. Some of these things in the Tax Code are to encourage 
American energy production. There is energy all over the world. Why 
wouldn't we want to encourage the energy production jobs to be here 
rather than somewhere else?
  I know the President said we are going to give money to Brazil, and 
we want them to drill in the deep water, and we will be glad to buy 
some of their oil and gas when they produce it. But why would that be 
our alternative when we could, in fact, do things that encourage 
American energy production or, if it is not from the United States of 
America, what about our neighbors? The Keystone Pipeline--80,000 
barrels of oil a day is going to go somewhere because they are going to 
use that resource to their benefit, and it is either that the pipeline 
is going to come south to our refineries or it is going to go west and 
be sold to Asia.
  Why we would not want the 20,000 jobs to build that pipeline--not 
taxpayer-paid jobs but jobs for people who pay taxes, working for 
companies that pay taxes--why we would not want those jobs to be right 
here in the United States rather than in Canada, sending that pipeline 
west to eventually have that same oil sold to Asia, is a mystery to me.
  If the President wants to support an ``all-of-the-above'' energy 
strategy, he should stop blocking all this energy. The President should 
work to enable all sources of energy we have in the United States. The 
best place for us to meet our own energy needs is right here. The next 
best place is our best trading partner, our biggest trading partner, 
our closest neighbor, Canada. Then even the Mexican energy appears to 
be on a rebound in a positive way that could benefit us.

[[Page 4214]]

  Let's be as independent as we can be on energy and the energy that 
relates most directly to American jobs.
  The responsible development of more domestic energy will help create 
jobs, bring down prices at the pump, and position our country to have 
greater energy security. The shortest path to more American jobs is 
more American energy. Let's get on that path instead of this path that 
is discouraging the very thing that can help us the most.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I too come to the floor to talk about the 
most pressing issue facing so many millions of Louisiana and American 
families; that is, the price at the pump. Sometimes we seem to get 
ourselves in a cocoon in Washington, DC, divorced from the real world.
  We need to reconnect to the real world. Back in Louisiana, 
Pennsylvania, and every State across the country, middle-class, lower 
middle-class families are struggling with this ever-increasing price at 
the pump. When President Obama was sworn into office a little over 3 
years ago, that price was about $1.84 a gallon. Today, it is over 
double that, $3.80 and beyond.
  That is a big hit to American families. That hits folks where it 
counts and where it hurts--in the wallet, in the pocketbook, in the 
family budget. All around Louisiana families are huddled around the 
kitchen table trying to figure out how to make it work because 
gasoline, transportation, driving is not a luxury. Sure, they can cut 
back a little bit, but for the most part it is a real necessity; it is 
going to work; it is getting the kids to school; it is doing absolute 
necessities.
  This is a big hit to middle-class, lower middle-class families' 
budgets and wallets and pocketbooks. So let me suggest the obvious; 
that we focus on what truly matters to American families, that we focus 
on that in the Senate, here in Washington, and we do something about 
that.
  That is why I favored moving to the Menendez bill on the Senate 
floor. That is why I voted against moving off the bill today, not 
because I agree with that solution--it is not a solution--but at least 
we can talk about the topic, at least we can offer amendments on what 
is to millions of Louisiana and American families the biggest day-to-
day challenge they face; that is, that ever-increasing price at the 
pump.
  The Menendez ``solution,'' the Democratic plan, will not help bring 
down the price at the pump. In fact, it will do the opposite. I think 
the American people with good old-fashioned American common sense get 
it. Look, we can love the oil companies, we can hate the oil companies, 
but the Menendez bill increases taxes on U.S. energy companies and on 
U.S. energy production.
  It increases taxes on those folks and on that activity. What do we 
think is going to be the result of that in terms of the price at the 
pump. The American people know. The American people get it. It is 
obvious. It is going to increase the price at the pump. It is certainly 
not going to leave it alone or decrease it. Why? It is economics 101. 
When we give business a new additional cost, almost all the time that 
is going to be passed on to the consumer.
