Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8 - SMALL BUSINESS JOBS AND TAX RELIEF ACT MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10779-10809]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

SMALL BUSINESS JOBS AND TAX RELIEF ACT MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.

Surface Transportation Conference Report

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will address two issues. I commend,
in particular, the senior Senator from Oklahoma for the extraordinary
work he has done to produce a transportation bill that has significant
reforms in it. He has been tenacious and effective. He has tugged on
our sleeves and pointed out to us repeatedly the importance of getting
this job done. I congratulate him for an extraordinary accomplishment.
With regard to the bill, the highway conference report contains
significant reforms to the surface transportation program. Projects
will now be completed in a more timely manner because, for the first
time, there are hard deadlines on agencies to complete environmental
reviews.
Also, States are given maximum flexibility to use their
transportation dollars the way they choose, rather than how Washington
dictates. This bill is fully paid for with a package of offsets mostly
included in the Senate-passed highway bill.
The conference report also contains important legislation to reform
the National Flood Insurance Program and prevent the interest on
college student loans from doubling.
The flood insurance bill is a model of reform: It moves this long-
failing program closer to where it should be--the private sector. These
reforms actually cut subsidies, save the taxpayers money, and greatly
improve the program's financial position. It was negotiated and
reported out of committee on a bipartisan basis.
On the student loan issue, Republicans and Democrats worked hard to
find common ground. The agreement we have reached will ensure that
college students who are already facing enormous challenges in the
Obama economy will not be paying higher interest rates next month.
Students can't wait for the President to get off the campaign trail
and actually work with Congress to prevent student loan interest rates
from rising this year. So while the President continues to ignore the
bipartisan proposals sent more than 3 weeks ago, Senate Democrats
dropped their demand for job-killing tax hikes and worked with
Republicans to find solutions.
It is nice to finally see the Senate actually work as the Senate used
to. It proves that if this body ignores the campaign attacks from the
President and if our Democratic friends stop pushing job-killing tax
hikes, we can actually get a lot done around here. I, once again, thank
my colleagues for all their hard work on these important measures.

Health Care Decision

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the most important issue brought to the
front page in the last 2 days is the state of the new ObamaCare law.
Two and a half years ago, President Obama teamed up with Democrats
right here in Congress to pass a health care bill they knew most
Americans didn't want. Americans have been very clear about what they
thought of this bill. So Democrats settled on a deeply dishonest sales
pitch aimed at convincing them otherwise.
Nearly every day since then, the promises that formed the very heart
of that sales pitch have been exposed for the false promises they were.
Americans were promised lower health care costs. But, of course, they
are going up. Americans were promised lower premiums, and they are
going up. Seniors were promised Medicare would be protected; it was
raided to pay for a new entitlement instead. We were promised it would
create jobs; CBO predicts it will lead to 800,000 fewer jobs because of
ObamaCare. People were promised they could keep the plans they liked;
millions have now learned they cannot.
For 2 years, the list of broken promises has grown longer and longer
and longer.
But yesterday morning, we got powerful confirmation of what may have
been the biggest deception of all. For years, the President and his
Democratic allies in Congress have sworn up and down--sworn up and
down--that failing to comply with the individual mandate did not result
in a tax on individuals or families. ``It is not a tax,'' they said.
The reason was obvious. If Americans knew that failure to comply
resulted in a tax hike, of course, the bill would never have passed. If
our friends on the other side had conceded the obvious--that it was, in
fact, a tax hike--we all know it never would have passed. The President
would not be able to claim his health care bill didn't raise taxes on
the middle class, as he did again and again and again.
Yesterday, the Court blew the President's cover. In a narrowly upheld
case on one basis only--that the penalty associated with the individual
mandate is a tax--the Court spoke. It said Congress doesn't have the
constitutional authority to mandate insurance coverage under the
commerce clause. Congress doesn't have the authority to mandate
individual insurance coverage under the commerce clause, but it
obviously does have the power to tax. So they upheld the central
provision of the bill on the fact that the penalty for failing to
comply with it was a tax.
In the eyes of the Court, that is all the penalty tied to the
individual mandate ever was: a tax imposed by a Democratic Congress--
without a single Republican vote--primarily, interestingly enough, on
the middle class. It is a tax on the middle class. Let's be very clear
about that. The tax connected to the individual mandate is not
primarily a tax on the rich but on the middle-class Americans who will
bear the brunt of it.
Listen to this, colleagues. According to the CBO, at least 77 percent
of the people paying this tax will meet the President's own definition
of the middle class; 77 percent of the people paying this tax will meet
the President's own definition of the middle class.
Those who have to pay the tax will pay an average tax of $1,200. Even
if they pay it every year, they still will not have insurance.
Yesterday's decision turns the President's campaign rhetoric on its
head. Those who will end up paying the heaviest burden for not buying
government-mandated insurance are not going to be the wealthiest
Americans--oh, no--but the very middle-class families the President
claims to defend.
That is the truth the Court unmasked yesterday.
Most Americans thought the process Democrats used to pass the health
care bill was unseemly, secretive, partisan, even antidemocratic. They
also thought it was unconstitutional for the government to create
commerce in order to regulate it--for the government to create commerce
in order to regulate it.
All of that is still true. But what many Americans may not have
appreciated when this bill passed was how empty all of the promises
were--how completely empty all the promises were. And at the center of
them all was the claim that failing to buy health insurance did not
result in a tax. That was the central claim: Failing to buy health
insurance did not result in a tax.
But the Court has now spoken: It is a tax--largely on the middle
class. This is just one more reason this law needs to be repealed in
its entirety. With every passing day we learn something new about this
terrible law. Not only does it make the problems in our health care
system worse, it leads to a tax on middle-class families who are either
unable or unwilling to purchase health insurance. What a terrible idea.
So it is time for Democrats to stop trying to defend the indefensible
and join Republicans in wiping this colossal legislative mistake clear
off the books. Yesterday's decision gives us the clearest proof yet
this bill has to go. It

[[Page 10780]]

needs to be repealed to clear the way for commonsense, step-by-step
reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need from the
doctor they choose at a lower cost. That is precisely what Republicans
intend to do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, Senators
are permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The Senator from Iowa.

Health Care Decision

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday the Supreme Court overturned
the mandatory Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act. As of
yesterday, the States now have a choice to expand or not expand
coverage to the poorest people in society without being subjected to
harsh Federal penalties.
I would like to draw attention to a speech I gave on the Senate floor
in December 2011 on the subject of the constitutionality of the
Medicaid expansion. I expressed my concerns then about the potential
impact of a Supreme Court decision on Medicaid expansion.
I said on the floor that day:

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the States in this case
could not only jeopardize the mandated Medicaid expansion in
the Affordable Care Act but could challenge the fundamental
structure of Medicaid and have broader implications outside
of health care.

The concerns I expressed then have, to a degree, come true.
Reading from a Washington Post editorial this morning about the Court
ruling on Medicaid:

This restriction of federal authority may have greater
ramifications than the court's limiting of the Commerce
Clause. One can imagine challenges to federal conditions
across a wide spectrum of programs, including but not limited
to the environment, education and transportation.

This decision overturns the mandatory expansion of the Medicaid
Program. While I realize most of the focus is on the decision related
to the tax mandate, we should spend a moment talking about the
consequence of the Medicaid decision.
Mr. President, one of the goals of the health care reform was to
provide coverage for people in need. I would argue the people most in
need of coverage are people without a job, people without an income,
and the poorest of the poor. The Affordable Care Act required States to
cover people below poverty through Medicaid. States were mandated to
expand to cover people below poverty. Yesterday, the Supreme Court
ruled that mandatory expansion unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said:

Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering
funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the
availability of health care, and requiring the States
accepting such funds to comply with the conditions on their
use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States
that choose not to participate in that new program by taking
away their existing Medicaid funding.

With this decision, States now have the option to expand Medicaid to
cover people below poverty. Mr. President, the States had that option
even before the Affordable Care Act was passed. So what does this
decision mean in real terms?
It will be up to the States to determine if they will cover the
poorest of the poor. The Federal Government cannot guarantee coverage.
So now people with jobs will have to purchase insurance under the tax
mandate. People without an income, people who are below poverty, are
dependent upon the State in which they reside.
I know some people will believe the choice is perfunctory, that
Medicaid expansion will move forward because the Federal Government has
offered to pay for more than 90 percent of the expansion. But if you
were a State, would you really trust a promise from a Federal
Government that is $15 trillion in debt? If you were a State, would you
really trust an Obama administration that proposed eliminating that
special Federal payment rate through a proposal known as the blended
rate?
States will very reasonably be risk averse. States can now expand if
they choose to or not at all. No one should assume for a second all
States will expand to cover as much as was mandated under the
Affordable Care Act.
Of course, one might think people below poverty could still get
health care through tax credits, but the people who wrote this bill
made people below poverty ineligible for tax credits. That is right--
ineligible. It is all or nothing for the poor with Medicaid. With
today's ruling, the answer is, nothing.
On December 15, 2011, I said on the Senate floor that the expansion
of Medicaid and the coverage of poor people was in jeopardy because
``the White House and the Democratic majority put their partisan goals
ahead of collaboration with Republicans and States to build legitimate
public policy.''
Today, that is the outcome. When people with income, people with jobs
are mandated to purchase health insurance and face a tax penalty if
they do not, while the poorest people in society, those without a job
or without income have a guarantee of nothing, I think victory laps are
premature.
After this decision, a person in a family with an income of more than
$80,000 a year would be guaranteed access to a subsidy to buy private
insurance, while a person in a family with no income would be
guaranteed nothing. When people below poverty, the people who can least
afford coverage or the consequence of not having coverage are left with
nothing, it sounds like failure to me.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, regarding yesterday's Supreme Court decision,
there have been a variety of very interesting editorials, op-ed pieces,
and blogs--many of them erudite and very useful for the analysis of the
Court's opinion. Of course, it will take a long time for us to know
precisely how all of this will work out over time. I thought I might
refer to a couple of these opinions and op-eds and put them in the
Record for people to see what a sampling might look like so they can
more thoroughly analyze the opinion and then pose a question at the
end.
I start with one of my friends, and I think one of the best
columnists, even nationally, that I know. He writes for my local paper,
the Arizona Republic. His name is Bob Robb, and he writes in his column
on June 29:

Roberts' decision controlled the outcome, even though it
was fully joined by no other justice. Here's what he
concluded:
The federal government has no power under the
Constitution's Commerce Clause to require individuals to
purchase health insurance, as Obamacare does. However, the
federal government does have the power to impose a financial
penalty on people for not complying with the mandate the
federal government has no authority to impose. That's because
the penalty is actually a tax under Congress' constitutional
taxing authority.
However, the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-
Injunction Act, which would preclude the court from
considering the legality until someone actually pays it.

Obviously, Mr. President, these dilemmas require some explanation. It
may be--and this is my phrasing, not Bob Robb's--this is a good example
of where the phrase of ``legal legerdemain'' comes into play.
Robb continues:

If Congress has no authority to require people to do
something, such as purchase health insurance, how can it
penalize them for not doing it?
And how can money owed exclusively because of failing to
comply with an unconstitutional mandate be regarded as a tax
and not a penalty?

He goes on to say:

The purpose of the constitutional taxing power is to raise
the money to operate the government. The clause reads:
``Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . .
. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States.''
The purpose of the penalty for not buying health insurance,
however, isn't to raise revenue. The government would prefer
not to get any money from it at all. The purpose is to compel
compliance with the mandate that Roberts says the government
has no power to impose.
There is nothing in the Constitution that can remotely be
construed as giving Congress the power to tax people, not to
raise revenue but to punish them for failing to do what
Congress would like them to do.

And Robb concludes:

[[Page 10781]]

If Congress cannot do something directly, it shouldn't be
able to do it indirectly through taxation.

Mr. President, this raises a very important question. If the taxing
power can be used to institute mandates such as ObamaCare, the real
question is, What limits are there on such taxing power? I believe this
may be one of the most important unanswered questions in Justice
Roberts' opinion.
One attempt to square the circle, in effect, was by a writer named
Joshua Hawley in the Daily Caller in his column entitled ``What's
behind Roberts' surprising decision?'' I note that Hawley comes to this
with some credentials, being described as a former law clerk to Chief
Justice Roberts as well as an associate law professor at the University
of Missouri. In effect, as I read Hawley's piece, he said Justice
Roberts actually constrained Congress's power dramatically by, first of
all, drawing a clear line on the reasonable and proper extension of the
commerce clause power. But he also said the taxing authority Roberts
uses to justify Congress's action in ObamaCare is actually very
limited.
In fact, he says that Roberts attempted to make this case sui
generis--that is the Latin phrase for ``one of a kind''--and that only
in this particular case would the taxing authority be permissibly used
for Congress to require the people to do something.
I hope Hawley's analysis is correct. I am not so sure it is. Roberts'
opinion certainly will make it more politically difficult for Congress
to pass things that extend its authority because it will have to be
clothed in the cloak of a tax, and Congress doesn't generally like to
pass new taxes on people. But Congress and the lawyers who advise us
are pretty clever about phrasing legislation in such a way that it
would meet constitutional challenges.
Now that we have a new example of a power that we might exercise--
namely, this expanded taxing power--I suspect we will see efforts in
the future to clothe our legislation under the guise of that taxing
power. If so, the constraints in Chief Justice Roberts' opinion would
be no constraints at all.
There is an old saying that hard cases make bad law. I don't know
that this was all that hard of a case, but it clearly resulted in a lot
of different points of view from the Justices, from which one could
conclude that at least they saw it as a hard case. I just hope the end
result is not bad law, as I have suggested it could be here today.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks the following pieces: first, the Robert Robb
column dated June 29 from the Arizona Republic; second, the Wall Street
Journal editorial of June 28, ``ObamaCare and the Power to Tax''; a
Rich Lowry piece in National Review Online dated June 29, ``The Umpire
Blinks''; a National View Online piece by The Editors dated June 28,
``Chief Justice Roberts's Folly''; and the Joshua Hawley piece dated
June 28 from the Daily Caller.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Arizona Republic, June 29, 2012]

False Premise Lets `Obamacare' Go On

(By Robert Robb)

For whatever reason, Chief Justice John Roberts decided to
rescue ``Obamacare'' from the constitutional trash heap.
His reasoning in doing so should be an embarrassment to
him. It certainly tossed more dirt on the burial site of the
Founders' vision of a federal government with limited,
enumerated powers.
Roberts' decision controlled the outcome, even though it
was fully joined by no other justice. Here's what he
concluded:
The federal government has no power under the
Constitution's Commerce Clause to require individuals to
purchase health insurance, as Obamacare does.
However, the federal government does have the power to
impose a financial penalty on people for not complying with
the mandate the federal government has no authority to
impose. That's because the penalty is actually a tax under
Congress' constitutional taxing authority.
However, the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-
Injunction Act, which would preclude the court from
considering its legality until someone actually pays it.
Where to begin?
If Congress has no authority to require people to do
something, such as purchase health insurance, how can it
penalize them for not doing it?
And how can money owed exclusively because of failing to
comply with an unconstitutional mandate be regarded as a tax
and not a penalty?
The purpose of the constitutional taxing power is to raise
the money to operate the government. The clause reads:
``Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . .
. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States.''
The purpose of the penalty for not buying health insurance,
however, isn't to raise revenue. The government would prefer
not to get any money from it at all. The purpose is to compel
compliance with the mandate that Roberts says the government
has no power to impose.
There is nothing in the Constitution that can remotely be
construed as giving Congress the power to tax people, not to
raise revenue but to punish them for failing to do what
Congress would like them to do.
If Congress cannot do something directly, it shouldn't be
able to do it indirectly through taxation.
Congress, unlike Roberts, understood that it was enacting a
penalty, not a tax. The law repeatedly calls the money owed
for failing to comply with the individual mandate a penalty.
Roberts says that what Congress calls it isn't dispositive
regarding whether it is a tax under the Constitution. But it
is dispositive for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.
The Anti-Injunction Act prevents those who are subject to
federal taxes from challenging their legality until after
they have been paid.
If the penalty is a tax, then no one could challenge its
legality until after someone pays it, which won't happen
until 2014. The case wouldn't properly have been before the
court.
So, Roberts declared that the money owed for failing to
comply with the individual mandate is a tax for purposes of
the Constitution because he says so. But it's a penalty for
purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because Congress says so.
In Robertsworld, an unconstitutional mandate becomes not a
mandate if the money owed for not complying is dubbed a tax
and not a penalty. But the same money can be both a penalty
and a tax depending on who is asking and why.
It's as though Roberts were channeling Lewis Carroll in
writing the opinion.
This decision is hardly the end of the Obamacare saga.
Obamacare will implode as it is implemented.
The country will have to readdress the question of how to
most cost-effectively subsidize the care of the seriously and
chronically sick.
But for today, let's mourn the death of reasoning and
something more important.
In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote: ``The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government are few and defined.''
That's not the federal government we have today. Roberts'
pettifogging on Obamacare can be seen as its final interment.
____

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2012]

ObamaCare and the Power To Tax

(Opinion)

`Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have
never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765.'
Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting from the majority
opinion that upheld most provisions of the Affordable Care
Act on Thursday:
The provision challenged under the Constitution is either a
penalty or else a tax. Of course in many cases what was a
regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been
imposed as a tax upon permissible action; or what was imposed
as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory
mandate enforced by a penalty. But we know of no case, and
the Government cites none, in which the imposition was, for
constitutional purposes, both. The two are mutually
exclusive. Thus, what the Government's caption should have
read was ``ALTERNATIVELY, THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION IS
NOT A MANDATE-WITH-PENALTY BUT A TAX.'' It is important to
bear this in mind in evaluating the tax argument of the
Government and of those who support it: The issue is not
whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage
provision as a tax, but whether it did so.
In answering that question we must, if ``fairly possible,''
construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-
with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional
rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam
pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is
not. ``[A]lthough this Court will often strain to construe
legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack,
it must not and will not carry this to the point of
perverting the purpose of a statute . . . or judicially
rewriting it.'' In this case, there is simply no way,
``without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words
used,'' to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that
individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by
a penalty.