  The American people get that. They see that. They feel it. They deal 
with it every day. Also, when we increase taxes on something, we 
produce less of it in the market. In this case, the Menendez bill is 
increasing taxes on energy production, in particular, ironically, U.S. 
energy production, which I thought we wanted to increase and maximize.
  So when we tax something more, we get less of it. Supply goes down. 
Guess what happens when supply goes down and demand is the same. Price 
goes up. So I not only agree with, but I go further than some of the 
Democrats who were quoted by the previous speaker saying this bill is 
not about reducing the price at the pump. It is not only about not 
reducing the price at the pump, it will have the impact of increasing 
the price at the pump.
  Conservatives have a different suggestion that will decrease the 
price at the pump; that is, to use the resources we have in this 
country, to open our ability to use those energy resources, to produce 
more good U.S. American energy for ourselves, to increase supply, and 
to thereby lower the price at the pump. We can do that and we should do 
that.
  A lot of Americans do not realize the United States is actually the 
most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. When we look at total 
energy resources, when we compare countries in terms of their total 
energy resources, the United States is the richest in energy, bar none. 
This chart shows that. The United States is top. Russia comes second. 
Saudi Arabia is third. But look at Saudi Arabia and all Middle Eastern 
countries--way below our total U.S. energy resources. We are very rich 
in terms of energy.
  This map shows just how rich we are in terms of U.S. resources. We 
have enormous recoverable natural gas, particularly with new technology 
and horizontal drilling that has been developed. That is these green 
circles. That represents, conservative estimate, 88 years of natural 
gas using just that for U.S. use.
  We have enormous recoverable oil--again, very conservative estimates. 
But in the gulf, where we do produce, also on the east and west coast 
and Alaska, there is lots of oil, and we have enormous recoverable oil 
from shale, particularly out West. That is being blocked now. It is 
off-limits. But we have these resources.
  The problem is--and I said we are the single most energy-rich country 
in the world, bar none. We are. The problem is we are the only country 
in the world that puts well over 90 percent of our resources off-
limits. We are the only country that does that. East coast production, 
no, absolutely not; west coast production, no--big red no; ANWR, Alaska 
National Wildlife Refuge, where we could access millions of acres of 
lands from a very select footprint, smaller than an area the size of 
Dulles Airport in suburban Virginia, no; western shale production, 
where we saw so much of the resource potential on the previous map, no; 
even production in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, no. Under Federal law, 
because of this administration, because of this Senate, we keep saying 
no, no, no to our U.S. resources.
  A good example of that is President Obama's 5-year lease plan for 
offshore production. Under Federal law, every President has to develop 
and issue a 5-year plan about leasing the Outer Continental Shelf 
offshore. President Obama's 5-year plan is half of the previous plan. 
We have very little we are able to touch as it is, and President Obama 
has backed us up from this, has turned us around, moved us in the wrong 
direction from there. His plan is literally half the previous plan. So 
we are moving there in absolutely the wrong direction.
  This map shows that. This map is what was available for potential 
drilling under the previous plan. We were finally moving forward on the 
east coast, on the west coast, offshore Alaska. We have been in the 
gulf. But under President Obama's very different lease plan, we are 
back to saying no, no, no, no, no, no--backing up, moving in the wrong 
direction.
  We are moving in the wrong direction in other areas too under this 
administration. In the Gulf of Mexico near where I live, traditionally, 
the area where we produce the most U.S. energy, even in the Gulf of 
Mexico we are moving in the wrong direction. Production is down 17 
percent in 2011. It is projected to go down more in 2012. Permitting is 
down over 40 percent compared to the pre-BP levels of permitting. I 
know with the BP disaster there had to be a quick pause. We had to 
change some rules. But it is still down over 40 percent. Production is 
down 17 percent in one of the few areas we allow activity. We cannot 
afford that. We need to produce more good U.S. energy.
  Oil production on Federal property, again, is down on all Federal 
property, down 14 percent. Federal offshore is down 17 percent in the 
last couple years. We need to do better.
  Of course, perhaps the clearest example of this approach to energy by 
President Obama is his recent veto of the Keystone Pipeline, a true 
shovel-ready

[[Page 4215]]

project, truly ready to go. It is not U.S. energy, but it is the next 
best thing, from our biggest trading partner, a very good friend and 
reliable trading partner, Canada. The President has vetoed it and with 
it the 20,000 jobs it would have created--no; 700,000 barrels a day of 
oil from Canada, no; $7 billion of economic investment when we are 
trying to come out of this horribly weak economy, no; help to lower 
prices at the pump, no--again, No, no, no, no, no, no.
  We can do better. We can do better as a country. We certainly can do 
better in Washington and say yes. We can do better by accessing more 
domestic energy resources. Again, we are the most energy-rich country 
in the world, bar none. But we are the only country that puts over 90 
percent of that off-limits. We need to change that. We can create more 
great U.S. jobs. Let us say yes to that. By the way, those are jobs 
which by definition cannot be outsourced to China or India or anywhere 
else.
  If we are creating energy in the United States, that job has to stay 
in the United States. We can build greater energy independence. Let us 
say yes to that. We can dramatically increase revenue to the Federal 
Government and thereby reduce deficits and debt. After the Federal 
income tax, the second biggest source of revenue the Federal Government 
has is revenue on domestic energy production, those royalties, second 
only to the Federal income tax.
  Let's say yes to that new revenue, deficit and debt reduction, and we 
can help lower the price at the pump because supply does matter. 
Increasing supply does matter. It will lower prices.
  Again, I disagree with the Menendez approach. The Menendez approach 
will increase the price at the pump and increase taxes on an industry 
and that is going to be passed on to the consumer. Taxing something 
more produces less of it. Less oil means the price goes up. But we can 
have an American solution. We can open access to our own resources and 
thereby gain control of our own future. We do not have to beg Saudi 
Arabian princes. We can regain control of our own destiny and our own 
future. Let's do it. The American people want us to do it. Common sense 
dictates that we do it. Let's move forward together and do it for the 
good of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                       Surface Transportation Act

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to join 
my colleagues who were here earlier to talk about the bipartisan 
Senate-passed Transportation bill. I give credit to Senator Barbara 
Boxer, Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator 
Inhofe from Oklahoma, the ranking member, for all of their good work on 
this legislation. They joined three other committees that also passed 
their portions of the bill with strong bipartisan support.
  I think we could all agree that transportation is one of the Federal 
Government's core responsibilities. It has been far too long since 
Congress updated and reformed Federal transportation programs. Every 
committee that worked on the Senate's long-term Transportation bill 
passed it with a strong bipartisan vote. When the bill came to the 
floor, 74 Senators from both parties voted in favor of the 
Transportation bill.
  Now I urge the House of Representatives to follow our lead in the 
Senate and act on a long-term bipartisan transportation bill. I think 
they ought to take up the Senate bill. The Senate's Transportation bill 
is about strong bridges, good jobs, and dependable roads that 
businesses count on to move goods and reach customers.
  The Senate bill reauthorizes transportation programs for 2 years, it 
maintains current funding levels, and it does not increase gas taxes. 
Repeating that, it doesn't increase gas taxes, and it is fully funded. 
Cutting funding for transportation right now would be a very dangerous 
choice.
  We are seeing emerging economies, such as China and India, spending 
roughly 9 percent of their gross domestic product per year on roads, 
bridges, public transportation, and infrastructure. At the same time, 
in the United States, we are spending about 2 percent. That is half of 
what we were spending in the sixties. At this rate, we will not be able 
to stay competitive with the rest of the world. That is a macro reason 
why we need to pass the Transportation bill. The bill is fully paid 
for, it doesn't increase the deficit, and most of the funding comes, as 
usual, from the gas tax.
  To make up the gap in funding, we came up with bipartisan ways, 
including stiffer penalties on tax delinquents and by shifting unused 
funds designated to clean up underground storage tanks.