[[Page 10782]]

Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a
penalty: ``[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for
the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction
imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.'' In a
few cases, this Court has held that a ``tax'' imposed upon
private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty.
But we have never held--never--that a penalty imposed for
violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax.
We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of
the law is an exercise of Congress' taxing power--even when
the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the
statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act ``adopt[s]
the criteria of wrongdoing'' and then imposes a monetary
penalty as the ``principal consequence on those who
transgress its standard,'' it creates a regulatory penalty,
not a tax.
So the question is, quite simply, whether the exaction here
is imposed for violation of the law. It unquestionably is.
The minimum-coverage provision is found in [the Affordable
Care Act's individual-mandate provision], Sec. 5000A,
entitled ``Requirement to maintain minimum essential
coverage.'' (Emphasis added.) It commands that every
``applicable individual shall . . . ensure that the
individual . . . is covered under minimum essential
coverage.'' (emphasis added). And the immediately following
provision states that, ``[i]f . . . an applicable individual
. . . fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) . . .
there is hereby imposed . . . a penalty.'' (emphasis added).
And several of Congress' legislative ``findings'' with regard
to Sec. 5000A confirm that it sets forth a legal requirement
and constitutes the assertion of regulatory power, not mere
taxing power. . . .
We never have classified as a tax an exaction imposed for
violation of the law, and so too, we never have classified as
a tax an exaction described in the legislation itself as a
penalty. To be sure, we have sometimes treated as a tax a
statutory exaction (imposed for something other than a
violation of law) which bore an agnostic label that does not
entail the significant constitutional consequences of a
penalty--such as ``license'' or ``surcharge.'' But we have
never--never--treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to
the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and
explicitly denominates the exaction a ``penalty.'' Eighteen
times in Sec. 5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act,
Congress called the exaction in Sec. 5000A(b) a ``penalty.''
Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have
never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part
for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to
originate in the House of Representatives. That is to say,
they must originate in the legislative body most accountable
to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the
tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next
election, which is never more than two years off. The
Federalist No. 58 ``defend[ed] the decision to give the
origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber
that is more accountable to the people should have the
primary role in raising revenue.'' We have no doubt that
Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an
earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax
instead of a requirement-with-penalty. Imposing a tax through
judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and
places the power to tax in the branch of government least
accountable to the citizenry.
Finally, we must observe that rewriting Sec. 5000A as a tax
in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to
confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is
a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States
according to their population. Perhaps it is not (we have no
need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax
Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a
question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful
consideration than the lick-and-a-promise accorded by the
Government and its supporters. The Government's opening brief
did not even address the question--perhaps because, until
today, no federal court has accepted the implausible argument
that Sec. 5000A is an exercise of the tax power. And once
respondents raised the issue, the Government devoted a mere
21 lines of its reply brief to the issue. At oral argument,
the most prolonged statement about the issue was just over 50
words. One would expect this Court to demand more than fly-
by-night briefing and argument before deciding a difficult
constitutional question of first impression.
____

[From the National Review Online, June 29, 2012]

The Umpire Blinks

(By Rich Lowry)

Chief Justice John Roberts famously defined himself as an
umpire in his confirmation hearings. But an umpire is willing
to make the toughest calls.
In his Obamacare decision, Roberts the umpire blinked. By
issuing a decision that forestalled the tsunami of criticism
that would have come his way had he struck down the law (as
an activist, a partisan, and an altogether rotten human
being), Roberts effectively rewrote the constitutionally
problematic portions of it. He overstepped his bounds. The
umpire called a balk, but gave the pitcher a do-over. The ref
called a foul, but didn't interrupt the play.
As a result, there's Obamacare as passed by Congress. Then
there's Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court.
Obamacare as passed by Congress had a mandate to buy health
insurance and a penalty for failing to comply. Obamacare as
passed by the Supreme Court has an optional tax for those
without health insurance. Obamacare as passed by Congress
required states to participate in a massive expansion of
Medicaid, or lose all their federal Medicaid funds. Obamacare
as passed by the Supreme Court makes state participation in
the Medicaid expansion optional.
In pursuit of a judicial modesty deferential to Congress,
Roberts usurped its role. Obamacare as passed by Congress
didn't pass constitutional muster. Obamacare as passed by the
Supreme Court didn't pass Congress--and might not have passed
Congress had it been presented for an up-or-down vote
festooned with yet another tax.
Roberts vindicated the core of the constitutional argument
against the individual mandate that had been sneered at by
the legal establishment and pronounced preposterous by the
likes of Nancy Pelosi. The mandate is unprecedented in that
it doesn't regulate existing activity; it compels people to
undertake an activity--namely, buying insurance--that
Congress then regulates under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
This stretches the Commerce Clause beyond the breaking point.
The chief even reverted to the widely derided broccoli
argument: If the federal government can make you buy
insurance, it can make you eat vegetables. The government's
logic, Roberts wrote, ``authorizes Congress to use its
commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government
would have them act. That is not the country the Framers of
our Constitution envisioned.''
Then, Roberts went out in search of some way, any way, to
find the mandate constitutional. He alighted on the argument
that the mandate isn't a mandate at all, but a tax. Never
mind that the tax argument was an afterthought in the
administration's defense of the law. Never mind that
administration officials, from the president on down,
vociferously denied that it was a tax during the debate over
the bill. Never mind that the law itself never defines it as
a tax and includes the mandate (and its penalty) in a
different title of the act from the revenue provisions. ``To
say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not
to interpret the statute, but to re-write it,'' the four
conservative dissenters from the Roberts opinion write. The
chief was willing to take out his rewrite pen to avoid
striking down the mandate. He did the same to keep from
throwing out the Medicaid expansion. He considers it, too, an
offense against the constitutional order. Wherever exactly
the line for impermissible coercion of the states falls, he
noted, ``this statute is surely beyond it.''
Roberts gets points for cleverness. He set clear
constitutional boundaries without striking down the law. He
largely sided with the critics of Obamacare without enraging
its supporters. He came up with the only 54 decision that
wouldn't subject his court to the calumny of the Obama
administration and law-school deans everywhere. All the op-
eds that had been drafted trashing the legitimacy of the
court have been filed away for now.
As chief justice, Roberts has competing priorities, of
course. But it's not his job to redraft laws under the guise
of judicial restraint. On Obamacare, the umpire struck out.
____

[From the National Review Online, June 28, 2012]

Chief Justice Roberts's Folly

(By the Editors)

In today's deeply disappointing decision on Obamacare, a
majority of the Supreme Court actually got the Constitution
mostly right. The Commerce Clause--the part of the
Constitution that grants Congress the authority to regulate
commerce among the states--does not authorize the federal
government to force Americans to buy health insurance. The
Court, by a 5-4 margin, refused to join all the august legal
experts who insisted that of course it granted that
authorization, that only yahoos and Republican partisans
could possibly doubt it. It then pretended that this
requirement is constitutional anyway, because it is merely an
application of the taxing authority. Rarely has the maxim
that the power to tax is the power to destroy been so apt, a
portion of liberty being the direct object in this case.
What the Court has done is not so much to declare the
mandate constitutional as to declare that it is not a mandate
at all, any more than the mortgage-interest deduction in the
tax code is a mandate to buy a house. Congress would almost
surely have been within its constitutional powers to tax the
uninsured more than the insured. Very few people doubt that
it could, for example, create a tax credit for the purchase
of insurance, which would have precisely that effect. But
Obamacare, as written, does more than that. The law
repeatedly speaks in terms of a ``requirement'' to buy
insurance, it says

[[Page 10783]]

that individuals ``shall'' buy it, and it levies a
``penalty'' on those who refuse. As the conservative dissent
points out, these are the hallmarks of a ``regulatory
penalty, not a tax.''
The law as written also cuts off all federal Medicaid funds
for states that decline to expand the program in the ways the
lawmakers sought. A majority of the Court, including two of
the liberals, found this cut-off unconstitutionally coercive
on the states. The Court's solution was not to invalidate the
law or the Medicaid expansion, but to rule that only the
extra federal funds devoted to the expansion could be cut
off. As the dissenters rightly point out, this solution
rewrites the law--and arbitrarily, since Congress could have
avoided the constitutional problem in many other ways.
The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be
read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be.
It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably
and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John
Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids
damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the
Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The
Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite
statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done
violence to it. If the law has been rendered less
constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself
more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in
this legacy.
The Court has failed to do its duty. Conservatives should
not follow its example--which is what they would do if they
now gave up the fight against Obamacare. The law, as
rewritten by judges, remains incompatible with the country's
tradition of limited government, the future strength of our
health-care system, and the nation's solvency. We are not
among those who are convinced that we will be stuck with it
forever if the next election goes wrong: The law is also so
poorly structured that we think it may well unravel even if
put fully into effect. But we would prefer not to take the
risk.
It now falls to the Republicans, and especially to Mitt
Romney, to make the case for the repeal of the law and for
its replacement by something better than either it or the
health-care policies that preceded it. Instead of trusting
experts to use the federal government's purchasing power to
drive efficiency throughout the health sector--the vain hope
of Obamacare's Medicare-cutting board--they should replace
Medicare with a new system in which individuals have
incentives to get value for their dollar. Instead of having
Washington establish a cartel for the insurance industry,
they should give individuals tax credits and the ability to
purchase insurance across state lines. Instead of further
centralizing the health-care system, in short, they should
give individuals more control over their insurance.
Opponents should take heart: The law remains unpopular. Let
the president and his partisans ring their bells today, and
let us work to make sure that they are wringing their hands
come November.
____

[From the Daily Caller, June 28, 2012]

What's Behind Roberts' Surprising Decision?

(By Joshua Hawley)

Say this for the lead opinion in the health care case the
Supreme Court handed down Thursday: nobody saw that coming.
Chief Justice Roberts joins with the court's more liberal
wing to uphold the Affordable Care Act . . . as a tax? The
result is, to put it mildly, counterintuitive. Scribes have
been busily dissecting the chief justice's doctrinal analysis
from the instant the opinion went viral, but here's a
different thought: doctrine may not be the key to this
judgment. As Leo Strauss once made a point of telling his
students, a text can be read in many different ways, and will
mean different things depending on the lens with which one
reads it. The text the chief justice published on Thursday
may or may not make good sense read as constitutional
doctrine. But read it as constitutional politics and things
get more interesting.
Not politics in the way the Washington punditry means, of
course. Roberts' opinion has nothing to do with helping or
hurting President Obama's re-election chances this fall. The
truth is, Supreme Court justices are rarely interested in
that sort of thing. They see themselves as above partisan
allegiances and the grand questions of law they decide as
more important than run-of-the-mill partisan disputes.
No, I mean politics in the constitutional sense, concerning
the Supreme Court's role in the Constitution's structure. The
danger this case held for the court from the beginning was
the possibility--indeed, high likelihood--that it would draw
the institution into an acute confrontation with the
executive branch in the middle of an election year, and at
the same time force the justices into the thick of a policy
debate where they have no genuine expertise. The chief
justice's opinion can be fruitfully read as a sort of
maneuver, an effort to avoid these evils while simultaneously
blocking the federal government's attempted power grab.
Consider: Roberts begins with the Commerce Clause question,
where the Obama administration placed nearly all the weight
of its argument. According to the administration, the
Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate any behavior (or
non-behavior) that has some incidental effect on commerce.
Roberts rejects that contention root and branch. Indeed, for
the first time in the Supreme Court's modern Commerce Clause
jurisprudence, he announces a clear and decisive limit to
what the federal government may do with its commerce
authority: it may regulate only actual economic activity, and
then only if the activity has a substantial effect on
interstate commerce. It may not regulate a person's choice
not to enter the stream of commerce in the first place.
Had this been the sum and substance of the opinion,
liberals would have bewailed it as the constitutional
apocalypse they feared. But of course it is not the end;
Roberts goes on to the administration's secondary argument.
Yet by placing the Commerce Clause discussion where he does,
by holding unequivocally that the individual mandate cannot
survive on commerce grounds, Roberts makes the Commerce
Clause holding necessary to the final judgment. That means
the limits on the commerce authority he announced (and with
which the four dissenting justices agree) will control in
future cases.
This is a significant, even major, development, but one
that is largely concealed by the opinion's ultimate judgment.
Yet even that judgment turns out to be rather less a victory
for the government than it first seems.
The key move in Roberts' opinion is his conclusion that the
individual mandate is actually a sort of tax, and therefore
constitutional by virtue of Congress' unquestioned power to
tax. That allows the mandate to stand, yes--but effectively
makes the mandate sui generis, and thereby denies the
government a new source of regulatory power.
This is why: Roberts does not say that the government may
now regulate anything it likes by calling the regulation a
tax. He says this mandate can be read as a tax in these
circumstances--that is, in light of the fact that it would be
unconstitutional on any other ground and the court is
supposed to avoid finding statutes unconstitutional if it
can--and on these grounds: because it is administered by the
IRS through the tax code and operates in many respects like a
normal tax. Only if future regulatory schemes can meet all
these criteria would they be valid under the taxing power.
Yet Roberts does not give a single example of any such
scheme--and we know for a fact, because they have told us
repeatedly, that members of Congress would never have voted
for this regulation if they had believed it was a tax.
Making the mandate a tax has at least one other effect. It
makes repeal easier. Now that the mandate has been deemed
taxation, it can likely be jettisoned through use of the
reconciliation process--meaning the Senate will need to
muster only a bare majority for repeal, not 60 votes.
By converting the mandate to a tax, then, Roberts limits
the ability of the government to do the same sort of thing in
the future and underlines the political unpopularity of the
law, all while allowing the law to stand. And because it does
stand, the court is spared a nasty turn at center stage in
the November elections.
Whether the chief justice's stratagem actually works is a
different question. Suffice it to say, I have my doubts. The
text and structure of the law seem overwhelmingly to indicate
that the mandate is a legal requirement--namely, to buy
insurance--enforced with a fine. The mandate does not qualify
as a tax under the Supreme Court's settled rules for
identifying taxes, and both the text of the law and those who
wrote it said it was not.
But then, Roberts' aim may be less to apply tax doctrine
than to shift the law's fate from the court to the voters. At
the beginning of his opinion, the chief justice pointedly
notes that the court ``do[es] not consider whether the Act
embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the
Nation's elected leaders.'' He repeats this sentiment at the
opinion's close, but with a subtle variation. ``[T]he Court
does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable
Care Act, he writes, for ``[u]nder the Constitution, that
judgment is reserved to the people.'' Could it be that the
chief justice is asking the people to render a verdict on the
leaders who wrote the law in the first place? In all events,
they should take him up on it.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I also refer people to an excellent piece in
the Wall Street Journal, ``A Triumph and Tragedy for the Law,'' by
David Rivkin, Jr., and Lee Casey, both fine lawyers who frequently
opine on matters of this sort.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 10784]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

125th Anniversary of the United Way of West Virginia

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, to lighten the mood a little bit today, I
rise to recognize West Virginia's United Way as this special
organization celebrates its 125th anniversary.
The United Way was founded in 1887 by community leaders in Denver,
CO. The renowned organization originated through a group of individuals
who came together with the drive to improve community conditions. Since
then, the organization has grown to 1,800 community-based United Ways
in 41 countries and remains the world's largest privately supported
nonprofit, raising nearly $5 billion annually.
In our little State of West Virginia, United Way has touched the
lives of so many. United Way volunteers have clocked thousands of hours
of community service through health services, senior assistance
programs, student tutoring, nutrition sites, job skills training, and
financial literacy services.
United Way has enthusiastically embraced local institutions
throughout our State. This wonderful organization has provided for at-
risk teens at residential treatment centers, such as the Daymark around
Kanawha Valley. It has supported comprehensive medical and health
services at establishments such as the West Virginia Chapter of the
Alzheimer's Association, West Virginia Health Right, Cabell Huntington
Children's Hospital, Thomas Memorial Hospital, and the Putnam County
Dental Health Council. United Way has supported family counseling at
the Kanawha Valley Fellowship Home and at Family Counseling Connection.
It has also benefited emergency assistance facilities, such as the
Boone County Community Organization and Madison Baptist Church,
Mountain Mission, and Nitro-St. Alban's Care and Share.
In 2011 alone, 68,337 individuals were served by United Way-supported
programs in West Virginia alone. More than 13,162 children and youth
benefited from the services of United Way partner agencies, and more
than 26,997 people received financial assistance from a United Way
partner agency. In addition, nearly 28,000 people received health-
related assistance from a United Way partner agency.
I have always been an avid supporter of United Way and their
community service efforts. My wife Gayle also served as chairwoman of
Marion County's United Way. I applaud the organization's ability to
inspire members in their communities to work together and improve all
aspects of their neighborhoods.
United Way has so many laudable goals. The organization is working to
promote a healthier society by working with families to develop healthy
lifestyles. While Americans continue to struggle in tough economic
times, United Way has worked with families to help them achieve
financial stability. For example, United Way launched the Financial
Stability Partnership, which aims to halve the approximately 40 million
Americans who are working in low-paying jobs without basic health
benefits. United Way has also targeted key areas of education,
addressing problems such as the student dropout rate and preparing
children for success at an early age.
United Way also has identified community health care needs and
focuses efforts on changing health policies and practices for Americans
of all ages. About 47 million Americans don't have health care
coverage, and more than 80 percent are working families. The
organization tackles tough health problems, such as health insurance
coverage, along with the obesity epidemic and prescription drug abuse.
These are tough issues that oftentimes have no easy solutions.
I applaud United Way and all of its staff members, its volunteers,
and community leaders for their efforts to improve the quality of life
in all of our communities. Today the United Way has every reason to
celebrate its success as they face this impressive milestone. I once
again congratulate their achievements, and I look forward to seeing
what this great organization will accomplish in the next 125 years and
beyond.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Pilot's Bill of Rights

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before the Senator from West Virginia
leaves, I would like to publicly thank him for all his support in
something that just happened a few minutes ago; that is, passage of the
Pilot's Bill of Rights.
Several--certainly Senator Begich--have been working hard, including
Senator Pryor and Senator Manchin, as well as many on the Republican
side. But it is a reality now.
This is kind of a strange day for me because I have been working on
two bills for 1\1/2\ years, and both will become a reality on the same
day: the highway bill that everyone knows about and then the Pilot's
Bill of Rights that only pilots know about.
I have been a pilot for 55 years, and I get the calls and complaints
that come in. But pilots are really the only ones in our society who
are denied access to justice like every other citizen has, and this
corrects it. So I just want to say to my friend that I very much
appreciate his support in making this a reality.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, if I may say I appreciate the leadership
of my good friend from Oklahoma and his unwavering support in bringing
this to all of our attention. I have been a pilot for not quite 55
years, but 45 years, and I understand completely. Senator Inhofe
brought it to the attention of all of us, even the nonpilots here. His
steadfast leadership in support of this action and also his ability to
work across the aisle with those on our side of the aisle, Democrats, I
appreciate so much.
I know Senator Boxer feels very compelled about this and the
Senator's leadership in working with her on the Transportation bill and
both of them bringing that to the forefront for all of us. We are all
going to benefit from that.
I thank the Senator and look forward to continuing to work with him.
Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. President, I will make a couple comments and be more detailed
later. I know a lot of people will want to talk about the bill that
will most likely pass today in both the House and the Senate.
A lot of people are not aware of the fact that a general aviation
pilot doesn't have the same access to remedies as everybody else does.
What makes this a little bit more compelling to do something about is
that if you are not a pilot, you may not appreciate the fact that a lot
of them are single-issue people.
I had an experience where my license was in jeopardy for something
that we found out I didn't do. I thought about all these complaints I
have had over the years about abusive treatment by some of the
enforcement people, and I never appreciated it until it happened to me.
I know more people in the FAA who do a great job. They are very
conscientious. These are career people. The problem is that every once
in a while you have someone in the field with enforcement powers who
just can't handle that kind of power.
I was mayor of Tulsa for several years a number of years back. We had
a great police force, but every now and then you had someone on the
force who couldn't handle the power. They would abuse that power, and
you would have to seek them out. And that is what this is all about--
you hear from these people when abuses take place.
So what we have done is we have corrected that. We have a system set
up in this legislation that if someone is accused of or cited for doing
something that was wrong or that might be a violation of one of the
FARs, that person will now have access to the evidence that would be
used against that person.
People might say: Well, wasn't that happening anyway? No, it wasn't.
When this happened to me, I can remember very well--and I say to the
Presiding Officer because we are very close and he knows I have been
active in aviation for a long time--one year ago in October, I went to
land at one of the southernmost airports in America, in South

[[Page 10785]]

Texas, one at which I have landed more than 200 times. I know every
square foot of it. It is a noncontrolled field.
When I came in--there is a thing called NOTEM, Notice to Airmen. You
are supposed to and you should find out what the NOTEMs are on the
runway you will be landing on so if there is work on the runway--any
towers going up, construction going on--you will know that in advance.
That is your obligation.
The problem is there has never been a central location where that can
be found. In this case there was no NOTEM that had been published.
There I go in, with the controller in the valley down there who has
actually cleared me to land. Here I am, a United States Senator. It
took me 4 months to get the voice recorder and I never did find out,
early on, what the evidence was against me. It turned out fine, but
nevertheless 4 months to get a voice recording that you were cleared to
land, that is unreasonable.
I see my friend from Indiana is on the floor. I do not want to take
any more time on this, but on the NOTEM situation we will have a
central location for that.
The other problem we are having right now is medical certification. I
have case after case. In fact, at the AOPA, Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association--we are talking about 400,000 pilots out there--they have
as their No. 1 concern the lack of consistency and uniformity in
medical certification. A person could be a pilot and have a condition,
could be a light heart attack or something, temporarily lose his
license, then go back and have it reinstated. However, if he lives in
another town, has a different doctor, that may not happen. So we have
people out there who have lost their licenses. We are going to have a
panel set up that is going to include the general aviation, include the
medical community, and try to get uniformity. So those are three of the
reforms we have in this legislation.
I yield the floor. I will be talking about that later and also
talking about the upcoming highway bill. I want to remind people, my
good conservative friends, people who are trying to say this is not a
conservative bill--it is. The worst thing we can do is continue to
operate our roadbuilding and our construction in this country on
extensions. When you do an extension you lose about 30 percent of the
money. Obviously, the conservative position is to do this.
We have reforms, incredible reforms, enhancement reforms. We will be
talking about that during the course of the day.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.