  The Senate's Transportation bill is about making our investments more 
efficient so that we spend less on overhead and more on roads and 
bridges. I think several people have talked about the fact that this is 
a good time for States to be able to borrow. There are low interest 
rates. We can get a lot for our money. That is what I heard in New 
Hampshire when I talked to our transportation officials, that interest 
rates are very low right now.
  This bipartisan bill streamlines the number of Federal transportation 
programs from over 90 to 30. For the first time it requires States to 
collect data so we can measure what kind of bang we are getting for our 
buck. Not only is it a reform bill that is more efficient, but it is 
more accountable. I think that is why groups from the AFL-CIO to the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce support this bill. They have come together to 
support a bill that is truly bipartisan and that would support nearly 2 
million jobs nationwide and, in my State of New Hampshire, about 6,600.
  There have been a lot of reports about the difficulties facing the 
House in finding an agreement on a transportation bill. I think the 
Senate has provided a very good model that maintains current funding 
levels and avoids an increase in both the deficit and gas taxes.
  What we need now is for the House to join the Senate and produce a 
reasonable, bipartisan, long-term transportation bill that can give 
local governments and businesses some certainty before the height of 
the construction season. State and local transportation projects budget 
and plan based on the idea that the Federal Government will provide a 
consistent level of long-term funding. When you are planning a 
multimillion dollar project that employs hundreds of people, it is 
critical to know what your budget is going to be more than just a 
couple months in advance. We would not run a business that way, and we 
should not expect the government to run that way.
  If the House doesn't pass a bipartisan, long-term, transportation 
bill, States and towns won't have the certainty they need from us in 
Washington to plan their projects and improve their systems.
  According to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure costs 
businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost productivity. This is 
no time to stall programs that encourage economic growth and create the 
climate that our businesses need to succeed.
  In New Hampshire, we have seen firsthand the real-world consequences 
of uncertainty in Federal transportation funding. Our Interstate 93 
corridor runs from the capital in Concord down to the Massachusetts 
border. It runs pretty much the length of the State. Right now we have 
a project underway that would spur economic development in the southern 
half of that highway. It has been underway for several years, but the 
pace of the project has lagged because there has been no certainty 
around our highway bill.
  It has been impossible for businesses and developers around the I 93 
corridor to predict the future of the project. At a time when the 
number of people working in the construction industry in New Hampshire 
is the lowest in a decade, it is unacceptable that we cannot provide 
certainty for this project. We know highway projects like Interstate 93 
produce good jobs. New Hampshire's Department of Transportation has 
said that just one section of Interstate 93, between exits 2 and 3 
close to the Massachusetts border, created 369 construction jobs.

[[Page 4216]]

  All around the country, there are projects just like Interstate 93 
that are stalled while we wait for the House to pass a bipartisan long-
term transportation bill. We need to come together and make the Federal 
investments that are necessary to get these projects moving and get 
people back to work. Investing in transportation creates jobs and the 
conditions that our companies need to succeed. It is, as the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce says, a core function of government. It should not 
be an issue for politics or partisanship.
  I urge the House to take up the Senate bill. Congress needs to work 
together to pass a transportation reauthorization bill before the March 
31 deadline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S 2191

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the new Federal 
regulation that many may or may not be aware of. According to the 
Department of Justice, every swimming pool of ``public accommodation,'' 
meaning any pool at a hotel, motel, lodging establishment, recreation 
center, YMCA, apartment complex, condominium complex, school, or 
community pool, is to install a large, expensive permanent pool lift 
for the disabled, or else face steep fines from the Department of 
Justice and the threat of lawsuits.
  We must make sure that we have accommodations for the disabled in 
every public place. This is happening around the country. But to do 
this with very little thought of the implications and the cost and the 
actual service to the disabled is a huge problem.
  As we have seen time and time again, one-size-fits-all mandates from 
Washington don't work. We want public pools to have the flexibility to 
work with people with disabilities to ensure success.