Order of Procedure

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, can I ask what the procedure is regarding
time?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senators are permitted to speak for
10 minutes each.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to
speak up to 20 minutes. I do not intend to take that much time, I do
not think I will take that much time, but I think I will probably go
over the 10-minute limit.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I will
not object, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to have 20
minutes following my friend from Indiana.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Surface Transportation

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise here today to express my deep
concern with this transportation conference report; in particular,
about a provision that was slipped into the transportation conference
report literally in the dark of night earlier this week.
This provision, which I will describe, could have a devastating
effect on my State as well as the State of Illinois. The Greater
Chicago metropolitan region--whether it is northwest Indiana or
northeast Illinois--is a region that works together. It is part of the
expanded metropolitan area. A critical part of this is a waterway,
which allows goods to be transferred up and down all the way to the
delta and the Mississippi and all the way out to the St. Lawrence
Seaway. It is the middle-west access to commerce that centers around
the Chicago-northwest Indiana area.
This provision, which was slipped in without debate, without
consideration--it did not appear in the Senate bill, the transportation
bill, and it did not appear in the House transportation bill and
therefore is a blatant violation of rule XXVIII, which simply states
you cannot do this kind of thing--but it was done anyway. I will at the
proper point here raise an objection to that in a procedural way.
Let me first talk, if I could, about the way in which we do business
around here. Throughout my campaign in 2010 to return to the Senate, I
continually heard from people as to how frustrated they were with the
process by which laws are passed. We come home and people say why did
you vote against that? You say I voted against that because it included
this over here which was not relevant to it, and even though I liked
the rest of the bill I did not like this part--or vice versa. I voted
for this even though I did not like what it included because they
packaged it all together and therefore there is nothing on record as to
where I stand. They say to us where do you stand? We don't know whether
your yes is a yes or your no is a no because it is so confusing the way
you mix the whole thing together.
That is exactly what is happening here today. We have taken a
transportation bill, which was adeptly led by the Senator from
California and the Senator from Oklahoma, they did a marvelous job
putting a transportation package together, and now it is merged with
two other major provisions. So we get one vote on this. People say: I
have a real problem with the student loan bill or I have a real problem
with the flood insurance bill, but I wanted to vote for the
transportation bill. Now I am stuck in the position of having to vote
yes on the whole thing, except what I have a problem with, another bill
over here, or no, even though I want parts of the other bills to pass.
Then we go home and explain this to the people we represent and they
say: Why can't you guys and ladies take up one thing, vote yes or vote
no, come home, defend your vote, but we at least know where you stand?
Instead of this gobbledygook, throw everything in one big pot and vote
your yes or vote your no. The way we package bills here, it is no
wonder people are skeptical. It is no wonder our approval rating is
where it is. This gobbledygook, so-called magic dust that we use around
here to obscure what we stand for and stand against, is very
frustrating for the American people. I can't tell you how much that has
been expressed to me when I can go home and talk to them and try to
explain certain votes and procedures. They say be straight up, be
transparent. Pick out something; you are either for it or against it.
We will evaluate whether we want to support you or not support you in
the next election on the basis of your voting, but when you cloud over
the whole thing we do not know what is going on. That is one thing,
packaging bills.
Second, we have a problem here, a major problem with our debt. We
have known that. We spent the first 6 months of 2011 trying to come up
with a long-term solution which would restructure some of our spending
and put a lid on some of our spending. Finally, by August of 2011,
Congress reached an agreement called the Budget Control Act which
basically put caps on how much we would spend, trying to hold down this
plunge into debt.
By the way, just before I came over here I checked the debt clock
which I have on my Web site. The numbers of course turn faster than you
can write them down because that is how fast we are plunging into more
debt, but as of probably minutes or so ago, our national debt stood at
$15 trillion, nearly $16 trillion.
None of us can comprehend what $1 trillion is. It is impossible.
There have been all kinds of examples--if you stack dollars on top of
each other you can go to the Moon and back and so forth--but I think it
is important that we understand the gravity of our situation in terms
of our plunge into debt

[[Page 10786]]

and what impact it is going to have on the future for this country and
what a debt burden it is going to be on future generations now getting
ever closer to--$15,935,594,616,879 was what our debt was. That is 14
digits; 15,935,594,616,879.
We took a little bit of a step in August, a mini step in August,
saying we are going to cap this spending so we do not spend more than
that going forward. That will at least slow down the rate of plunging
into debt. It does not begin to do what we need to do to address this,
but it will slow it down.
What have we done since? What we have done is bring a number of bills
to this floor, all of which continue to spend beyond our means. I did
not vote for the Budget Control Act because I had a lot of skepticism
about it. First of all, I felt it was woefully short of what we needed
and, second, I believe that, having served here before and seen how
this process works, I thought we are going to waive points of order
time after time.
We congratulate each other by voting for spending controls. ``This is
an important step to dealing with our budget crisis. We have committed
now not to spend more than the budget we deemed allows.''
The postal reform bill violated budget rules; the student loan
interest rate extension, it looks as though we have the score now, and
we are going to violate agreed to levels; the Senate version that went
over on the transportation bill violated budget rules; the payroll tax
extension and the Violence Against Women Act--all violated what we
promised we would do. And we wonder why the American people are
skeptical? We wonder why our approval rating is in the low double
digits? I mean really low, almost into single digits--why people are
frustrated and upset with us? Because we tell them we have made this
promise to be fiscally responsible and virtually every bill we bring up
here is irresponsible and we waive what we had agreed to do. We can
hardly blame them for their skepticism here.
Let me talk about this middle-of-the-night stuff. Another problem you
have--you go home and what you simply can't explain is the fact that,
no, this was not talked about in the Senate; no, this was not talked
about in the House; there was no process--yet somebody, as we tried to
merge the two bills, in the dark of the night, unnamed, no process,
slipped in a provision and there it is. Usually we find out about this
later.
In this case we had a process. Senator Coats from Indiana worked with
Senator Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, and worked with another
Democrat, the senior Senator from Ohio, to come to an agreement on a
provision that impacted our area, the Great Lakes area, in a
significant way. That was part of the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations bill.
In the dark of the night, during the conference deliberations,
another provision was added, not the bipartisan provision by Senators
looking out for the economic interests of their State. And by the way,
the economic interests of this country--because what was dropped in, in
the middle of the night, is something that could potentially cost our
Government and therefore cost our taxpayers hundreds of billions of
dollars.
We were fortunate enough to have discovered that because bringing
those bills to the floor was delayed and we had time to dig into it and
all of a sudden find out that this was done. What is egregious here is
that this is not a partisan issue. We all know the House is controlled
by my party. I don't know who put this in. I don't know exactly the
motives as to why they put this in. But here it is, a dark-of-the-night
slip it into the bill and overturn something that was processed through
the appropriations committee, deliberated, discussed, and voted on.
So what are the consequences of all that? What does this have to do
with what I am talking about here? It sounds minuscule. We are talking
about Asian carp. Why is the Senator from Indiana talking about Asian
carp and hundreds and billions of dollars of costs? Let me tell you
why. Asian carp is a generic term for four species of nonnative fish:
grass, bighead, black, and silverhead carp. These fish were introduced
to the United States in the 1970s to assist agricultural interests in
the southern States.
At some point--probably through flooding--the carp escaped into the
Mississippi River system, and they have since spread throughout the
whole watershed. They are voracious eaters, which make them beneficial,
and we can see why they were imported. They were beneficial for
controlled agricultural settings, fish farms, and so forth, but they
create serious ecological challenges when competing for food with
native species.
I agree wholeheartedly that the spread of Asian carp throughout the
Mississippi River and potentially into the Great Lakes is a serious and
pressing problem, and I am committed to addressing this, as is Senator
Durbin and Senator Brown from Ohio. We worked out a compromise
agreement in terms of how we should go forward with this.
A number of steps have already been taken by the Corps of Engineers.
In 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers installed the first of a series of
electric barriers along the lower reach of the Chicago area waterway
system. In doing so, they believe, to date, they have successfully
prevented the migration of carp into the Great Lakes.
In 2009, the Corps began DNA testing to detect Asian carp in
locations upstream in the barrier system. The testing showed these
barriers have been very effective--to use the Corps' words--in
preventing Asian carp from entering the waterway. In fact, when the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources wanted to check this out, they
purposefully dumped a bunch of toxins into the Chicago waterway to
discover the extent of the Asian carp infestation. Those toxins killed
tens of thousands of fish, but only one Asian carp was found among
them. Since that time, the Army Corps has firmly held that the electric
barriers are working as designated.
Furthermore, in 2010, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources
constructed barriers in the watershed. No State has gone further or
gone to greater lengths to address this question than my State of
Indiana, as well as the State of Illinois, in terms of preventing the
introduction of Asian carp in the Great Lakes system. It is
economically devastating for us if this happens and it is economically
devastating for us and for Illinois if what was proposed in this bill
in the dark of the night by the House of Representatives goes forward.
Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is undergoing an extensive
study. Despite all the attempts to take these steps, which so far have
proven to be successful, this provision that was incorporated in there
could result in the closing of the locks of this waterway system, and
it would endanger about $14 billion per year of economic activity and
over 100,000 jobs in this area that I described that rely on the
Chicago area waterway system.
Closing the locks also may cost up to an additional $100 billion
because it would require completely overhauling Chicago's underground
water and sewage system. Closing the locks would also render worthless
the billions of dollars that have already been invested to complete the
Corps of Engineers flood control projects along the entire Mississippi
watershed, and they may not even solve the problem.
While the Chicago waterway system is the only direct continuous
connection between the Great Lakes system, other potential pathways
could allow carp immigration in times of flooding. So while it is clear
that closing the Chicago locks is not an economically viable solution
for stopping Asian carp--and I do understand the concerns the Great
Lakes States have on this issue and I share those concerns--as a result
of all that, we worked out a bipartisan compromise solution to
addressing this area. We would allow a study to go forward, allow an
economic assessment of the various options that had been presented, and
then give Congress the information so it can make a decision as to
which solution was best needed to go forward.
What this provision does in this bill is simply give the agency
responsible

[[Page 10787]]

the authority to go ahead with the project and what they think the
solution is without Congress having anything to say about it
whatsoever. It is a preauthorization on a new project which could
include closing of the locks, and if it does, it would have hundreds of
billions of dollars of financial implications for the taxpayers and for
this Congress but also have enormous negative economic impact on
northwest Indiana, northeast Illinois and the entire Chicago region and
all that commerce that flows up and down the Mississippi and up and
down the St. Lawrence Seaway. The other problem with this is the new
language also expedites the study, even though the Corps says they need
more time to do so.
I guess, in conclusion, there are two things: One is the egregious
procedures that continue to give the public such a negative slant on
how we do business--this bundling of bills, where we are forced to vote
yes or no on the whole bundling, up or down, and we can't let our yes
stand for one purposeful interest or another or a no stand due to
bundling; second, we need to address these midnight procedures, this
issue of ``slip it in there,'' without going through the regular
process. This body of Congress, both the House and the Senate, need to
return to regular process, where we bring an idea forward, it is worked
through the committee, it is transparent to all who are looking at it,
we give our yea or nay, and we move it through the system, rather than
simply changing things in the dark of the night at the last minute,
where we have no opportunity to amend it and no opportunity to address
it.
As we go forward with this, I am going to object on the basis of rule
XXVIII. I don't know how it will all turn out, but I hope my colleagues
will understand this is more than something that just affects Indiana,
Illinois, and the Great Lakes. This is something that affects the way
we do business here. If we cannot enforce these rules, we will continue
to follow these practices the American people have come to absolutely
hate and think they have a dysfunctional Congress. We deserve better
than this. I hope my colleagues will agree with that.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Before the Senator from Indiana leaves the floor, I wish
for him to know I listened very carefully and I know his concern. I
have spoken with Senator Durbin about it, and I hope we can work
together. I do want to say this process where sometimes bills are put
together is frustrating to everybody, and we do need to take a look at
the way we do things. However, I do have some measure of sympathy for
the leadership around here because it takes so long to get any one
piece done.
So I do agree. I don't like the fact that we cast one vote and there
are three subjects. It is very difficult for the people at home to
understand it. I also want to say to my friend--before I yield 3
minutes of my time to Senator Sanders--to feel proud of the way we put
together the Transportation bill. I think in that case, which is a huge
policy bill, it was transparent and that what my friend complained
about was something that was put in by the other body and said it is a
must have.
The truth is, up to that point, everything we have done was very much
in the open, and I am very sorry my friend feels so negatively toward
what we are about to do because in his State it is tens of thousands of
jobs and in my State it is hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is
thousands of businesses. It is going to mean a boost to this economy
and a boost to the private sector. I wish to say to my friend, I
understand his frustration, and I will do everything I can to help him
on this issue.
Mr. COATS. If the Senator would yield, I appreciate very much her
saying that. I did commend, and I will again, the work the Senator from
California and Senator Inhofe have done in bringing this bill forward
in the right way. I know my friend is as sorry as I am that someone in
the other body decided to violate the rule, injecting into all the hard
work that has been done. I regret that. I hope in the future we can
avoid this.
I thank the Senator for her good words.
Mrs. BOXER. I definitely share the frustration. At this time, I would
like to yield 3 minutes of the remainder of my time to Senator Sanders.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for yielding. As a
member of the Transportation Committee, I would like to congratulate
Senator Boxer for her extraordinary efforts in pushing this bill
forward. This is an enormously important bill that took a lot of hard
work, and I commend her for the work she and her staff have done.
Senator Inhofe and I have very little in common politically, but I also
wish to applaud him and his staff for coming together on this issue and
doing something that is extremely important and doing it in a
bipartisan way.
Anyone who drives in the State of Vermont or, for that matter, drives
around America, understands, to a significant degree, our
infrastructure is collapsing. In Vermont, we have dozens and dozens of
bridges that are in need of repair. We have many hundreds of miles of
roads that need repair. Our public transit system needs help. What this
bill is about is a start toward rebuilding our crumbling
infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our public transit and, in the
process, putting a significant number of people back to work.
It is estimated this bill will save more than 1.8 million jobs
nationwide in each of the next 3 years, and it will create 1 million
new jobs through an expanded infrastructure financing program. What
that means in the State of Vermont are thousands and thousands of
decent-paying construction and other types of jobs, something we sorely
need. So this bill is an excellent start. Does it go as far as it
should? No, it does not. Compared to China, compared to Europe, our
investments in infrastructure are minimal. When we invest in
infrastructure, we make our country more productive, we put people back
to work, and we make ourselves more internationally competitive. So I
just want to say this is an important step forward, but we have more to
do.
Today, we are focused on roads, bridges, public transit--very
important--but that is not the entire infrastructure. We have to pick
up the issue on rail. We are falling further and further behind China,
Japan, and Europe in terms of high-speed rail. We have to invest in
rail and there are great jobs in doing that. We have to invest in our
water systems and in our wastewater plants. We have to make sure every
community in America has high-quality broadband as well as cell phone
service. That is what infrastructure is about. We have not invested
anywhere near the degree we should, and now is the time to get started.
So this bill, which focuses on roads, on bridges, and public transit
is an important step forward, and I wish to congratulate Senator Boxer
and her staff, Senator Inhofe and his staff for their important work.
With that, I would yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 14 minutes.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend, Senator
Sanders. He is a very active member of the Environmental and Public
Works Committee. He is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. He has looked at
the green job sector. He has looked at the effect of what we do on the
construction industry. I am ever so grateful to him. He also has been a
very clear voice for the way to move this country forward by having a
clean energy policy, which we are definitely going to be looking at in
the days and weeks ahead. We are now at the moment where we are waiting
to see whether our friends on the other side of the aisle will allow us
to proceed to finish our work on three issues: One is flood control,
one is helping to make sure student loan interest rates

[[Page 10788]]

do not double, and the third and biggest one involves the
transportation sector.
We all know, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, our focus is on
boosting this economy. This bill will do that like no other. In this
Transportation bill we are talking about protecting 2 million jobs that
are currently in place in this country in the construction sector and
the transit sector. So these are the jobs that construction workers do
on the highways, the freeways, the bridges, making sure our roads are
in good shape and our bridges are not going to collapse because we have
70,000 bridges that are deficient, and we know what happens when there
is a horrible failure of a bridge.
I know my ranking Member, Senator Inhofe, feels very strongly about
this because he had an incident in his State where one of his
constituents was actually killed by a bridge failing. We cannot sit by
and allow the highway program and the transit program in this country
to disappear. We have taken it up to the line.
I am very grateful to Ranking Member Inhofe. I am very grateful to
Chairman Mica and to Ranking Member Rahall for the work we have done in
this conference. This is a bill that everyone can be proud of, whether
they are Republican or Democrat.
CBO has scored this, and it actually returns money to the Treasury.
We have support from people who don't agree on most matters. I am not
only talking about Senator Inhofe and myself, who do not see eye to eye
on many issues; we have come together on this. Besides that, we see the
AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce walking hand in hand asking us to
please pass this bill. So we have a few little holdups now, but I am
very hopeful we can work through them.
The highlights of this bill: Overall, jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs in the
private sector, businesses in the private sector. We are talking about
leveraging a Federal program called TIFIA, which is going to mean,
frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars that will go out the door to
leverage funds at the local level as well as the private sector.
As we look at our bill, we see a reform bill. We see project
deliveries speeded up from 15 years to 8 years without giving up the
health and safety laws people deserve. We have not done away with any
environmental law; we have just put deadlines in the law. We have put
milestones in the law, and we have stated if people have a problem, let
us know the problem and get on with it. If there is anything new--a new
factor--we will look at that, but we cannot sit around and wait an
average of 13, 12, 14, 15 years to get a project done.
There are no riders in this bill. There are no environmental riders
in this bill. I think that sends a good message to the public that we
are focused on transportation. These other issues are going to be
addressed, but they don't have to be addressed on this bill and become
a target of a veto or a standoff between the parties.
What did we do on bike paths? We have had a lot of controversy.
People are saying we did away with the money for alternative
transportation routes, or bike paths, called safe routes to school,
called pedestrian walkways. No, we saved the same level of funding, the
same percentage of funding, but we gave more flexibility to the States
with their 50-percent share so if they have another pressing need they
can use it for something else. Frankly, if the grassroots people at
home are not happy with the State, they can let the State know that.
For the first time, the other 50 percent goes to the local people. This
is very important.
We also have the RESTORE Act. This means those Gulf States that got
hit so hard from the BP spill will be able to restore their areas. If
they had economic damage, environmental damage, this will help. The
money will come from the court settlement, and BP will then make those
funds available. So it does not add a dime to the deficit.
So we have a bill that doesn't add to the deficit. We have a bill
that will boost this economy. We have a bill that is supported by
conservatives and liberals, progressives and moderates. I think it is a
great day. I am sorry there are a few issues that got added on that are
disappointing to certain colleagues. Believe me, I want to work with
them to help resolve those problems. But I have to tell my colleagues,
when we write a bill of this scope, of this nature, we are going to
have some of these issues. We will work on them.
For my remaining time--how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. I wish to discuss the Supreme Court ruling. In a very
fascinating ruling, the Chief Justice decided that the Affordable Care
Act is constitutional. I am not going to spend a lot of time discussing
why he said it and why they decided it. What I am going to talk about
is what will happen if the Republicans have their way and this law is
repealed.
I want the American people to know--and I say this with no animosity
at all--I am going to do everything I can to stop them from repealing
it for a reason: The reason is the families in my State and all over
the country who are getting the benefits of this law.
Governor Romney says it is going to be something he is going to do on
the first day--he is going to repeal the health care law, if he gets
elected, day one. Let me tell my colleagues very clearly what will
happen.
There are 54 million Americans who are now getting access to free
preventive services such as mammograms and immunizations, if they have
private insurance. That is most of our people. They would no longer get
free mammograms, free checkups--over and out. Fifty-four million
Americans lose if Governor Romney and the Republicans repeal this
bill--6 million of my people in California.
My seniors, over 300,000, would no longer get help with their
prescription drug benefits. Now they are getting help. They will then
go back to choosing between taking their prescription drugs or eating
dinner. I am sorry, I am going to stand in the way, if I can.
Under Medicare, millions of seniors would lose access to free
preventive services. Thirty-two million Medicare patients get these
services for free, including cancer screenings and flu shots. Why on
Earth would somebody or some party want to get up and say: I am
repealing that?
There are 105 million Americans who will once again face lifetime
limits on their health insurance plans. If someone is diagnosed with
cancer and they look at their plan, it says they are covered up to
$250,000. That sounds like a lot of money. I can tell my colleagues
now, that is not a lot of money for someone who is battling cancer.
Now, suddenly, in a person's worst moments, when they are facing
radiation and chemo, they have hit up against their lifetime limit.
That will be gone.
More than 6 million young adults, including 300,000 in my State,
would lose their health insurance because now they have a guarantee.
Because of the health care bill, they can stay on their parents'
coverage until they are 26. Why would anyone want to repeal that? Ask
them. They do.
Insurance companies would no longer owe rebates to customers if those
insurance companies spent too much on premiums and paid the CEOs
exorbitant bonuses and paid hardly anything to help people with their
health care. We are going to see 12 million Americans get back $1
billion in rebate checks in August. They will stop that. They want to
stop that.
How about millions of children who are now getting coverage because
they have a preexisting condition. Before this law, they couldn't. So
if a child was born with a heart defect, even if it was something that
could be controlled, they couldn't get insurance. We pity those
families. I have had reports of people in my State crying tears of joy
when the Supreme Court acted because they could not get insurance
because the woman--this particular one--had a preexisting condition,
and now she can get insurance.
Because of the work of Senator Sanders--and I helped him with it--we
have community health care centers across the country getting funding.
So if a