  On January 31 of this year, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice 
Civil Rights Division published revised requirements for swimming pools 
and their means of entry and exit. This was 2 months ago.
  The DOJ has now put forth new requirements for all facilities ``of 
public accommodation'' that go beyond those contained in the final rule 
issued in 2010 giving hotels and other residential communities 
insufficient time to comply with this burdensome new rule.
  We need to think about it for a minute, because their lack of 
planning here is pretty evident by the fact that they are suggesting 
that this already be in place in less than 2 months, when the equipment 
is not even available in the country to do it. So it is clear that they 
have not thought through how to best serve the disabled, how to make 
sure that these services are available, and to do it in a way that does 
not put an undue burden on businesses that want to provide this 
service.
  Senator Graham and I have a bill that nullifies the requirement and 
stops the Attorney General from enforcing this requirement or any 
``guidance'' associated with it. It also prevents against any third 
party using this rule or guidance in any manner.
  To be clear, our bill will allow public pools to work directly with 
people with disabilities to meet their specific needs. Hotels, motels, 
and other public pools already have financial incentives to meet the 
needs of people with disabilities that use their facilities. They have 
been working diligently to do that. Our bill simply says the DOJ should 
not impose a national mandate for a one-size-fits-all solution that may 
not be appropriate for every facility.
  This new burdensome rule seriously changes the obligations of public 
facilities around the country. There are an estimated 309,000 public 
spas and pools in the United States. The number of businesses--and not 
just the large hotels and resorts--that will have to comply is 
staggering.
  The rule requires a permanent pool lift be installed for every pool 
or spa. So if a hotel, resort, or community association has more than 
one pool, they will have to get multiple lifts, instead of what is 
being done now, which is using a portable lift that can be moved around 
the facilities as needed.
  A pool lift can run from $4,000 to $10,000, and the installation 
could run $5,000 to $10,000, depending on how much work needs to be 
done. So we are talking about billions of dollars being spent on 
something that could perhaps help the disabled but also become an 
obstacle and danger to others using the pool if this is not thought out 
and done in a careful manner.
  The last thing we need to do right now is to add burdensome rules and 
requirements on businesses across the country. Hotel owners want to 
work in good faith to make sure pools are accessible to everybody, but 
we have to make sure that here at the Federal level we are not killing 
off more businesses by imposing mandates.
  Mandates such as these are burdensome on businesses, and we all know 
these costs will be passed on to consumers--including the disabled--in 
the form of higher hotel costs for rooms and services.
  The Department of Justice has left many questions from the hotel 
industry and others unanswered on issues such as compliance ability, 
timeframe, and economic cost, as well as rising insurance premiums.
  It is clear that the deadline for compliance should be extended to 
allow hotels and other places of public accommodation flexibility in 
providing access to guests with disabilities. We should start over. 
They have given a 60-day relief period, but that is not enough time for 
this to be planned or for the equipment to be manufactured. The 
companies cannot comply in this period of time.
  We need to guarantee that services are available to the disabled, but 
the quickest way to do the wrong thing is the way the Justice 
Department is doing it now. So instead of us letting this go into 
effect and letting large fines be put on businesses all around the 
country, even community pools and YMCAs, let's set this judgment aside 
by unanimous consent today, and if we want to debate and work with the 
Department of Justice to come up with a rule that works for the 
disabled and works for America, we can do that. But I have a unanimous 
consent request here that I wish to read.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 336, S. 2191, that the bill be read a 
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as one of the Senators who wrote the 
Americans With Disabilities Act and whose name appears as the lead 
sponsor of that bill that was passed 22 years ago, I oppose Senator 
DeMint's effort to bypass the regular order and to amend the ADA to 
remove the ability of the Justice Department to regulate the 
accessibility of swimming pools. Twenty-two years have passed and 
periodically things such as this come up, but I believe the ADA has 
withstood the test of time.