[[Page 10789]]

person has no insurance--or even if they have insurance--they can go to
a community health center and, based on their ability to pay, get
health care. That would be repealed.
School-based health centers would be repealed. Training of our health
care workers would be repealed.
I will tell my colleagues, that is just what the benefits are today.
In 2014, there will be a slew of new benefits. This bill, while not
perfect--and we can fix the problems--is a good bill.
Just remember that everyone in our country gets health care, but the
difference is some of them walk into an emergency room having paid
nothing for a premium, even if they are wealthy, and they expect us to
pay the bill in the emergency room. With the approach that
Massachusetts Governor Romney took, he said if a person is responsible
and can afford it, that person has to buy a minimal health insurance
plan. President Obama got the idea from Governor Romney. I call it a
personal responsibility premium. Some people call it a tax. Some people
call it a fee. I call it a personal responsibility premium because most
of the people I represent buy health care coverage, and a few just say:
You know what. I feel terrific. I will wait until something bad happens
to me and then I will go to the emergency room. And they can all pay.
That is what we have. We have the people who are responsible paying
for the free riders. The idea that President Obama got was from then-
Governor Romney.
So this is going to be a long election season, and there are going to
be a lot of battles over health care.
I hope we will pass the bill that is in front of us and take care of
the construction sector and transportation. I hope we will take care of
flood insurance and student loan interest rates. We can do that with
one vote on a bill shortly, if we get permission to move forward. If we
don't, we will be here all weekend or whatever it takes to get it done.
I am not going to go home until this is done.
I will also tell my colleagues--as we look at this health care
battle, the lines are pretty clear. There are millions and millions of
Americans who are getting benefits today. Why would anyone want to take
away those benefits? Yet that is where we are in the debate. So I hope
cooler heads will prevail.
Let's get on with bringing this economy back. Let's allow this bill--
with a few corrections because we can always fix things that don't
work--go forward. Let's stop the heated name calling. Let's make sure
we work together, just as we did on the Transportation bill. I believe
this is a good moment for this Senate today. I hope we can get our work
done, and then we can actually celebrate something before we start
battling over health care.
Let's celebrate and say to the construction sector: We need you to
rebuild those broken roads, those broken bridges. We need you to make
sure we get those transit systems up and running. Then, I honestly
believe, the rest of these problems we will take up one at a time.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Honoring our Armed Forces

Sergeant First Class Brad Thomas, Lieutenant Ryan Davis Rawl, and
Sergeant John ``J.D.'' David Meador, II

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to three fallen
National Guard members from South Carolina who were killed in
Afghanistan on June 20, 2012, in Khost Province. They were members of
the 133rd Military Police Company who were serving on this duty. There
are now 16 members of the South Carolina National Guard who have died
in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003.
With the July 4 weekend coming up, we are preceding one of our
biggest holidays in America, and people rightfully will take some time
off, I hope, to enjoy their families and friends and get away from work
and have some family time. It marks a special event in our Nation's
history: The founding of our Nation through a declaration of
independence that was not just words but resulted in men and women
fighting to achieve our independence.
Here we are a couple hundred years later and we are still fighting.
My belief is, as to the radical Islamists who would kill us all if they
could, it is better to fight them over there so we do not have to fight
them here.
Afghanistan was the place the Taliban took over after the Russians
left and invited al-Qaida into the country, with bin Laden as their
honored guest. He had sanctuary there and was able to plan the attacks
of 9/11 from sanctuary provided to him in Afghanistan.
Our goal is to never let Afghanistan become a sanctuary for al-Qaida
or other terrorist groups. Thus, we are in a long struggle. It has been
10 years. It has been hard, but we are making progress. The Afghan Army
is getting better and stronger. The police are getting more proficient
at their job. We are going to be winding the war down in 2014. But I
think we can do it in a fashion to make sure Afghanistan remains stable
and our national security interests are protected.
But to make all those things possible--the weekend we are going to
enjoy, and the holiday season, and denying terrorists safe havens--some
of us have to leave our families and go off and fight this war.
SFC Brad Thomas of Easley, SC, was killed in an attack on June 20. He
was a graduate of Travelers Rest High School and attended Greenville
Technical College. He was a member of the 133rd Military Police Company
of the South Carolina Army National Guard.
He is survived by his wife Jana and a son Cayden, a brother and two
sisters. I know the family is devastated. You are in our prayers, and
God bless you and give you the healing and understanding during this
tough time.
To SFC Brad Thomas, you died in the service of your country, and you
will be missed.
LT Ryan Davis Rawl of Lexington, SC, was killed in the same attack.
He was a first lieutenant in the 133rd MP Company. He graduated from
Lexington High School. He was a graduate of the Citadel. He is survived
by his wife Katherine and their daughter Callie and their son Caleb.
I just want to acknowledge to Katherine, who interned in our office,
that you are certainly in our prayers. You did a great job for us, and
anything we can do for any of these families in South Carolina, we
will. We very much pray for you and your family.
Sgt John ``J.D.'' David Meador, II, graduated from Lexington High
School. He was a member of the wrestling team and was a wrestling
coach. He was a member of the same MP Company. He is survived by his
wife Christy and three daughters: Olivia, Brianna, and Elana. To
Christy and her family, you will be in our prayers.
This will be a tough weekend in South Carolina. We are going to have
three funerals.
To General Livingston and the National Guard family, you are
certainly in our prayers. This is a tough blow for an MP company to
have three people killed in one attack. So to all the members of that
company, we will do our best to take care of your families while you
are gone.
We have had a big argument about health care and about
transportation, and that is great--democracy in action. What is the
right decision for the Court to have made in the health care case? Is
this a good transportation bill? I appreciate in a bipartisan fashion
trying to find a solution.
But I just wanted to take a few minutes before going to the holiday
weekend and remind us of one thing we do have in common: Our freedom
depends on people willing to fight for it, and the one thing about this
war--whether you agree with the war in Afghanistan or not--virtually
every American, regardless of political persuasion, has shown an
appreciation for the troops and their families. I cannot thank Members
of Congress enough for never losing sight. No matter how they feel

[[Page 10790]]

about this war, we all appreciate those who fight it, and we all suffer
and mourn for those who lose their lives in this cause.
I believe this is a just cause. I believe these men who joined the
military voluntarily and left their families to go to Afghanistan were
doing so in the most noble tradition of the country--that they were
trying to make our families safer, my family safer, and they died in
the service of their country. And that is a life well lived. They died
far too soon. They left behind young children, but they will never be
forgotten.
May God grant them eternal rest and peace. May God bless and provide
understanding and healing to the families left behind. And may, as
Americans, we never forget that our freedom is dependent upon a few of
us being willing to go to faraway places, with strange sounding names,
and risk never coming back.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, first of all, I
thank the Senator for his eloquent statement on behalf of those who
have served and sacrificed.
Since we will all be spread around at different places over the
Fourth of July and celebrating our independence, I think those are very
appropriate and moving words.
I am reminded of the saying at the battlefield, written:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a brief colloquy with the
Senator from South Carolina.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Sequestration

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are also facing another crisis as far
as the military is concerned; that is, the looming prospect of
sequestration. The Secretary of Defense has stated that sequestration
would have a ``devastating impact'' on our national security. We are
talking about layoffs, and some estimates are of as many as 1 million
workers in the defense industry. We are looking at unknown effects of
the strategic thinking that goes on as we plan to defend our Nation's
security--for example, our shift in emphasis from Europe to Asia
Pacific, which requires significant air and naval assets amongst other
things.
I would ask my colleague--I am not sure the American people are fully
aware of the effects of something that is supposed to take effect, as I
understand it, at the beginning of the next fiscal year, which would be
the beginning of October 2012. Is that a correct statement, I would ask
my colleague?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, it is.
Mr. McCAIN. So we are asking the Defense Department to plan on what
our force structure will be, what our mission will be, what our
capabilities will be, beginning the first of October, and all I can see
so far is total gridlock on this issue.
Now, if somebody wants to say it is our fault because we refused to
``raise revenues'' or because of the other side's insistence on that
and a resistance to spending cuts, I say to my colleague, I do not
think people understand we still live in a very dangerous world. The
Senator just talked about those who have already sacrificed. Don't we
owe it to them and their families to stop something that all of us
agree would have a catastrophic impact on our ability to defend this
Nation?
Isn't it true--would the Senator agree--that it is time we sat down
and started having serious negotiations, because there is no greater
responsibility the Congress and the people's representatives have than
to defend the security of this Nation?
I know the Senator from South Carolina--before I ask him to answer--
traveled around his State, which I intend to do, to the various
military installations and talked about what would happen with this
sequestration. We are talking about a very limited period of time. We
are about to go out of session. We will be in during the month of
July--most of the month of July--and probably the month of September.
End of story.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I ask my colleague to yield, if I could
add one other question to his very important question for my colleague
from South Carolina.
I have a recollection that during one of the hearings the Senator
from South Carolina specifically asked the Secretary of Defense what
the consequence would be, and I recall he had a very dramatic response.
I wonder if the Senator might share that with us as well.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl
be included in the colloquy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, one, I hope my colleagues will stay around for a
minute or two because this is an important topic to be talking about.
Let me put this in the perspective of what we are trying to do and
what we are trying to avoid. We are about $16 trillion in debt. There
is probably no stronger defense supporters in the Congress than Jon Kyl
and John McCain.
The Senator just spoke of war. John McCain has seen his fair share of
war. I think he understands as well as anybody in this body--probably
better than most--what happens in war. People get hurt and people get
killed and anybody who has been in the military is no fan of war. But
the goal sometimes is to make sure those who are asked to fight a
particular war can fight it quickly, overwhelmingly, win, and come
home.
What we are doing is trying to get out of debt. The three of us are
pretty big defense hawks, but we have all agreed the Pentagon has to
reduce their spending too. I think all of us--particularly Senator
McCain--believe there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon and that we
could achieve $50 billion in savings over the next decade by reforming
the way the Pentagon does business and, quite frankly, do more with
less. So count us all in--the three of us--for reducing defense
spending to help get us out of debt.
But here is what has us all upset. The supercommittee that was formed
by the Budget Control Act had a mission of cutting $1.2 trillion over a
decade to help get us out of debt. That is a pretty small number given
what we are going to spend over the next 10 years. But the committee--
Republicans and Democrats--could not find common ground as to how to
cut $1.2 trillion over the next decade. There was a penalty provision
in the law, and it said that in the event the supercommittee failed, we
would cut $1.2 trillion over the next decade as follows: $600 billion
out of the Defense Department, $600 billion out of the rest of the
government.
If that penalty kicks in, then we will have cut $1 trillion out of
the Defense Department over the next decade, blindly, across the board.
Every account gets affected.
What did Secretary Panetta say? He said: Sign me up for $450 billion.
I think we can get there. We will lose some capability, but we will be
OK as a nation. We could fight Iran and win if we had to.
Then I asked him: What if we did $1 trillion over the next decade--if
we overdoubled what you are trying to cut? He said: We would be
shooting ourselves in the head as a nation. We would not have the
ability to go in and take out the nuclear program in Iran because the
weapons we need we could not maintain and afford.
When it comes to personnel costs, we are reducing the Army by 80,000
people under the $450 billion plan. If we do sequestration on top of
that, I say to Senator McCain, we are taking another 100,000 people out
of the Army. Under sequestration, the Navy would be down to a little
over 200 ships. We would have the smallest Navy since 1915, the
smallest Air Force in the history of the country, and the Army would go
back to 1940 levels.
To my colleagues, do you believe the world has gotten that much safer
that we do not need a Navy bigger than in 1915, given the threats we
are facing from Iran, China, North Korea? Do you think now is a good
time for the country to basically disarm, given the

[[Page 10791]]

threats we face from radical terrorism throughout the whole globe?
So here is what we are going to do, and our congressional leaders
need to be on notice. About 1 million people would lose their jobs if
we put these cuts in place, and we would destroy the defense industrial
base that provides good jobs to the economy and keeps us free and safe
by giving our people technology better than the enemy has.
Three National Guardsmen were killed in June in Afghanistan. We have
improved the National Guard. But when we first started this war,
National Guard units were leaving to go to the fight with inferior
equipment. They did not have armor. So if we do sequestration on top of
what we are already trying to cut in the Defense Department, we will
destroy the finest military in the history of the world at a time we
need it the most.
This is a body known for doing some pretty dumb things. This would be
the prize. So what Senators McCain, Kyl, and myself are trying to do is
avoid sequestration before the first of the year so our defense people
can plan. If we do not set this aside before the election, that is
political malpractice. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Kyl for their
leadership.
Mr. McCAIN. I wish to add--I note the presence of the Senator from
New Hampshire who has also played a very key leadership role, including
working with the mayors of every city in America, who have issued a
resolution about their concern about this issue.
I wish also to state to my friends and colleagues that I know the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, whom I have had the
opportunity of working with for 25 years, the Senator from Michigan,
also shares our concern.
I hope we could at least get some of us together who have been
involved with these issues of national security for so many years on
both sides of the aisle, that we could reach some kind of an agreement.
We know additional sacrifices have to be made when we are facing a $16
trillion deficit. But to take the overwhelming majority--well over 50
percent of these reductions--out of what is about, I believe, 12
percent of our spending is obviously not appropriate.
One other point. If the President of the United States shares the
concern that the Secretary of Defense shares--catastrophic, impossible
to plan on, so draconian that it would cripple our ability to defend
this Nation; all of those are statements which the Secretary of Defense
has made--I would argue that it would be appropriate, and I would
sincerely ask that perhaps the President of the United States also be
involved and members of his administration or charter members of the
administration to sit down with us to see how we could resolve this.
So far the executive branch has not been involved in these efforts,
with the exception of the Secretary of Defense, who has told us in the
most graphic terms the devastating consequences. Again, I want to point
out to my colleagues: You have to plan, especially in national defense,
what weapons you are going to procure, the number of people you are
going to maintain in the military, what those missions are going to be.
All of those right now, if held in abeyance in the Pentagon as far as
planning is concerned, cannot have a great deal of validity if we are
staring at sequestration and these draconian reductions.
Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. Yes. And I know our most eloquent member has arrived on
the floor, not to mention other attributes we are lacking.
Mr. GRAHAM. I would like all three Senators to comment on this
proposition. You have just challenged the President, who is the
Commander in Chief, by the way, to fix the problem that your Secretary
of Defense has said would be most devastating to our ability to defend
ourselves. He said it would be catastrophic, it would be draconian,
there is no way to plan for it, we would be shooting ourselves in the
head. Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. When your
Secretary of Defense and every general under your command is telling
you and the Congress, you need to fix this before it gets out of hand,
why are you not asking us, as Republicans and Democrats, to answer the
call of the Secretary of Defense? You are the Commander in Chief, my
friend. It is your job to make sure our military has what it needs to
go fight wars that we send them to fight and protect our Nation.
But that is not enough. It is also our job as Members of Congress to
take care of those who serve. So to our Republican and Democratic
leader: Why do you not convene a group of Senators? And to our leaders
in the House: Why do you not get a group of House Members, and ask us
to come up with a plan to do at least one thing, avoid the consequence
of sequestration for 1 year in 2013, to take the monkey off their back?
I am willing to meet our Democratic friends in the middle to find a
way to offset the $110 billion in defense and nondefense spending. But
to our leaders and to the President, if you think the rest of us are
going to sit on the sideline and let this matter be taken up in
lameduck when it becomes a nightmare for the country, you can forget
it. So we are challenging our leaders and the President to get a group
together to fix this.
I ask Senator McCain, do you think that is a good idea?
Mr. McCAIN. I know it is the only way we are going to solve this. I
ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be included.
I know the Senator from Tennessee, our friend Senator Corker, is
waiting. But I think my friend from South Carolina, as usual, has
stated the problem and a solution here. The problem is, we face a
devastating impact on our national security. The solution is for our
leaders and the President--if possible--to convene a group of Senators,
whether it includes us or not is immaterial, on both sides of the
aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, to sit down and work this out so
we can avoid the sequester.
I will take responsibility for sequester if that is what is
necessary. But I also say that without concrete, significant, and
meaningful action to cause this sequester to be prevented, we are
risking the lives of our young men and women who are serving in the
military. I do not know of a greater responsibility that we have.
I ask the Senator from New Hampshire if she agrees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The Senator from New
Hampshire is recognized.
Ms. AYOTTE. I join with my colleagues over the concern, deep concern
that keeps me up at night about sequestration, because we cannot do
this to our national security. Both sides of the aisle have to come
together. We need leadership from our Commander in Chief on this issue.
To put it in perspective, I asked the Assistant Commandant of the
Marine Corps what the impact of sequestration would be on the Marines.
Do you know what he told me? That the Marine Corps of the United States
of America would be unable to respond to one major contingency. Talk
about putting our country at risk and putting ourselves in a situation
where unfortunately there are still so many risks around the world that
our country needs to be protected from. To think that our Marine Corps
would not be able to respond to one major contingency. It is
outrageous. It cries for bipartisan leadership on this issue,
particularly leadership from our Commander in Chief.
To put it in perspective, it is not just an issue of our national
security. You would think that would be enough to bring people to the
table. But we are talking about jobs across this country. The National
Association of Manufacturers has estimated it would be nearly 1 million
jobs; George Mason University, the same.
To my colleagues, looking around here, polling some States in terms
of the estimate of job losses: 24,000 for Alabama. When we look at a
State like Missouri, 31,000, when we look at a State, for example, like
Florida, 39,000 for Florida. This is an issue that will hit every State
in this Nation.
But, most importantly, what I am concerned about is it is going to
hit our military in a way that we break

[[Page 10792]]

faith with our troops. In fact, General Odienero of our Army has said
he would have to cut an additional 100,000 troops from our Army on top
of the reductions we are making right now, approximately 72,000, and 50
percent of it would have to come from the Guard and Reserve.
You think about the important function not only of protecting our
country, we could not have fought in Afghanistan or Iraq without our
Guard and Reserve. I am the proud wife of someone who served in the
Iraq war. I can tell you, it is not only the function that our Guard
and Reserve play in terms of protecting us overseas, but they also
perform a very important homeland function. Every Governor in this
country will be deeply concerned if we are going to diminish our Guard
and Reserve. So this is an issue that cries out for leadership from
both sides of the aisle. I look forward to working with my colleagues
on this now. It cannot wait until a lameduck session. We cannot put our
national security in the balance, and nearly 1 million jobs at issue,
to a lameduck session. This is something we should resolve right now.
I appreciate that my colleagues have come to the floor to talk about
this issue today. We must get this done on behalf of the American
people and our men and women in uniform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I think Senator Corker from Tennessee was
on the floor before me. I do not know if we are going back and forth or
how long he expects to speak. I wish to yield to him to see what his
plans are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I am
going to speak for about 2\1/2\ to 3 minutes if that is okay.
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
I ask unanimous consent that I follow him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Budget Control Act

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friends
from New Hampshire and Arizona and South Carolina regarding the
sequestration. I will say the reason we are in this sequestration mode
is that six Republicans and six Democrats could not figure out a way,
over a 10-year period, to cut $1.2 trillion in spending out of $45
trillion that is going to be spent by the Federal Government during
that period of time. So I do hope there is a way to resolve that. But I
am here to speak about something related, but in some ways very
different.
Today we are getting ready to vote on some legislation dealing with
flood insurance, dealing with student lending, dealing with highways.
And these are all very popular programs.
What people who are listening, who may be paying attention to what
the Senate is doing today, what they may not know is that for the third
time, in a bipartisan way, this body is getting ready to spend more
money than was deemed by the budget that was ultimately created by the
Budget Control Act last year when the country almost shut down trying
to save a mere $900 billion over the next 10 years. So a vote today for
this piece of legislation is basically a vote to say the Senate cannot
be entrusted to carry out what it laid out last August to keep us from
spending money we do not have. I know there are going to be some budget
points of order that will be brought forth at some point later today.
I want to say as one Senator from Tennessee, it continues to be
unbelievable to me that this body does not have the courage, does not
have the will, does not have the discipline to even live within a very
modest budget that was laid out last August. Today I am certain we are
going to pass legislation that spends billions of dollars more than we
agreed to in the Budget Control Act and especially the deemed budget
that came after that, the deemed budget that was put in place as a
result of what we passed last August.
I would say all those who vote for this today are basically saying we
do not have the discipline to live within our means. The problems our
Nation faces fiscally are only going to get worse. I think this is a
very sad day for our country if that, in fact, is what happens within
the next 2 or 3 hours on the Senate floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Sequestration

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his
comments. I share his concern about our deficit. I was a member of the
Simpson-Bowles Commission, voted for the commission report, bipartisan
effort to reduce the deficit by $4\1/2\ trillion over 10 years. I think
we set in place a description, maybe a guidepost for how we can do
this.
I would agree with him that we need to take care in the money that we
spend now which will add to the deficit, though I have to say my
understanding is this transportation bill is paid for. There are
revenue sources that are part of this. I know the student loan
continued decrease in interest rates to 3.4 percent for student loans
is paid for. I believe the changes within the Flood Insurance Program,
which is part of this package as well, the Republican leader spoke to
that this morning, reforms in that program will move it closer to
sustainability and solvency. It is not where it needs to be, but it is
moving closer.
But I want to address, if I can, for a minute what has been a topic
on the floor this morning about the planned cuts in the Department of
Defense. Let me say at the outset what we all agree upon. No. 1, we
never, ever want to shortchange America's security, never shortchange
our men and women in uniform.
A nephew of mine who serves as a doorman in the gallery recently
returned from 1 year in Afghanistan. We were sending packages and were
worried about Michael every day. He got home safely. That is happening
over and over across America. I wanted my nephew to have all he needed
to come home safely. I think everybody feels the same when it comes to
the Department of Defense.
Let's step back and look at this deficit debate. Allow me to put it
into perspective for a moment. The last time we balanced the Federal
budget was not in the 19th century, it was about 11 years ago. It was a
time when William Jefferson Clinton was President, and for 3 years we
had a balanced budget under a Democratic President--3 years.
When we reach a balanced budget, if you said, ``What do you have in
terms of spending and revenue?''--they are the same--here is what we
found: Revenue and spending both equaled 19.5 percent of America's
gross domestic product. The gross domestic product is the sum total of
the goods and services produced in America every year. It changes and
grows. The last year we were in balance, taxes equaled 19.5 percent of
our GDP and Federal spending equaled 19.5 percent. We had a balanced
budget.
Now we are in deep water. We saw the accumulated debt of the United
States more than double under President George W. Bush, and it
continues to grow, because of the recession, under this President. Our
annual deficits are over $1 trillion and are unsustainable. We borrow
40 cents for every dollar we spend, whether we are buying military
equipment or paying for food stamps. That is unsustainable.
But now that we know there was a time when we were in balance, it is
fair to say: What happened to spending since this budget was in
balance? If you do it in constant dollars so there is no monkeying
around with numbers, here is what happened since we were last in
balance in our budget: Domestic discretionary spending equals student
loans, medical research, transportation--all of the different things
that don't fit into the Department of Defense. The spending in those
areas since we were last in balance has been flat, with no increase.
What about spending for entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid,
programs such as those--and veterans' care? What has happened to that
since we were last in balance? Since we were

[[Page 10793]]

last in balance, the spending on entitlement programs has gone up 30
percent. Why? The baby boomers have arrived; 10,000 people a day reach
the age of 65. They paid into Social Security and Medicare their whole
life, and they show up now and say: It is our turn. Because of that,
entitlement spending has gone up.
Let's look at the third part of the budget, which was addressed by my
Republican colleague this morning--defense spending. What has happened
to defense spending since the budget was in balance? Domestic
discretionary flat; entitlements 30 percent. As of this year's budget,
defense spending will have risen 73 percent since the budget was last
in balance.
We created a supercommittee, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, who
is here, was a member. They said: Let's find ways to reduce the deficit
by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. They tried. I am sure Senator Kerry
will speak to that effort. At the end of the day, they could not reach
a bipartisan agreement on how it would be done. The law we passed said:
If you cannot reach agreement, we are going to do it automatically. We
are going to take $500 billion out of defense and $500 billion out of
nondefense spending. That is what this is about. People are coming to
the floor and saying that we cannot take another $500 billion out of
defense spending.
I will tell you that I think that is a lot to be taken out in light
of what we have already anticipated we are going to reduce in spending.
I think it will cause some serious problems. But I reject the notion
that that $500 billion, if it is taken out of domestic discretionary,
won't have equally horrible results.
So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, when you had a
chance in the supercommittee to deal with spending cuts of a lesser
amount or deal with revenue, closing tax loopholes, you walked away
from it. Now you are complaining that we may end up cutting defense
spending.
Incidentally, if the sequestration number went through--the
additional $500 billion in cuts over the next 10 years--it would bring
the amount of money we spend on defense to the same percentage of the
GDP as it was when the budget was in balance.
So my friends who are speaking for national defense, I join you, but
I also speak for investments in America when it comes to education,
innovation, and infrastructure. That will help our economy grow. And
sequestration on the domestic side is unacceptable, from this Senator's
point of view, as well.
We clearly need to get beyond this and talk about an honest answer to
reducing the deficit. An honest answer, going back to Simpson-Bowles,
puts everything on the table--everything. To my friends on the other
side, I say that it puts revenue on the table, and it must. It puts
entitlement programs and spending cuts on the table, and it must. That
is the only honest way to address this issue. To pick it off and say
that we are going to take the one area that has grown in spending by 73
percent and ignore it and then have them say that we don't touch
revenue leaves two possibilities: If we are going to do anything about
the deficit--deeper cuts in programs such as student loans, medical
research, or cuts in Medicare--that is what it comes down to. They are
hard choices, right? I think the Bowles-Simpson approach of putting
everything on the table is the right approach.
I urge my colleagues on both sides to take this pain that we are
facing December 31 and turn it into an opportunity to work on a
bipartisan basis to reduce this deficit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Surface Transportation

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand to raise a concern I have regarding
the conference committee report to accompany H.R. 4348.
Pursuant to paragraph 9 of rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, we are supposed to have adequate notice of a report like this
before we have the opportunity to vote on it. The rule states:

It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a
report of a committee of conference unless such report has
been available to Members and to the general public for at
least 48 hours before such vote.

The current version of the committee report was filed, as I
understand it, at 8:07 p.m. last night. It is not even close to the 48
hours required notice.
What we have, ultimately, when we look at this, is the fact that we
have a highway bill that was sent to conference, but it came back from
closed-door negotiations with a student loan bill and also with a flood
insurance bill attached to it. We were neither given the chance to
debate nor to amend these provisions before they came to the floor. Now
we are approaching a vote on that.
We did not provide our fellow Senators or the American people with an
adequate opportunity to read the 596-page conference report, which is
required by our very own rule. This is somewhat reminiscent of a
statement made a few years ago by then-Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi when, speaking to Members of her body regarding the passage of
the Affordable Care Act, she said:

We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in
it.

This is one of the problems we have in Washington of which the
American people are becoming increasingly aware. It is a problem that I
think we need to address. Time and again, we have a problem in which
the Senate waits until the day before a holiday or the day before a
scheduled instate work period before bringing something to the floor
for a vote--without following the Senate's own rules, which are
designed to promote and protect the openness and transparency of the
legislative process. This is a troubling trend and one we should seek
to avoid whenever and wherever possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, currently Congress has about a 10-percent
approval rating. One of the reasons is that we don't even obey our own
rules.
For goodness' sakes, this is a 600-page bill. I got it this morning.
Not one Member of the Senate will read this bill before we vote on it.
We are going to vote on this in the next 30 minutes. I, Senator Lee,
and others will object to this. We will have a point of order that our
own rule says it has to be posted online for 48 hours. It is 600 pages,
and nobody will read it. No wonder our approval rating is 10 percent.
Nobody knows what we are voting on. In fact, provisions were stuck in
this bill last night that have nothing to do with any of these bills.
They have been stuck in and we are just now discovering it. I passed
two Senators in the hall who are trying to get something out of this
bill that affects their States, which they found out about just minutes
ago. Nobody would have known about it if they had not found out about
it.
There are three bills in question here: transportation, student
loans--on the student loan bill, originally we had loans at 6 percent,
and it was somehow bringing in money to the Treasury. We were using
that money to pay for ObamaCare. Now it is at 3 percent, and that money
is gone. Where is the money to pay for ObamaCare? We have a shell game
up here. We say one thing will pay for it, and now this will pay for
it--the money disappears.
Now they are saying they are going to pay for this by taking money
out of pensions. Raise your hand if you think it is a good idea to
underfund pensions more. Over half of the pensions in this country are
technically insolvent because they don't have enough money to pay for
them. Is it a good idea to have less money go into workers' pensions to
pay for a student loan program?
I have a bill in Congress that says we should read the bill before we
pass it. We should wait 1 day for each 20 pages, to be given time to
read 600-page bills. At the very least, we ought to adhere to our own
rules. They say it should be posted online at least 48 hours. Forty-
eight hours is still a challenge to find out everything in here. Do you
know how long the Federal Register is--55,000 pages, which is added to
annually. When you read this, you have to refer to the Federal
Register, which is

[[Page 10794]]

hundreds of thousands of pages, to find out what they stuck in this
bill in the dead of night. This isn't the way we should operate.
The American people want to know why do we say the government is not
going to do something for 3 days. What were they doing the previous 3
months?
The other side hasn't produced a budget in 3 years. That is against
the rules. The rules of the Senate say you must produce a budget, and
they didn't do it for 3 years. When we presented them with a budget
that we wrote for them, nobody voted for it, and zero on the other side
voted for their own President's budget.
How are we going to compromise if they are not showing up for work?
How are we going to get anything done if they don't obey their own
rules?
I will raise a point of order in the next hour that says that we have
broken the rules of the Senate, and I will ask them to vote on it. I
fully expect that the Parliamentarian will rule in our favor. We will
see. The other side will simply close their eyes to the rules, and they
won't care what the Parliamentarian says, and they will overturn this
by saying: We are the majority, and we deem it so. We are the majority,
and we don't care what is in the bill or to take time to read the bill;
we just deem it so.
I think this is why the American people are unhappy with what is
going on here. I object strenuously. I will vote against this, and I
will raise a point of order that says we should read the bill before we
pass it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Paul for raising these
issues. We are mismanaging the American people's money. It is good to
see Senator Lee, who just spoke, and Senator Paul, both new Members of
the Senate, who have been out talking to the American people and made
commitments that they are going to work to try to improve the process
here. I celebrate their activity, their vigor, and their determination,
and a lot of others feel the same way in our body.
Shortly we will be moving a cobbled-together bill. An attempt will be
made to accomplish this. I expect budget points of order and another
point of order to be raised.
I want to share some thoughts about how it is we do business and some
of the efforts that are not legitimate as we go about our business and
are dangerous to the financial health of America.
Let's take what we call the LUST fund. I know it is an odd name. The
true name of it is the leaking underground storage tank fund. People
who have them have to pay fees, and it goes into a fund. The idea of
the fund is to be available when cleanups need to be done. When the
company or other companies have gone bankrupt and there is no money,
this fund will pay to clean up the waste. Maybe it makes sense. It has
been operating for quite a number of years. It has run up a surplus.
That surplus is in the LUST trust fund--leaking underground storage
tank fund--and where does it go? What do you do with that money?
The Treasury of the United States is spending more money every year
than it takes in. This year we will spend approximately $3.7 trillion.
We take in about $2.4 trillion, and we have a $1,300 billion deficit.
That is how much we are spending. We spend around $3.7 trillion and are
taking in about $2.4 trillion, and we have about a $1.3 trillion
deficit this year--the fourth consecutive year that we have had almost
a $1,000 billion deficit. We will have a big one again next year
because we are systematically overspending.
But let's look at this fund--it has some real money in it, a number
of billions of dollars--and what happens to it. Well, when the
government spends more money than it takes in, it takes the money from
the LUST fund. Well, how does it get it? It borrows it. So there is
actually a debt instrument from the United States Treasury to the
trustees or the holders or managers of the LUST trust fund, and they
have loaned the money. They do not need it today, so they loan it to
the government so they can spend it. And it has been borrowed and has
been spent.
The assets in the LUST fund are nothing more than debt instruments
from the U.S. Treasury. But on the books, it appears this LUST fund has
assets. I guess in a sense it does. It has U.S. Treasury notes. So the
people looking around to spend money and to try to meet the demands of
our constituents--to build highways in this case--decided they could
take that money.
And you know something, it does not score as an expenditure in that
fashion. It is an odd way this is done. It is seen as found money that
they can go over and spend. But where does the money come from? The
money is not in the fund, remember? The fund holds Treasury bills. But
the highway trust fund doesn't want Treasury bills, it wants money that
can be spent. So what happens is the U.S. Treasury, which has been
borrowing money from another government agency and giving a debt
instrument in return, has to come up with the money now. It is going to
be spent. It is going to be taken out of the trust fund. So where do
they get the money? They convert an internal debt to an external debt.
The only thing they will do is borrow more money. So it will be this
many billions of dollars more than $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion that
we have. The debt is converted to a public debt, and somebody in China
or in Japan or in New York will loan money to the government and they
will use that money to pay the highway trust fund with it.
You see how circular that is? It allows the money to be double
counted. And that is actually what happened with President Obama's
health care bill. That $400 billion was funded this way. Social
Security still has a surplus. Although it has been drawn down, it still
has a surplus in its account--or Medicare does. So the Medicare
trustees raise Medicare taxes, they cut Medicare benefits, and they
save $400 billion, And that would be money of the Medicare and the
trustees. It is their money. But what happened with it? Under the
conventions of accounting, the money was available to be spent by the
U.S. Treasury, and the U.S. Treasury then would spend it on the new
health care bill.
The Congressional Budget Office Director, Mr. Elmendorf, wrote me a
letter the night before the bill passed--Christmas Eve--and he said
this is double counting the money. You can't simultaneously count it as
making Medicare better and providing new money to fund the health care
bill. Four hundred billion dollars on the night before the vote he
announces this is double counting. If a private business were to do it,
they would be in big trouble, I suggest. They might be sued for fraud.
They would be sued for fraud.
So the money was done in that fashion, and the way it happened was
Mr. Elmendorf said it is double counting the money. You cannot
simultaneously benefit Medicare and fund a new health care program,
although the conventions of accounting might suggest otherwise. So the
real smart financiers, what did they do? They figured out how to use
the conventions of accounting in a way that obscured the fact they
didn't have the $400 billion and that it was, in truth, borrowed money.
Mr. President, I see my colleagues on the floor, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I just have a couple of comments to make
for clarification purposes.
First of all, I don't think anyone is going to question my
conservative credentials over the years I have been here. I have been
really offended by a lot of the things that have happened structurally
in this institution, over in the House, but so far as this bill is
concerned, let me clarify a couple of things.
It sounds good to stand up here and say we have only had a matter of
minutes to look at something that is 500 pages. We have had this bill
for a long time--for several days. We have had it and gone over
everything. On the bill we sent from the Senate to the House, it is
essentially the same thing.
I didn't agree when they added the two provisions on student loan and
flood insurance. I didn't agree with

[[Page 10795]]

that. Everyone knows those issues, but I don't think they should have
been on here. Nonetheless, we didn't have any control in this body over
that. But as far as the provisions of the bill are concerned, these
provisions we have seen. And everyone who has spoken against it has
been there when we have talked about the great reforms, and I have
commented several times that I thought one of the problems was we did
too good a job because we had too many reforms. But when it got over to
the House, where they are inclined to have more reforms there, they had
to start from a base where we had done a good job. Streamlining and
enhancements and all those things are in it.
The only thing I can say, from a conservative perspective, is we have
seen this bill. We have lived with this bill, not just hours but for
days, and actually for weeks, the basic provisions of the bill. But
what we have to realize is there is an alternative to what we are doing
here today, and that alternative--and the only alternative--is to go
back to extensions.
If we go back to extensions, a couple of things happen. No. 1, we
don't have any of the reforms we have in the bill; No. 2, we throw away
about 30 percent of the money----
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, of course.
Mr. REID. Through the Chair, I would ask my friend, the ranking
member of this committee, is it true this is basically the same bill we
are going to vote on today that passed this institution in March?
Mr. INHOFE. It is true, I say through the Chair. It passed this
institution with 74 votes, as I recall.
Mr. REID. So again, people have had since March to read this bill and
to get up to speed a little bit, don't you think?
Mr. INHOFE. I answer in the affirmative.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, would my friend yield for 1 minute? I want
to correct the Record.
There are a few changes, there is no question. We have speeded up
project delivery, as my friend knows. We gave a little more flexibility
to the States in terms of the TE program. So a few things were changed.
But my friends are right, primarily, this is a similar bill. It takes
the money and we say we are going to spend the same thing, plus
inflation. And it is true these bills have been out here for a long
time. Actually, they passed our committee, I say to Senator Inhofe, in
November of last year.
Mr. INHOFE. I respond, yes, that is correct. That is accurate.
I think that is very important too because we have been talking about
this bill for a long period of time. We actually started trying to get
a highway reauthorization bill way back in 2009, when the old bill from
2005 expired.
But the problem is--and I want to get back to where I was--there is
an alternative to this bill. If we defeat this bill, we go back to
extensions. If we go back to extensions, first of all, we are losing
about 30 percent of the money off the top. Everybody knows that.
Secondly, we don't get these reforms. If people are concerned out
there--conservatives--that they want to defeat this and go back to
extensions, they are not going to have reform with the enhancements.
Right now the law requires 10 percent, depending on how we want to put
it, in total funding or 2 percent of surface transportation. That has
to be spent on transportation enhancements.
My good friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer, and I
disagree on enhancements. She likes them; I don't. I want money to be
spent on concrete, on roads and bridges. This is what I think we should
be doing. But that is a disagreement we had and so we had a compromise
where she can have--and anyone can have--what they want. It is an
oversimplification, but it means, yes, this money is going to be put
into something. It can be enhancements. In my State of Oklahoma, it is
not going to be in enhancements, it is going to be paying for some of
the unfunded mandates. It will be paying for things we have to do in
terms of the environment and things that are required. So we have
solved that problem. If we don't pass this bill, we go right back and
it will have to go to enhancements.
On streamlining, all the streamlining is in this in terms of
environmental streamlining. Talk to any of the road contractors out
there and they will tell you about the waste of money and the number of
miles of roads they can't do because of some of these requirements--
these environmental requirements. We have streamlined those
requirements. If we don't pass this bill, we will go back to extensions
and the same thing applies--we are going to lose all those
opportunities. So not only will it cost more, we will not get the
streamlining.
I am very proud of a group that has always supported me, the American
Conservative Union. Is there anyone around here who doesn't think the
American Conservative Union isn't conservative? I made this a part of a
speech yesterday, an editorial by Al Cardenas, the chairman of the
American Conservative Union. It is an op-ed piece he wrote. But let me
read now two short paragraphs from this op-ed piece from the American
Conservative Union:

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution specifically
lists interstate road-building as one of the delineated
powers and responsibilities vested in the federal Government.
In Federalist Paper #42, James Madison makes an early case
for the federal government's role in maintaining a healthy
infrastructure, by stating ``Nothing which tends to
facilitate the intercourse between states, can be deemed
unworthy of the public care.''