  We look around at an America that has been transformed, not just for 
the disabled but for everyone. Everyone utilizes universal design now 
in the fact that things are easily accessible for everyone. When we 
initially started putting in ramps, we thought only people using 
wheelchairs would use those ramps. I ask anyone here, go out and watch 
who uses those ramps. It is not just people in wheelchairs. The elderly 
use it, mothers with baby carriages use those ramps. You would be 
amazed how many people find those ramps a lot easier than climbing up 
and down stairs. That is one example. But I want to be clear about what 
is at stake here.
  The Americans With Disabilities Act is a civil rights law that 
guarantees equal rights and equal opportunities for individuals with 
disabilities. Senator DeMint's legislation attempts to interfere with 
the Justice Department's ability to enforce the statute, a civil rights 
statute. Again, it would be a dangerous precedent for the Senate to 
set, and that is why I object to his bill. Let me get to the point here 
on the swimming pools.
  In September of 2010, the Justice Department published final 
regulations

[[Page 4217]]

implementing title II and title III of the ADA. These new regulations 
addressed a number of issues that have arisen over the past 22 years, 
one of those being access to swimming pools and other recreational 
facilities. The requirement that has prompted Senator DeMint's bill has 
to do with swimming pool accessibility.
  Under the new regulations, newly constructed or altered pools covered 
by the ADA are required to provide at least one accessible means of 
entry into the water for people with disabilities, which must either be 
a sloped entry into the water or a pool lift that is capable of being 
independently operated by a person with a disability. Larger pools--
pools larger than 300 feet in length, which is a big pool, Olympic 
size--are required to provide a second accessible means of entry. 
Again, these were promulgated in September of 2010, so it has been 
almost 1\1/2\ years. These requirements apply in the case of a newly 
constructed pool or one that has been significantly altered as a part 
of a renovation. Again, new pools or pools undergoing significant 
renovation.
  In addition, since the ADA requires that public accommodations remove 
architectural barriers where it is readily achievable to do so, some 
existing public accommodations may be required to also increase access 
to pools for people with disabilities under title III's readily 
achievable standard. Let me repeat: readily achievable standard. The 
readily achievable standard is not one-size-fits-all. I heard my friend 
from South Carolina saying this is a one-size-fits-all. That is not so. 
It is a very flexible standard.
  For example, if the equipment is not available--I heard Senator 
DeMint say the equipment may not even be available. If it is not 
available, by definition it is not readily achievable and, therefore, 
not required by the ADA. If it is not available, by definition it is 
not readily achievable. So it is not a one-size-fits-all. It is very 
flexible. It means ``without much difficulty or expense.'' That is the 
law.
  So what constitutes readily achievable in a particular case is an 
individualized analysis based on a number of factors, such as what the 
cost would be, the resources of the entity involved. In short, it is 
what a business can afford to do. So readily achievable for a Fairmont 
Hotel would be a lot different than readily achievable for a mom-and-
pop motel that has a small swimming pool--much different. It is what 
the business can afford to do.
  I know the American Hotel and Lodging Association has been upset 
about the application of this readily achievable standard and what 
their members may be required to do. But again, keep in mind, the pool 
requirements from September of 2010 were required to go into effect by 
March 15 of this year, 1\1/2\ years later. But there were some 
misunderstandings, and so the Department of Justice has extended the 
deadline to May 21. Again, I understand that the Justice Department has 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking asking for comments about 
extending the deadline an additional 4 months, until September 17 of 
this year. The deadline for those written comments is April 4. Again, 
the process is working just as it has worked for the last 22 years.
  When we were working on the ADA back in the 1980s, we heard from a 
number of industries that requiring accessibility for entities such as 
restaurants, retail stores, theaters was going to create serious 
problems for small businesses. I remember having numerous hearings in 
my subcommittee about that. So in an effort to address this concern and 
to help small businesses comply with the ADA, we created a disabled 
access tax credit. We heard Senator DeMint talk about the costs, but we 
instituted a tax credit in the IRS Code.