And the article goes on to say--and, remember, this is the American
Conservative Union.

Perhaps most importantly, those of us who believe in
constitutional conservatism understand that unlike all the
things the Federal Government wastes our money on,
transportation spending is at the core of what constitutes
legitimate spending.

That is from the American Conservative Union. I wanted people to
understand that voting for this is the conservative approach. We get
more for the money being spent, it has all the streamlining in it, and
it is our constitutional responsibility. This is what we are supposed
to do. There are only two ways of doing it: one way is to pass this
bill and the other is to operate under extensions, and I think it is
very important for people to understand that.
With that, I yield the floor and 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Order of Procedure H.R. 4348

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding lack of
receipt of the papers with respect to the conference report to
accompany H.R. 4348, at 12:55 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to a
series of stacked votes as outlined in this agreement; that the time
until then be equally be divided between the two leaders or their
designees; that the only points of order in order to the conference
report be budget points of order or points of order relative to rule
XXVIII, which is the scope of conference, or rule XXVIII, paragraph 9,
availability; that if a rule XXVIII scope of conference point of order,
rule XXVIII availability point of order or budget-related point of
order is made against the conference report and an applicable motion to
waive is made during any debate time, the Senate proceed to vote on the
motions to waive in the order they were raised following the use or
yielding back of time; that if the motions to waive are successful, the
Senate proceed to vote on the conference report; that adoption of the
conference report be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that
there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to each
vote, and all after the first vote be 10-minute votes, and I ask that
in spite of the fact the votes may not come right after each other, all
the rest today will be

[[Page 10796]]

10-minute votes; further, that if the conference report is adopted, the
title amendment be agreed to; finally, that no motions to recommit be
in order to the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Paul, I raise a
point of order that the conference report on H.R. 4348 has not been
publicly available for 48 hours as required by rule XXVIII, paragraph
9.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to waive paragraph 9 of rule XXVIII
with respect to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be 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 Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 72, nays 22, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 169 Leg.]

YEAS--72

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

NAYS--22

Ayotte
Burr
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Grassley
Hatch
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Snowe
Toomey

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Bennet
Coburn
Inouye
Kirk
Udall (CO)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 72, the nays are 22.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order falls.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Senator Coats wishes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to raise the point of order
that section 1538 of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348
violates rule XXVIII as it is a matter not committed by either House.
This is not a partisan issue. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin,
the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk,
and I reached an agreement on how to deal with this issue. Yet during
this conference work that was proceeding in the dark of the night----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not debatable.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am not debating it. I am explaining it.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to waive all scope of conference
points of order on rule XXVIII.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further points of order?
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for a recorded vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further points of order on
rule XXVIII, the yeas and nays have been asked for on the motion to
waive.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate on the
waiver.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I jumped the gun a little bit. This gives
me a chance to explain it twice. Let me say there was a bipartisan
agreement that was reached on this. I will not name names, but after it
went over to the House, somebody dropped something in the middle of the
night to change this whole process.
The issue is not just so-called Asian carp; the issue is that if this
language is allowed to proceed, we will be authorizing over $100
billion of potential spending to address this without any review by the
Congress. All we ask for in our agreement was a simple opportunity to
review the study by the Corps of Engineers so we can make a decision
based on all the facts, which included over $100 billion of authorized
spending. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to
waive this rule.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the provision in question simply
accelerates a study of invasive species such as the destructive Asian
carp, a study essential to protecting the Great Lakes, a resource that
is vital to the health, safety, and livelihoods of millions of
Americans.
The study was included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
that authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility
study to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins.
Since that time, Congress has provided over $13 million to the Corps
to conduct this study. The Corps maintains that the study cannot be
completed until the end of 2015.
The provision included in the conference agreement before us today
would accelerate this study and require its completion within 18
months.
We should not minimize the threat of the destructive Asian carp
entering the Great Lakes.
If Asian carp got into the Great Lakes, they would not only pose a
very serious threat to the environment but would have a devastating
effect on thousands of local jobs and a $7 billion fishing industry.
Accelerating this study would put us on a better track to protect one
of our Nation's greatest treasures and the thousands of jobs that
depend on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know everyone is anxious to finish. I am
too. This is a massive bill. It is so good for our country. This bill
includes student loans, flood insurance, and 2.8 million jobs. There
are a lot of disappointments. I have a few in this bill that I would be
happy to share with someone at the right time. We must waive this. This
is one of the great accomplishments of this Congress. Please, everyone,
vote to waive this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

[[Page 10797]]

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 28, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 170 Leg.]

YEAS--66

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

NAYS--28

Ayotte
Barrasso
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Snowe
Thune
Toomey

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Bennet
Coburn
Inouye
Kirk
Udall (CO)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 66 and the nays are
28. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to, and the point of order falls.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the pending measure, the conference report
to accompany H.R. 4348, would exceed the aggregate level of budget
authority and outlays for fiscal year 2012, as set out in the most
recent budget resolution deemed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senate please be in order.
Mr. CORKER. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I cannot hear the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section
311(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget
resolutions, 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 and
applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending conference
report, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
However, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from CBO be printed
in the Record at this point, which indicates that not only is
everything paid for in this bill, it reduces the debt.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2012.
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed the conference report for H.R. 4348, MAP-21, as
posted on the Web site of the House Committee on Rules on
June 28, 2012.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4348 would reduce budget
deficits over the 2012-2022 period by $16.3 billion. That
figure does not include effects that may be counted for
budget enforcement purposes in the House of Representatives.
Specifically, the House-passed budget resolution calls for
counting transfers from the general fund of the Treasury to
the Highway Trust Fund as new spending.
Major provisions of the legislation that would affect the
budget (see Table 1) would:
Reauthorize, through fiscal year 2014, the surface
transportation programs administered by the Federal-Aid
Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and certain
programs administered by the Pipelines and Hazardous
Materials Administration;
Establish the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and require
that 80 percent of any administrative and civil penalties
paid to the federal government under the Clean Water Act in
connection with the April 2010 explosion at the Deepwater
Horizon facility in the Gulf of Mexico be deposited into that
trust fund and made available to be spent;
Change the interest rate that pension plans use to measure
their liabilities, increase pension premium rates for both
variable and flat rate premiums paid to the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, and establish a cap on the variable
rate premium;
Provide payments to certain states by reauthorizing the
Secure Rural Schools and Payments In Lieu of Taxes programs;
Allow eligible federal employees to enter into a phased
retirement, during which they continue to work part time
while drawing a partial salary and a partial civil service
retirement annuity;
Reduce the additional Medicaid payments to Louisiana that
it will receive based on prior declarations of federal
disasters;
Repeal a requirement that the Department of Transportation
reimburse the difference in cost between shipping foreign
food aid on a U.S.-flag ship and a foreign-flag ship;
Reduce mandatory payments to states that have completed
certain reclamation projects on land formerly used for
mining;
Reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program through
2017 and increase premiums for some subsidized policies;
Retain an interest rate of 3.4 percent on all new
subsidized student loans until June 30, 2013, and change the
interest the federal government pays on behalf of some
borrowers who are attending school; and
Raise additional revenue by increasing the ability of
businesses with excess assets in their pension funds to use
them for retiree health and life insurance benefits, and by
defining businesses that make roll-your-own machines
available for consumer use as tobacco manufacturers.
CBO estimates that implementing the legislation also would
lead to discretionary spending of $95.9 billion over the
2013-2017 period (see Table 2); such spending would be
subject to future appropriation actions. Of that amount, the
spending on transportation programs would total $94.3
billion, which reflects estimated obligation levels for 2013
and 2014 that are approximately equal to the obligation
levels for 2012, adjusted for inflation.
In addition, CBO estimates that implementing provisions of
the conference report for the remainder of 2012, 2013, and
2014 would result in an end-of-year balance in 2014 of
approximately $4 billion in the highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund and about $1 billion in the transit
account of the Highway Trust Fund. Table 3 provides a
projection of future spending, revenues, and remaining
balances in the Highway Trust Fund over the next 10 years.
I hope this information is useful to you. If you need
additional details, we will be pleased to provide them. The
staff contact is Sarah Puro, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.

TABLE 1--ESTIMATE OF THE EFFECTS ON DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT FOR H.R. 4348, MAP-21, AS POSTED ON THE WEB SITE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES ON JUNE 28, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012-2017 2012-2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Transportation Contract Authority:
Budget Authoritya............... 0 243 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 3,443 7,443
Estimated Outlaysb.............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gulf Coast Restoration:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 0 45 127 184 339 366 399 372 328 302 695 2,462
Estimated Outlays............... 0 0 2 14 47 105 175 260 322 351 352 168 1,628
Pension Provisions:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[[Page 10798]]

Estimated Outlays............... 0 -220 -350 -1,065 -1,885 -1,685 -1,555 -1,255 -1,115 -1,055 -1,040 -5,205 -11,225
Secure Rural Schools:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 288
Estimated Outlays............... 0 253 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 288
Payment in Lieu of Taxes:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 398 398
Estimated Outlays............... 0 398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 398 398
Phased Retirement:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -9 -26 -45 -54 -53 -52 -50 -49 -46 -42 -187 -427
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -9 -26 -45 -54 -53 -52 -50 -49 -46 -42 -187 -427
Change in Medicaid FMAP Increase:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -510 -160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -670 -670
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -510 -160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -670 -670
Repeal Incremental Ocean Freight
Differential:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -540 -1,080
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -540 -1,080
Limitation on Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Fund Payments:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -139 -131 -47 -46 -46 -98 -99 -47 -47 -49 -409 -749
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -55 -94 -86 -73 -55 -67 -83 -73 -63 -53 -363 -702
National Flood Insurance Program\c\:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -5 -30 -70 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -5 -30 -70 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
One-Year Extension of Subsidized
Student Loan Interest Rates:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 4,285 2,595 * * * * * * * * * 6,880 6,880
Estimated Outlays............... 2,480 3,505 * * * * * * * * * 5,985 5,985
Eliminate Interest Subsidy for
Certain Borrowers:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -15 -85 -110 -130 -145 -170 -195 -200 -210 -210 -485 -1,470
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -10 -55 -90 -105 -120 -140 -160 -175 -180 -185 -380 -1,220
Changes in Direct Spending Excluding
Intragovernmental General Fund
Transfersd
Estimated Budget Authority...... 4,573 2,450 305 547 751 787 738 747 768 717 693 9,413 13,075
Estimated Outlays............... 2,480 3,239 -786 -1,450 -2,073 -1,916 -1,747 -1,396 -1,198 -1,101 -1,076 -506 -7,025
Intragovernmental Transfers from
General Fund to Highway Trust
Fundd:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 6,200 12,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,800 18,800
Estimated Outlays............... 0 6,200 12,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,800 18,800
Changes in Direct Spending,
Including Intragovernmental General
Fund Transfersd:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 4,573 8,650 12,905 547 751 787 738 747 768 717 693 28,213 31,875
Estimated Outlays............... 2,480 9,439 11,814 -1,450 -2,073 -1,916 -1,747 -1,396 -1,198 -1,101 -1,076 18,294 11,775

CHANGES IN REVENUES

Pension Provisions.................. 595 2,391 4,501 5,044 3,540 1,446 74 -882 -2,303 -3,046 -2,616 17,517 8,744
Transfer of Excess Pension Assets 0 0 20 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 24 145 354
and Allow Section 420 to Apply to
Life Insurance Benefits............
Phased Retirement................... 0 1 2 3 4 4 4 3 3 1 -1 14 24
Expand Definition of Tobacco 2 12 13 11 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 57 94
Manufacturer to Include Roll-Your-
Own-Cigarette Machines.............
Increased Civil Penalties for 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 10
Lenders............................
Total Changes................... 597 2,405 4,537 5,100 3,597 1,503 131 -826 -2,245 -2,989 -2,585 17,738 9,226
On-budget Revenues.......... 597 2,291 4,324 4,888 3,425 1,422 141 -726 -1,998 -2,712 -2,355 16,946 9,299
Off-budget Revenues......... 0 114 213 212 172 81 -10 -100 -247 -277 -230 792 -73

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES--EXCLUDING INTRAGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

Impact on Deficitd.................. 1,883 834 -5,323 -6,550 -5,670 -3,419 -1,878 -570 1,047 1,888 1,509 -18,244 -16,251
On-budget Deficit Change............ 1,883 948 -5,110 -6,338 -5,498 -3,338 -1,888 -670 800 1,611 1,279 -17,452 -16,324
Off-budget Deficit Change........... 0 -114 -213 -212 -172 -81 10 100 247 277 230 -792 73

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES--INCLUDING INTRAGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND FOR BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Impact on Deficitd.................. 1,883 7,034 7,277 -6,550 -5,670 -3,419 -1,878 -570 1,047 1,888 1,509 556 2,549
On-budget Deficit Change............ 1,883 7,148 7,490 -6,338 -5,498 -3,338 -1,888 -670 800 1,611 1,279 1,348 2,476
Off-budget Deficit Change........... 0 -114 -213 -212 -172 -81 -10 -100 -247 -277 -230 -792 73
Memorandum:
Increased Net Income to the 0 -5 -30 -70 -145 -250 -320 -380 -430 -490 -555 -500 -2,675
National Flood Insurance
Programc.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Notes: FMAP = Federal Medical Assistance Percentages; * = between -$500,000 and $0. Amounts may not sum
to totals because of rounding.
aH.R. 4348 would provide $12.4 billion in contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority) for the last quarter of fiscal year 2012, $50.1 billion for fiscal year 2013, and $50.9
billion for fiscal year 2014, CBO estimates. Consistent with the rules in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act for constructing its baseline for future contract authority
for transportation programs, CBO assumes that the contract authority for years after 2014 would be equal to the amount provided for 2014, the last year of the authorization.
bCBO expects that most of the outlays from contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority) for surface transportation programs will continue to be controlled by obligation
limitations enacted in future appropriation acts. Those expenditures are displayed in Table 2.
cThe proposed amendment would raise premiums for certain subsidized flood insurance policies, increasing net income to the National Flood Insurance Program by $2.7 billion. However, because
many policies would continue to be subsidized and the program would continue to face significant interest costs from its prior and future borrowing, CBO expects that additional receipts
collected under this legislation would be spent to cover future program shortfalls, resulting in no net effect on the budget over the 11-year period.
dPursuant to section 508 of H. Con. Res. 112, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 2013, general fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund are considered to be new budget
authority and outlays for budget enforcement purposes in the House of Representatives. CBO estimates that such transfers would increase the balances attributed to the Highway Trust Fund;
however, those transfers would not increase direct spending or affect budget deficits.

TABLE 2--CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER THE CONFERENCE REPORT FOR H.R. 4348, MAP-21, AS
POSTED ON THE RULES COMMITTEE WEB SITE ON JUNE 28, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending from the Highway Trust Fund:
Estimated Obligation Limitationa.......... 49,409 50,103 0 0 0 99,512
Estimated Outlays......................... 12,318 31,794 27,318 12,134 6,780 90,344
Other Authorized Transportation Programs:
Estimated Authorization level............. 2,697 2,198 0 0 0 4,895
Estimated Outlays......................... 379 1,011 1,168 817 618 3,993
Non-Transportation Programs:b
Estimated Authorization Level............. 438 437 437 437 437 2,186
Estimated Outlays......................... 80 245 337 431 435 1,528
Total Changes:
Estimated Budgetary Resources......... 52,544 52,738 437 437 437 106,593
Estimated Outlays..................... 12,777 33,050 28,823 13,382 7,833 95,865
Memorandum:
Reduction in Offsetting Receipts from.....
Lower Employer Contributionsc............. 0 2 3 3 3 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

[[Page 10799]]

aEstimated discretionary outlays reflect use of funds from the contract authority provided by the legislation
under the obligation limitations specified or estimated by CBO. (Outlays stemming from any additional contract
authority that would be provided for years after 2014 would be attributable to future legislation.) Under
current law, CBO estimates that spending from the Highway Trust Fund would be about $48 billion in 2012. (See
Table 3 for estimates of total outlays from the trust fund in 2013 and subsequent years.)
bH.R. 4348 would authorize the appropriation of $440 million a year over the 2013-2017 period for a national
flood mapping program and flood mitigation assistance. The legislation also would lower future federal
employer retirement contributions. Those contributions are contingent on future appropriation actions.
cEmployer contributions are intragovernmental transactions that do not affect the deficit; positive numbers
indicate a decrease in receipts.

TABLE 3--SUMMARY OF CASH FLOWS FOR ACCOUNTS IN THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND UNDER H.R. 4348, MAP-21, AS POSTED ON THE WEB SITE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES
ON JUNE 28, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in billions of dollars--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Account:
Start-of-Year Balance....................................... 14 8 4 4 c c c c c c c
Revenues and Interest....................................... 33 33 33 34 35 36 36 36 36 37 37
Intragovernmental Transfers................................. 2 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outlaysa,b.................................................. 42 43 44 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47
End-of-Year Balance......................................... 8 4 4 c c c c c c c c
Transit Account:
Start-of-Year Balance....................................... 7 5 5 1 c c c c c c c
Revenues and Interest....................................... 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intragovernmental Transfers................................. 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outlaysa,b.................................................. 7 8 8 9 10 10 10 9 9 10 10
End-of-Year Balance......................................... 5 5 1 c c c c c c c c
Memorandum:
Cumulative Shortfall:c
Highway Account Shortfall................................... n.a. n.a. n.a. -6 -15 -24 -33 -42 -52 -62 -72
Transit Account Shortfall................................... n.a. n.a. n.a. -3 -7 -12 -16 -20 -24 -29 -33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: n.a. = not applicable.
Contract authority is a mandatory form of budget authority typically provided in authorization acts.
Obligation limitations are limitations on the obligation of contract authority typically provided in appropriation acts.
aAfter 2014, the estimated outlays assume obligations will continue at the 2014 level, adjusted for inflation. The total outlays shown reflect prior and
future obligations.
bOutlays include amounts ''flexed'' or transferred between the highway and transit accounts. CBO estimates that amount would total about $1 billion
annually.
cCBO projects that, under provisions of the Conference Report for H.R. 4348, the highway account and the transit account of the Highway Trust Fund would
be exhausted in fiscal year 2015. Under current law, the Highway Trust Fund cannot incur negative balances. However, following rules in the Deficit
Control Act of 1985, CBO's baseline for highway spending assumes that obligations presented to the Highway Trust Fund will be paid in full. The
memorandum to this table illustrates the cumulative shortfall of fund balances, assuming spending levels that would be authorized by the Conference
Report for H.R. 4348.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could have everybody's attention,
according to CBO, this is paid for the old way, where we spend all the
money in a year or two and then it is paid for over 10.
This body came together last August in a bipartisan way to put in
place the Budget Control Act, and this bill violates the deemed budget
by $2.5 billion. This will be the third time we violate the Budget
Control Act deemed budget. For all of those people who are meeting in
the evenings, meeting in groups in rooms trying to solve our Nation's
fiscal issues, a vote to waive this motion says we don't have the
discipline, the courage, or the will to do what we told the American
people we would do to try to get our fiscal house in order.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to waive right now.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office is a
nonpartisan body that determines what spending is for the Congress, and
they have determined that this bill is paid for and it reduces the
debt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Ms. SNOWE (when her name was called). Present.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 30, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

YEAS--63

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--30

Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Thune
Toomey

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Snowe

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Bennet
Coburn
Inouye
Kirk
Udall (CO)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are
30. One Senator responded ``present.'' Three-fifths of the Senators
duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is
agreed to and the point of order falls.