  The two sides: For businesses with 30 or fewer full-time employees or 
with total revenues of $1 million or less per year, they get a tax 
credit. It can be used for adaptations to existing facilities. The 
amount of credit is 50 percent of eligible access expenditures. It is 
up to $5,000 a year. I don't know what a lift might cost. I think the 
figures my friend used were a little high, but let's say it costs 
$10,000. You get a tax credit of up to 5,000 for that, so it really 
only costs you up to $5,000. You get a 50-percent tax credit for that.
  In addition, section 190 of the IRS Code provides a tax deduction. 
For businesses of all sizes for costs incurred in removing barriers to 
meet the requirements of the ADA, the maximum deduction is $15,000 per 
year that they can deduct. So these two tax incentives certainly help 
the hotel industry offset any expenses associated with installing 
access to swimming pools.
  Again, I want to say the rule does not require a permanent pool lift, 
as my friend from South Carolina said. That is not so. It is a flexible 
standard under readily achievable. If it is not readily achievable for 
existing pools, it is not required. So if you had a mom-and-pop motel 
with a very small swimming pool, if a permanent lift is not readily 
achievable under the outlines I have just stated, then it is not 
required.
  Again, we have had 22 years, a lot of court cases. Some went to the 
Supreme Court. Then in 2008, this body unanimously--without one 
dissenting vote, this body and the House passed the ADA Act amendments 
to overcome three rulings by the Supreme Court. We passed it 
unanimously. The second President Bush signed it into law. And, again, 
we moved the ball forward in making this country more accessible for 
everyone, including people with disabilities. So as I say, it has stood 
the test of time. There is no reason to curtail the Department of 
Justice enforcement authority. There is no reason to bypass the regular 
process and to do what Senator DeMint is trying to address.
  Let's remember how popular the accessible improvements that the ADA 
required turned out to be for all Americans. I mentioned earlier the 
curb cuts, elevators, captioning on television screens, all of the 
things that seem to be commonplace today that we take for granted.
  I am confident that the improvements in swimming pool access that 
these new regulations will require will turn out to be popular. 
Actually, they may turn out to be very popular with hotel guests who 
don't have disabilities. But think about it in terms of families who 
are traveling--it may be an adult, may even be a child with a 
disability, and they want to use the hotel pool, yet there is not a 
lift or there is not a ramp. So one person from that family is barred 
from using those facilities.
  As I said, keep in mind, it is readily achievable. If it is not 
readily achievable, they don't have to do it. That is why I objected to 
Senator DeMint's request to bypass the regular process. I hope the 
Justice Department will continue. I don't have a view one way or the 
other on the extension to September. If the Justice Department feels 
that is okay and most of the comments that have come in ask for that 
extension, I see nothing wrong with extending it another 5 or 6 months. 
But at some point the law must take hold, and we have to meet our 
obligations to remove the barriers to accessibility in our country. We 
have come a long way since the ADA. Let's continue the wonderful 
progress we have made in the last 22 years.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


 Increasing American Jobs Through Greater Exports To Africa Act Of 2012

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my colleagues Senator Boozman and Senator 
Coons and I are on the floor to speak to an issue relative to Africa. 
It is my understanding the majority leader is coming to the floor to 
make a unanimous consent request. With the understanding of my 
colleagues that we will interrupt our presentation for his request, I 
think we can proceed, if it meets with the approval of my colleagues. 
Since I was the last to arrive, I want to defer to Senator Coons and 
Senator Boozman to start the conversation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with Senator Durbin and Senator Boozman for up to 30 minutes. 
And, as Senator Durbin indicated, we will suspend when Leader Reid 
arrives.

[[Page 4218]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. I want to briefly lay the groundwork for the conversation 
we are going to have in this colloquy about the Increasing American 
Jobs Through Greater Exports to Africa Act of 2012, of which Senator 
Durbin is the lead sponsor and Senator Boozman and I have joined him as 
original sponsors.
  The core question is, what is it about the rapid growth in Africa and 
the economic opportunity in Africa that should concern Americans, that 
should concern our constituents at home, and that should occupy our 
time and attention.