Abandoned Mine Land Trust Fund

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed to be here today
to discuss a provision in the conference report that impacts my home
State and potentially impacts a number of other states. The provision
relates to the abandoned mine land trust fund, and undoes a carefully
construed compromise that occurred in 2006 between a coalition of
Eastern and Western States, mine workers, and coal companies.
This provision was included at the last moment. This pay-for was not
in either the Senate version of the Transportation bill, nor was it in
the House version. Although it has a tremendous impact on Wyoming,
neither Senator Barrasso nor I were consulted about the impact of the
provision. We are extremely disappointed that is the case and seek
commitments from our colleagues to fix this provision hopefully as a
technical correction, but at any rate not later than the end of the
year to reconstruct the careful compromise that occurred in 2006. While
I respect the work of the conference committee, provisions like this
are the reason that Congress is unpopular. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to undo this terrible provision and make Wyoming and
other impacted states whole.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I second the comments of Senator Enzi.

[[Page 10800]]

This is an egregious provision that was included at the last moment
without any consultation of Senator Enzi or I. I am extremely
disappointed that we have not been able to address this matter before
the conference report was filed, and it is essential to fix it as soon
as possible preferably in a technical corrections bill that will be
drafted in the coming weeks but most certainly by the end of the year.
This provision is not well thought out. It has the potential to
impact not only Wyoming but a number of other States as well. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to fix the provision in an
expeditious manner.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand the problems that my
colleagues from Wyoming have with section 100125 of the conference
report. I recognize that this provision was included in the conference
report without their consultation. We will be working on a corrections
bill in the coming weeks, and I intend to work with them to address
this issue in that bill.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I second the chairwoman's commitment to
working with the Senators from Wyoming to fix this problem in the
technical corrections bill. It is important that we find a way to
address the issue as soon as possible, and I will work with them to
make Wyoming and the other impacted States whole.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a portion of the abandoned mine land trust
fund program falls within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance
Committee. I am also committed to working with my colleagues from
Wyoming to correct this situation. I hope we can do so as soon as
possible.

Transit Title

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we are poised to pass a truly historic
transportation bill and I wanted to engage in a brief colloquy with my
colleague Chairman Johnson, with whom I have worked closely over the
past year and a half to craft the transit title of the bill. He has
been a true pleasure to work with and I think we should all be proud
that we have secured stable funding for public transportation over the
next 2 years.
The bill has record amounts of rail funding and by abandoning
earmarks, all of the major formula programs have been increased
significantly. We have greatly enhanced the Federal Transit
Administration's powers to provide safety oversight and set national
standards, which will ensure millions of transit passengers can travel
safely and efficiently.
But for the purposes of this colloquy I wanted to focus on section
20013 on private sector participation in public transportation. I ask
the chairman, does anything in this section show a preference by
Congress for public transportation to be provided by private operators
rather than public operators?
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Absolutely not. That section is intended
to help public and private sector providers to better coordinate
service and allow for more private investment in public transportation
projects. Public providers of public transportation do our Nation a
great service in providing affordable efficient service, lowering
pollution, and easing traffic congestion. There is no reason to have a
policy that favors private-public transportation service, and this
language does not do so.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Chairman Johnson, I completely agree. This language
should not be interpreted to encourage or require public-private
partnership activities in transit or give any preference to grantees
based on the decisions they make on this issue.
For years, the committee has endorsed the longstanding congressional
policy that decisions involving the choice between public and private
transit operators should be left to local authorities who are better
equipped to make local transportation decisions. The Federal government
is clearly best suited to making broad public policy decisions rather
than micromanaging the local transit choices selected to meet the needs
of rural, urban, and suburban communities. Does the chairman agree?
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Absolutely. Nothing in this bill changes
the fact that decisions to use public or private service should be up
to local providers. We firmly believe that the public versus private
question should be decided on the basis of local needs, not ideology.
And most importantly, the Federal Government should remain neutral, and
it should not intrude on local decisionmaking. The language in current
49 U.S.C. 5306 regarding private sector participation states that such
issues are guided by local policies, criteria, and decisionmaking. This
bill maintains this language, reaffirming Congress' commitment to local
control on this issue.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the chairman. I look forward to continue
working with you to oversee the implementation of this and other
provisions in this bill and continue to do all we can do to support a
robust, well-funded public transportation program.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues on
the transportation conference for including the National Flood
Insurance Program reauthorization and for removing the controversial
residual risk provision.
That provision was a real concern to me and more than a dozen cities
and counties in California. It would have required nearly 1 million
residents in my State to purchase flood insurance even though they live
behind fully functioning levees that meet or exceed Federal safety
standards. That provision alone could have quadrupled the number of
homeowners in my State who have to buy flood insurance.
The flood insurance bill called this low-level risk behind levees
``residual risk.'' It is the risk left over after a levee has been
built--the risk of levee failure, in essence.
These are levees that homeowners funded with their own tax dollars,
and the provision would have forced them to spend even more money. That
is just not good policy. And I was proud to add my voice to that of the
Senator from Arkansas in strong opposition to including it in the bill.
The bottom line is this: Until the residual risk provision was
removed, the National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization would
have had a devastating effect on communities in California and across
the Nation.
Even homeowners in communities who maintain their levees to Federal
safety standards with their own tax dollars would have been forced to
pay for Federal flood insurance. I simply could not support such an
unfair policy. It sent the message to homeowners and local communities
that regardless of their investments in flood protection, it is simply
not good enough. That is not the message we should be sending when this
country needs to invest more in flood control infrastructure, not when
homeowners are struggling to pay their mortgages, not when housing
starts are near alltime lows, and not when our economy is still
struggling to get back on track.
I was not alone in my opposition to the residual risk provision. I
received letters from elected officials across the State--Oceanside,
Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Angeles, Santa Maria, Stockton, Sacramento,
Yuba City. Del Norte, Sutter, Yolo, and Butte Counties were opposed, as
well as San Joaquin County.
This was not a regional issue. The letters came in from southern
California, the central coast, northern California and the Central
Valley.
In San Joaquin County, in the middle of my State, this provision
would have meant 280,000 additional residents had to purchase flood
insurance. This is a county where 1 in every 194 homes is in
foreclosure--3.3 times the national average. At even $1 a day, this
added expense could jeopardize the county's already shaky housing
market.
The purchase requirement would have covered most of the city of
Stockton, with a population of nearly 300,000. This would have further
devastated a city that suffered the second highest foreclosure rate in
the Nation last year.
In Palo Alto, this provision would have required another 5,500
homeowners to buy insurance.
In Sutter County, an estimated 28,000 of the 34,308 parcels would
have been affected. That is 81.6 percent of all parcels in the county.

[[Page 10801]]

In Butte County, 14,000 parcels would have been affected.
In Los Angeles County, supervisors Mark Ridley Thomas and Don Knabe
tell me that at least 200,000 properties and 800,000 residents would
have been impacted. These homeowners are currently protected by 130
miles of levees and 18 dams in L.A. County.
Many of the affected homeowners live along the Los Angeles River,
which isn't really a river at all--it is a concrete channel. And it is
very hard to imagine a flood ever occurring there. More than $200
million has been invested to minimize the risk.
The federally authorized Los Angeles County Drainage Area Project
reinforced levees along the Los Angeles River to protect against floods
well beyond a 100-year event. Local taxpayers contributed $55 million
to complete this project; Federal contributions totaled another $155
million. This investment was made so that residents could avoid $32
million in yearly flood insurance premiums. With the inclusion of the
residual risk provision, homeowners in the area would have once again
had to pay flood insurance bills every year.
I appreciate the efforts of Senators Cochran and the chairman and
ranking member to address this problem, but changes they made to the
original draft did not go far enough. Even with their changes, the
provision could have further depressed home prices by driving up
ownership costs in many areas.
Let me be clear: This policy wasn't proposed because homeowners lived
behind unsafe levees. These were safe levees that meet Federal
standards. Some believe this provision was added to the original bill
to restore the fiscal solvency of the program. By bringing in new, low-
risk properties, it is true that the fiscal health of the Flood
Insurance Program would have improved. But I, for one, oppose propping
up the Flood Insurance Program on the backs of constituents who played
by the rules.
If the goal is to ensure that people are informed about the risks
they face, I continue to be willing to work with my colleagues to
accomplish that. In fact, California already offers a model for
achieving that very goal.
The bottom line is this: Even with the changes made to the residual
risk provision, the bill would have still required homeowners and
businesses protected by certified levees to purchase mandatory flood
insurance. Candidly, I was shocked that we even considered adding this
provision without a full floor debate because it was not a trivial
extension. The bill would have imposed substantial new costs to nearly
1 million homeowners in California alone.
Again, I thank my colleagues on the conference committee for removing
this provision. This conference report was not the time or place for it
to be considered.
Now, with the 5-year reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance
Program in place, we will be taking an important step to stabilize our
housing market. We have also taken some very responsible steps to put
the program back on the path to fiscal solvency.
I commend my colleagues for putting together this package of bills. I
know they had a tremendous challenge, and I think they have done an
exceptional job.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to turn to discussing the
vital contributions of staff who worked on this bill. We are very
fortunate in the Senate to be able to rely on the expertise and the
support of so many talented and dedicated staffers whose efforts
enabled us to finalize this conference report.
This bill turned out to be unique because it spanned so many
different issues. In addition to the ones I have already mentioned, my
staff also had to work on pension matters, flood insurance, Federal
trust funds, labor, and a range of other issues. All of this combined
to make this a very complicated bill with many moving parts.
Accordingly, I want to take this opportunity to publicly and
professionally thank the following staffers for guiding this bill
through markups in different Senate committees, negotiating with
counterparts from the House of Representatives, and getting us over the
finish line with a conference report that provides the American people
with the good policies included in this bill:
There was Tom Lynch, who worked on both the Environment and Public
Works Committee's portion of the bill and the Finance Committee's
portion.
Tax Counsel Ryan Abraham, whose work along with Tom Lynch on the
highway trust fund was key to being able to fund highways and transit
projects under the bill.
Tom, Ryan, and Lily Batchelder, chief tax counsel and head of Finance
Committee's tax team, held more than 20 staff meetings with Democrats
and Republicans before our Finance Committee markup.
Mark Hybner, who was critical to refining the Indian Reservation
Roads Program among other things, a program that is very important to
the seven tribes in my State.
Tax and benefits counsel Tom Reeder, a true seasoned professional
without whom we couldn't have found the essential offsets to ensure the
highway trust fund would remain solvent.
Spencer Gray, who shepherded the secure rural schools and payment in
lieu of taxes through this process.
Dave Hughes and Ann Cammack, who made critical contributions both to
raise revenue and in tracking policy.
Sean Morrison and Blaise Cote, the Finance Committee's two excellent
research assistants.
Heather O'Loughlin, easily one of the most versatile and capable
staffers working in the Senate, who was key both to the education and
the flood insurance portions.
Amber Cottle, Bruce Hirsch, Gabriel Adler, Hun Quach, Chelsea Thomas,
and Rory Murphy, who were very helpful in the effort to develop offsets
during the Finance Committee markup.
Department of Transportation detailee and Billings Montana native
Avital Barnea, who lent helpful assistance at a crucial time.
Jeffrey Arnold, who was very helpful in assisting on Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation provisions and phased retirement.
Intern extraordinaire Pete Markuson, who logged a lot of meaningful
hours.
The outstanding press team of Jenny Donohue, Meaghan Smith, Ryan
Carey, Kate Downen, Kathy Weber, and our newest addition, Sean Neary.
And my indispensable leadership staff of Jon Selib, Russ Sullivan,
and Paul Wilkins, who as always remained focused and unflappable
despite the challenges.
Finally, I also want to use this opportunity to thank Bettina
Poirier, David Napoliello, Andrew Dohrmann, and Grant Cope from
Chairman Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee staff; Ruth Van
Mark, James O'Keeffe, Murphie Barrett, Kyle Miller, Dmitri Karakitsos,
and Alex Renjel from Senator Inhofe's staff; Charles Brittingham with
Senator Vitter; Tyler Rushforth with Senator Reid; Ellen Doneski, James
Reid, Ian Jefferies, Rich Swayze, Richard Russell, and Bailey Edwards
from the Commerce Committee; and Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, Jim
Lyons, Nick Wyatt, and Preston Rutledge from the Finance Committee.
Without the individual and collective contributions of each one of
these people I have mentioned, we would not have pulled this off. For
them and their efforts to help support American jobs, all of us should
be very grateful.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill before us today takes several
important steps in several policy areas to move our Nation forward. It
prevents a pending student loan interest rate hike that would make
college less affordable for American students and their families. It
makes important investments in our roads, bridges, and other
transportation infrastructure, investments that will put Americans to
work today and make our economy more competitive for years to come. It
reauthorizes the Flood Insurance Program that provides security to
millions of Americans, while making the program more efficient and more
fair to States such as Michigan that for too long have paid more in
premiums than they receive in benefits. While this legislation does not
include everything I had hoped for

[[Page 10802]]

or supported, it makes significant progress on issues our constituents
need us to address.
Millions of Americans will be relieved that this bill avoids a
looming increase in student loan interest rates. On July 1, those
interest rates are scheduled to double, an increase that Americans
already struggling to pay for higher education simply cannot afford.
Extending the current 3.4 percent interest rate for another year lifts
a significant burden, financial and emotional, from students and their
families who were looking to us for aid.
I am pleased Senate and House conferees have come to an agreement on
a transportation reauthorization. Reauthorization of our Nation's
transportation programs is long overdue.
Investing in transportation infrastructure creates jobs and improves
our international competitiveness. We create more than 35,000 jobs for
every $1 billion in Federal funds we spend on transportation
infrastructure. The bill will create or preserve an estimated 3 million
jobs nationwide. In Michigan, the bill will provide more than $2
billion over the next 2 years for road projects and another $261
million over the next 2 years for Michigan transit projects. Funding
transportation infrastructure improvements at robust levels is one of
the most obvious things we can do to help boost the U.S. economy.
The conference report extends Federal surface transportation programs
at current levels, with a small adjustment for inflation, through
September 2014. 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. This 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, although I would have preferred a longer term bill.
I am pleased the agreement includes a provision that would direct the
Corps of Engineers to accelerate its feasibility study of preventing
the inter-basin transfer of aquatic invasive species, such as the
destructive Asian carp, between the Mississippi River and the Great
Lakes basins. While the Corps is planning to produce an interim report
at the end of 2013, this provision would require a full feasibility
report that would also include a recommendation for implementing
preventative measures. Accelerating this study will put us on a better
track to protect our $7 billion Great Lakes fishery that supports
thousands of jobs.
The conference agreement includes a provision regarding harbor
maintenance that is based on an amendment to the Senate Transportation
bill. This is the first time we have addressed harbor maintenance in a
transportation bill, and including this language will help elevate this
important issue and strengthen momentum to use trust fund receipts for
harbor maintenance.
I am disappointed, however, that the provision in the conference
agreement does not include the strong enforcement language I urged
conferees to include that would ensure that appropriators actually
include funding for harbor maintenance that is collected for this
purpose.
Navigation infrastructure is a vital link in the transportation
system, one our economy depends upon. Maintaining our harbors and ports
is vital to our economic competitiveness. I will continue to work to
ensure that we provide sufficient Federal funds to properly maintain
our harbors.
The conference agreement also extends for 1 year mandatory PILT
funding, or payments in lieu of taxes, that will provide about $4
million to Michigan local governments to help offset losses in property
taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. These
payments can help support a variety of infrastructure and educational
needs. I had urged conferees to include this provision in the bill, and
I am pleased it was included in the final agreement.
The conference report should provide some much needed equity to
Michigan and other States through a 5-year reauthorization of the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Michigan residents have paid more than six times more in premiums
than they have received in payouts from the National Flood Insurance
Program. We must correct this disparity, and the conference report
takes some steps to do so in requiring that premiums be more reflective
of the true risk of flooding.
The conference report will phase out subsidies for repetitive-loss
properties that continue to be rebuilt in high-risk areas. It will also
phase out subsidized rates for vacation homes and businesses located in
high-risk areas, many of which have received subsidized rates for more
than 30 years.
This bill will clarify the law to allow property owners to purchase
flood insurance from a private insurer, rather than the Federal
Government, if they so choose. This means private companies can compete
with FEMA to offer consumers a better price.
Finally, I am very disappointed that the conference report removes an
offshore tax provision that I authored with Senator Conrad to fight
against tax evasion. This provision, which was included by voice vote
in the Senate bill and is similar to a provision I introduced as part
of a broader offshore tax bill, was scored as raising over $1 billion
over 10 years and could have helped pay for transportation programs or
reduced the deficit. I am disappointed that Congress has yet again
missed an opportunity to fight offshore tax evasion, which robs
billions of sorely needed dollars from our Treasury each year.
The legislation before us today does not include everything I had
hoped for or supported, but it is necessary, and we should pass it
without further delay.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, at the first public meeting of the
conference committee charged with producing transportation
reauthorization legislation, I laid out a series of basic principles
that I think should guide our efforts to finance transportation policy.
I had voted against the Senate bill in large part because it failed to
follow these basic principles.
Boiled down, these principles are simple. The user-pays model that is
the reason for the creation of the Highway Trust Fund should be
preserved. Revenues and spending should line up on a year-to-year
basis. We should avoid spending down the trust fund. And we should not
raise taxes, but rather should examine the spending side of the ledger.
The conference agreement is an even further departure from these
principles than the Senate bill was. The conference agreement by and
large uses sources of revenue that are problematic in and of themselves
to facilitate yet another general fund transfer that requires our
Nation to make payments for 10 years on 2 years of programs.
Despite all of the committee markups, and staff meetings, and press
conferences, and frantic press accounts, at the end of the day we
simply got the fourth in a series of general fund transfers that
stretches back to 2008.
I think the supposed consensus the conference committee product
represents can best be summed up by the Margaret Thatcher quote I cited
at the Finance Committee markup of a revenue title held on February 7.
``To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs,
principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one
believes, but to which no one objects the process of avoiding the very
issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement
on the way ahead . . .''
Well I object. The taxpayers of this country deserve better than this
legislation, and I will be voting against it.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose to the flood
insurance language that is included in the conference report to
accompany H.R. 4348, which the Senate will consider today.
The Senate had been debating a stand-alone bill to reform the
National Flood Insurance Program for several days, but we were
prevented from voting on amendments to the bill and ultimately passing
the legislation. Since agreement on a process for considering