  Back on November 1 of last year, the African Affairs Subcommittee of 
the Foreign Relations Committee delved into this. Senator Durbin, 
Senator Isakson, and I looked hard at the ongoing developments in 
Africa. As this first chart suggests, there has been a dramatic change 
in the amount of exports from China to Africa relative to the exports 
from the United States to Africa. In fact, since 2000, Chinese exports 
to Africa have outgrown U.S. exports to Africa by a more than 3-to-1 
ratio.
  Why does that matter? Why does it matter if American workers and 
American companies are losing out on a continent that I think many 
Americans view as having relatively modest opportunity? Frankly, Africa 
is a continent of enormous opportunity. In fact, out of the 10 fastest 
growing economies in the last decade, 6 of them were in Sub-Saharan 
Africa. That is not a widely known fact. So part of why I lay this 
groundwork to start this colloquy is to help folks who are watching at 
home and to help our colleagues understand why Senator Durbin has taken 
the lead in making sure that we focus America's efforts on 
strengthening our exports to Africa, a continent of enormous 
opportunity.
  Senator Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to my colleague from Delaware that the Commerce 
Department estimates we can create jobs here in America capitalizing on 
the opportunities in Africa, and that is a good starting point in the 
midst of a recession, to know that in Delaware, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, 
and Illinois there are jobs to be created, good-paying jobs right here 
at home, taking advantage of these export markets.
  The chart Senator Coons has brought to the floor at this point 
indicates the dramatic growth that is occurring right now in Africa, 
and I think it would surprise a lot of people, as he said, who believe 
this is still a continent which is struggling with age-old problems.
  In the past 10 years, 6 of the world's 10 fastest growing economies 
were located in Sub-Saharan Africa, and in the next 5 years it is 
expected that 7 of the world's 10 fastest growing economies will be in 
Sub-Saharan Africa.
  The bill which we are bringing here is an effort to focus America's 
export market on this great continent and this great opportunity, 
creating jobs at home and a better working relationship with the 
countries and leaders of Africa.
  I went to Ethiopia last year and met with the Prime Minister of 
Ethiopia. As I have done in the times when I have traveled to other 
countries, I asked: What has been the impact of China on your country? 
We stayed and spoke for another 30 minutes as he explained to me the 
dramatic changes taking place in Ethiopia because of China.
  The numbers tell the story. When we look at what China offers to 
Ethiopia and the continent of Africa, they are offering concessional 
loans. What it means is, if it is a $100 million project that you need 
to start in Africa, the Chinese will give you $100 million and say 
``but you only have to pay back $70 million.'' What a great deal that 
is, a 30-percent discount--with a few conditions: that you use Chinese 
engineers and Chinese construction companies and half the workers will 
be coming over to your country from China.
  They are building a base of economic support within Africa. Between 
2008 and 2010, China provided more to the developing world than the 
World Bank, loans totaling more than $110 billion. What we are 
suggesting is that as this is a growing opportunity for exports, we 
need to grow with it.
  I would like to yield to my colleague from Arkansas who has been kind 
enough to join us in this effort.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I thank the Senator from Illinois for doing that. It is 
a pleasure being with him and the Senator from Delaware. I think this 
is a good example of working together. The name of the game now is 
jobs, jobs, jobs, and exports mean jobs. The other people being so very 
helpful to our colleagues--in the House, Congressman Chris Smith, and 
also Bobby Rush from Illinois. These guys have been very helpful. Then, 
Don Payne, who is my former ranking member and chairman who recently 
passed away, I know he would be very pleased with this effort.
  I have had the opportunity to travel to Africa on many occasions, 
being on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and now being in the 
Senate. It is interesting. You go to these places--the Senator 
mentioned this--you go to these places and all they want to do is talk 
about trade. They like American products. They want American products. 
I was part of the first delegation to visit South Sudan. Here they are, 
this small, struggling country and again all they want to do is talk 
about trade.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to suspend our 
colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope I am not interrupting anything that 
cannot be restarted in a short time.

                          ____________________