[[Page 10803]]

flood insurance amendments was blocked, we are now forced into an up-
or-down vote on a conference report that contains provisions that will
save or create millions of jobs in the transportation sector and keep
Federal student loan rates from doubling. I will support the conference
report because of those provisions, but I oppose the flood insurance
portions.
Last September, I saw firsthand how Hurricane Irene's floods
devastated communities in my State of New Jersey. President Obama and I
toured the wreckage together. It was heartbreaking. We saw families
with their belongings on their front lawns, and much of their homes
destroyed. Unfortunately, Hurricane Irene was not the only storm to
cause major flooding in New Jersey recently. In just the last 3 years,
FEMA has declared five federal disasters that caused major flooding in
New Jersey. For many of the people who have been hit by these floods,
their homes are all they have. Many of them have owned their homes for
generations. They have raised their children and built their lives in
them. For these homeowners, it would be wrong to turn our backs on
them. But I am afraid the flood insurance language in the conference
report could do exactly that.
The flood insurance language we are considering will require major
insurance premium increases for people living in certain homes built
before FEMA's flood maps were finalized. For years, families who bought
homes built before floods maps were available paid lower rates for
their flood insurance. We did that because we recognized it would be
wrong to charge extremely high premiums on families who did not know
their flood risk when they purchased their home. But the flood
insurance reform proposals on the table would bring the hammer down on
those families. Most families affected by the change would see their
premiums double. Some may even see their premiums increase five-fold.
In New Jersey, we know of families in over 1,800 homes that would see
their premiums increase under these provisions. Residents in other
States, including Louisiana, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and
Florida, would also face these dramatic rate hikes.
To address some of these concerns, I introduced two amendments on
flood insurance this week. One would have prevented premium increases
for primary residences built prior to 1974, and the other would have
allowed the increases to occur for some homeowners, but provided for a
hardship exemption from premium increases for families that cannot
afford the higher rates. Let's remember, many of these homeowners rely
on fixed incomes, are retired, and have budgeted with the expectation
that their premiums would stay steady. We should not change the rules
in the middle of the game when homeowners have played by those rules
from day one. Many of these families simply do not have the means to
raise more money if rates increase.
I also cosponsored an amendment from Senator Pryor to eliminate a
requirement in the stand-alone bill that owners of homes behind dams
and levees obtain flood insurance. I am pleased that the language in
the conference report does not include that requirement.
Flood insurance reform will have real implications for millions of
people throughout the United States, including in my home State of New
Jersey. Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program should not be
taken lightly, and deserve to be debated and amended on the Senate
floor. I am disappointed my Republican colleagues have prevented us
from considering important flood insurance amendments this week, and I
oppose including flood insurance reform in the legislative package we
are considering today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is
agreeing to on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the transportation
conference report. This legislation will establish for the first time
Federal safety standards for metro systems.
My promises made are promises kept. After the deadly DC Metro crash
on June 22, 2009, I promised two things to the workers at Metro and my
constituents who ride Metro. One, I would deliver the $150 million in
dedicated funding for Metro's capital improvements in the annual
Transportation appropriations bill. I have done this every year. Two:
pass legislation giving the U.S. Department of Transportation authority
to establish safety standards for metro systems across the country.
Today, this legislation delivers on that promise.
We always say a grateful nation will never forget. Then we pound our
chests, hold hearings, and nothing is ever done. Well, not this time
and not this Senator. Immediately following the Metro crash, I was the
first to introduce a bill, the National Metro Safety Act of 2009, to
establish Federal standards. My bill required the U.S. Department of
Transportation to work with the National Transportation Safety Board to
implement their most wanted safety recommendations: crashworthiness
standards, emergency entry and evacuation design standards, and data
event recorders for rail cars; and hours-of-service regulations for
train operators.
Now, 3 years later, Congress has finally acted. This highway bill
includes similar language to my transit safety bill. It requires the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation to create and
implement safety standards and a safety training program. The Secretary
must also take into consideration the recommendations of the National
Transportation Safety Board when establishing the safety performance
standards for railcars.
This bill before us today also requires transit authorities to
complete comprehensive safety plans and States to have a safety
oversight program approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The Secretary must certify that these oversight programs are meeting
the new Federal safety standards each year. If a State oversight agency
is not doing its job, the Secretary can withhold Federal funding or
require that 100 percent of funding be used to fix the metro system's
problems.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation has the power to
conduct inspections, investigations, and audits of transit system
railcars, facilities, and operations. It can also investigate accidents
and provide corrective guidance. The Secretary has the authority to
issue a subpoena when investigating an accident as well as require
additional reporting and recordkeeping.
Every weekday more than 7 million people board railcars. Now they can
breathe a bit easier knowing their metro will soon have Federal safety
standards just like commercial buses, airplanes, and commuter rail
systems. I want to thank Senators Tim Johnson and Bob Menendez for
working with me on this important safety issue.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, today I wish to speak in
support of the surface transportation conference report. As chairman of
the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, which is
responsible for authorizing the public transportation portion of the
bill, I was proud to serve as one of the conferees.
After intense and exhaustive negotiations our conference committee
reached an agreement on a bill that will benefit every American. In my
home State of South Dakota alone, this bill will support 10,000 jobs
and across the country it will support nearly 3 million jobs. It will
improve rural transit service and make our Nation's highways safer and
more efficient. I am relieved that we will not let another construction
season go by without certainty of Federal funding.
From the start, the Banking Committee worked in a bipartisan fashion
on the transit reauthorization which is why we were able to pass our
portion of this bill out of committee by a unanimous voice vote. I am
happy to say that most of our committee-passed bill is still intact in
the final product we have before us today.
This conference report will increase funding for public
transportation through the end of fiscal year 2014 and deliver critical
investments in the Nation's aging transit infrastructure.

[[Page 10804]]

In addition, the bill will institute much needed reforms such as
speeding the construction of public transportation projects. The bill
also includes transit safety provisions that have been stalled for 3
years.
Finally, our bill increases formula funding for all types of transit:
additional urban and rural formula funds, new money for every State to
address state of good repair needs, and more money for tribal transit.
Our Nation's transit systems need more than $77 billion to address
backlogged repairs. This bill can't address all of those needs, but it
can ensure that our transit systems don't fall further behind.
Americans make 35 million trips on public transportation every
weekday. Many of these trips are in our cities, but in places like
South Dakota, rural transit service connects seniors with their doctors
and helps our workers travel long distances to get to jobs. Everyone
benefits from public transportation, and this is a bill the American
people deserve.
This bill wouldn't have been possible without the hard work and
determination of more people than I can name today. However, there are
a few in particular that I must single out.
We would not be at the finish line today if we didn't have Senator
Boxer as our conference chairwoman. And Senator Menendez, our
Transportation Subcommittee chairman, worked side-by-side with me on
transit since we started work on this bill last year. I thank them for
their support.
And I would be remiss if I did not mention my staff. Homer Carlisle,
my lead transit aide, did outstanding work in helping craft this bill.
In the last year, he worked countless late nights that often lasted
into the early morning. Additionally, Charles Yi and Dwight Fettig were
instrumental in getting us to this point today.
There is just so much credit to go around. We had four committees
working on this bill and without such dedicated hard-working staffs we
could not have reached this agreement.
I am also pleased this conference report will provide stability to
the Flood Insurance Program by reauthorizing it for 5 years. The
National Flood Insurance Program protects millions of homeowners and is
critically important to our Nation's housing market.
As the people of South Dakota and others across the country have
experienced firsthand, flooding is responsible for more damage and
economic loss than any other type of natural disaster. It affects
people across the Nation, in every State, which is why we are going to
do the right thing today and pass this bipartisan legislation to
provide stability and much needed reforms for the program.
Since 2008, when our last long-term reauthorization expired, we have
passed 18 short-term extensions of this program. During this time, the
program has lapsed 5 times, for as long as 33 days, with detrimental
effects on homeowners and the insurance and housing markets.
By passing this bill, we will end the uncertainty of month-to-month
extensions for the NFIP and the families and businesses that rely on
its $1.2 trillion of coverage.
This bill is not perfect, and no one has gotten everything that they
wanted. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach a bipartisan agreement
on addressing the outstanding debt of the program that has accumulated
since Hurricane Katrina. But we have found enough common ground to move
critically important reforms forward. As part of that effort, I want to
thank my colleagues on the Banking Committee and in the House for their
cooperation and input.
The flood insurance bill didn't just come together in one night. It
came together in countless late nights worked by staff over the last
year. So I want to take this opportunity to thank my committee staff--
Beth Cooper, Brett Hewitt, Chris Ledoux, Glen Sears, Laura Swanson, and
Charles Yi for their work on this legislation. Additionally, I want to
thank Alison Wright MacDonald and James Ollen-Smith from the Office of
Legislative Counsel.
Lastly, I am pleased that the conference report includes a provision
to avert a catastrophic interest rate hike on student loans. If
Congress had failed to act, over 7 million students, including an
estimated 31,000 undergraduates in South Dakota, would have seen their
interest rates double.
Earlier this month, I talked with students at Southeast Technical
Institute in Sioux Falls. They told me a rate hike would make it harder
for them to complete their schooling and would likely deter countless
students from pursuing their higher education goals.
At a time when too many students are graduating with enormous debt
loads, we should not make it more difficult for students to finance
their education and manage their debt. I am glad we have reached an
agreement that prevents the rate hike from taking effect. This is an
important victory for students across South Dakota and throughout our
country.
In passing this conference report we will send a clear message that
it is still possible to work across the aisle and pass commonsense
bipartisan legislation in the interest of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on adoption of the conference report.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Ms. SNOWE (when her name was called). Present.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 19, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

YEAS--74

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

NAYS--19

Ayotte
Barrasso
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rubio
Toomey

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Snowe

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Bennet
Coburn
Inouye
Kirk
Udall (CO)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this conference report, the conference report is
agreed to.

The title was amended so as to read: ``An Act to authorize
funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and
transit programs, and for other purposes.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that
motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Vote Explanation

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am disappointed in the final
version of

[[Page 10805]]

this bill. If I had been present, I would have voted against it for a
number of reasons, including the fact that it violates the Budget
Control Act, it does not use the money produced from the pension
reforms to shore up the financial strength of pension systems, and it
fails to prevent the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous
material.

Vote Explanation

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I want the record to reflect that I
would have voted in favor of H.R. 4348, but I went home to Colorado to
be with my constituents, many of whom have lost their homes and are
facing severe challenges as several fires continue to rage across the
State.
By finally reauthorizing our transportation programs for over 2
years, we will provide some measure of certainty for States,
municipalities, and businesses across the country urgently in need of
more than just a 2-month extension. The bill includes resources,
modeled on legislation that I introduced with Senator Mark Warner, for
transit-oriented development competitive grants to help local
communities work with private investors to promote long-term transit
planning, and the legislation also contains a common-sense modification
to the rural transit formula for which I advocated. These provisions
will benefit transit agencies across my State as they provide quality
service to Coloradans. The bill also maintains continued funding for
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program and Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination (SRS) Act. These programs are
lifelines for financially strapped rural counties and local businesses.
Of course this is not a perfect bill. I am disappointed that the
conference committee eliminated the Senate provision funding the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, a program that has been vital to
preserving Colorado's western heritage. And I would have liked to see a
longer reauthorization, with structural reforms to the highway trust
fund to ensure we can continue to finance improvements to our public
infrastructure and leave more--not less--for the next generation. That
said, I commend my colleagues for all their hard work getting this bill
across the line.
I am also pleased that this legislation will prevent loan rates from
doubling and averts an increase that would have put the dream of a
college degree further out of reach for thousands of Colorado students,
and increased an already crushing debt burden on the middle
class.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it has been a very long and winding road
to get to this place. I am overwhelmed with the amazing vote we just
had--the margin of success, the fact that this is the product that is
not only bipartisan but bicameral. I understand that the House vote was
equally lopsided in favor of passage. I think this sends a tremendous
signal to the people of America, and that is that we can work together.
Do not give up hope. When it comes to the well-being of our people, we
must get together.
I know the President must be smiling broadly because he has stated
over and over how important it has been for us to pass a highway bill
and to pass a reduction in student loan interest rate bill in order to
help our people.
I have said many times that what kept me going and so many others--
and I am going to name the various chairmen whom I worked with here and
over on the House side and staff--what really kept us all going is the
fact that we know how hard the construction sector has been hit in this
recession. The housing crisis started this recession. It has not gotten
better. It is slowly coming around, but new construction is going to
take a while before all of the inventories are back in their
appropriate place. What is going to help us? We could fill 10 Super
Bowl stadiums with unemployed construction workers. We are looking at
well over 1 million construction workers who are unemployed. Well, this
was the answer.
The transportation sector is hurting. The construction sector is
hurting. And today we have sent a message, a powerful message that for
2 years and 3 months, we have funded a good bill that is going to
employ up to 3 million workers and help thousands of businesses, and it
is all in the private sector, the things that need to be done.
We know we have 70,000 bridges that are deficient. We know we have 50
percent of our roads that are deficient. We know we have transit
systems that need capital improvements. We know we have bike paths that
need fixing and pedestrian walkways that need fixing. All of that has
been resolved.
Are there things in this package that I do not like? Absolutely. Are
there things in this package my Republican counterparts do not like?
Absolutely. We had to give. We had to take. We struggled.
I am going to read into the Record the names of these staffers. This
is an unbelievable list. I am going to do it quickly. I am going to say
to these staffers from the various committees that they knew how
important their work was.
If we didn't succeed, there would be no more money in the highway
trust fund, and all of the repairs on our roads would stop and the
repairs on our bridges because everybody out there, since President
Dwight Eisenhower was President, depends on the Federal share.
We cannot have a strong economy without a strong infrastructure. Here
are the names. I am not reading Democrats and then Republicans; I am
reading the bipartisan list of staffers: Bettina Poirier, Ruth VanMark,
David Napoliello, James O'Keeffe, Andrew Dohrmann, Murphie Barrett,
Tyler Rushforth, Kyle Miller, Jason Albritton, Grant Cope, Mike Burke,
Tom Lynch, Mark Hybner, Charles Brittingham, Alex Renjel, and Dimitri
Karakitsos.
I also thank the leadership staff. When things were looking glum,
there they were. They are David Krone, Bill Dauster, and Bob Herbert.
Here are the staff directors of the key committees who worked on
this--remember, this was a four-committee process, including EPW,
Banking, Commerce, and Finance. I thank Russ Sullivan, Dwight Fettig,
Ellen Doneski and their extraordinary staff. They include Ryan Abrahams
with the Finance Committee; Ian Jefferies, David Bonelli, Anna Laitin,
and James Reid with the Commerce Committee; and Homer Carlisle with the
Banking Committee.
I also want to thank the Senate legislative counsel, Rachelle
Celebrezze and Gary Endicott, whom I drove crazy yesterday by telling
them to please produce the paper.
This staff loved their work so much that I thought they would never
end it. I had to beg them: Please finish because there will always be
something more you can do. You can always find something better or put
a comma in a different place. They wanted to make it as perfect as they
could. There was a time when we just had to say, OK, we are done. They
got it done. I am very moved of their dedication.
I know my staff at EPW--for 3 days, the staff members, whose names I
read--if they got 4 or 5 hours of sleep, they got a lot. They are
running on empty right now. I tell them that their names will forever
be in this record, and people they don't know will flourish because of
their work when we start hiring people to do this infrastructure work.
I thank my dear colleagues, Jay Rockefeller, Max Baucus, and Tim
Johnson. No way could I have done it without them. I also pay tribute
to Mary Landrieu, who is on the Senate floor today. Senator Landrieu
and her State have gone through so many traumas--so many--with
hurricanes and all of the attendant problems, and the BP oilspill,
which did so much terrible damage to her State and the other Gulf
States--environmental damage, commercial damage, broken hearts, broken
spirits.
Let me tell you, you never break Mary Landrieu's spirit. She teamed
up with Senator Vitter, and they wrote the RESTORE Act. Then she went
to all of the other colleagues of the gulf cost and said: You have to
help me. They put together a great package. What it means--without
going into detail; she will do that--is that when the

[[Page 10806]]

court decision comes down and the funds come to the Federal Government
for all the violations of law that took place with the BP spill, 80
percent of the funds will be directed to the very people who got hurt.
Senator Landrieu, it is an honor and a privilege to work with you.
You have been a model of a Senator who never, ever stops fighting. I am
so grateful I was able to step to the plate and help you.
I will add more names of colleagues, but I don't have time at this
point. Others want to speak. This is a great moment. The bill we passed
is a good bill. It is going to speed up project delivery without
waiving any environmental laws that we keep the protections in and give
a little more flexibility to the States on the alternative
transportation routes. But, believe me, we also add a new piece that
gives more power to the local people to decide on these projects. I am
so pleased.
I will add more statements to the Record later today. We have done
this, and we are going to mark this moment.
After we get our breath back and get our energy back, we are going to
look at a long-term solution to the problem of the highway trust fund.
We know the gas tax receipts are going down, and we have to solve the
problem. If it wasn't for Senator Baucus and his staff, we never would
be at this point because we didn't have the funding. They have to come
up with it. I thank them and the Republicans on the committee.
With that, I yield the floor, thanking one and all for this
tremendous vote today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, before the Senator from California
leaves the floor, for a much needed rest and relaxation and celebration
with her extraordinary staff, let me be one of the first to thank her,
to join my colleagues who have thanked her for her leadership.
This Transportation bill would not be a reality for the Nation--not
for California, Texas, New York, or Louisiana,--if it weren't for the
leadership of the chairperson of this committee. Senator Rockefeller
was there to push, Senator Baucus was there to push, Senator Johnson
was there to push, but the leader of this victory was Senator Barbara
Boxer.
Her colleague, Senator Inhofe, stood bravely against winds of
opposition, ideology, without common sense--ideology without regard to
the needs of the Nation. Senator Inhofe, a Republican, stood against
those winds and with the Senator from California to produce a jobs bill
for the Nation.
I hope people appreciate the extraordinary accomplishment this is in
the context of the political quagmire we find ourselves in just a few
months before a very significant national election, with both sides
hugging the opposite wall. For these two to come forward today and meet
in the middle of the Chamber and produce a bill with this kind of vote,
people did not think it was possible up until just a few weeks ago.
There was still the majority saying it will never happen.
But I know something about Barbara Boxer, as well. She came here as a
fighter. Her name ``Boxer'' says it all. It is the way she fought her
way to the Senate, and she continues to fight not just for the people
of California but the people of the Nation.
I knew 2 years ago--now a little over 2 years ago--when the Deepwater
Horizon platform blew up in the gulf, one of the first people I could
go to, to ask for help, for support, for ideas and advice about what to
do would be Senator Boxer. She is a strong environmentalist. She has a
heart for our oceans, and she understood the challenge of Louisiana's
eroding coastline--more so than many Members in this body.
I will be forever grateful for the fact that she and her staff sat
with me and other colleagues and crafted the RESTORE Act, which is a
historic piece of legislation. It has no precedent in Congress. It
will, for the first time, set aside such a significant amount of money
from a penalty that has yet to be determined by a polluter that has
been determined--BP--that under the law, after the Valdez spill, now
has to pay to the Federal Government $1,000 for every barrel of oil
that was spilled or gushed out of the explosion for months on end. They
have to pay $1,000 for every barrel of oil that was spilled. The
estimates are that, unfortunately for our coast, our people, our
fishermen, shrimpers, charter boat captains, and the pelicans, fish,
shrimp, and oystermen, for us it was 5 million barrels of oil spilled
between August and July, until the well was capped. It is the largest
pollution event in the history of the Nation. It will be the largest
fine.
I have every confidence that the people of the gulf coast and the
Nation will find justice in the courts. I hope this fine is as high as
it can be, based on the damage that has been done from Texas to Florida
and off the coast of Louisiana. When I brought this to Senator Boxer,
she understood that we had to find a way for justice in the gulf. I
crafted the RESTORE Act with my colleague Dick Shelby. For months we
negotiated about how to craft it, what to say, how to specifically
direct the funding, and had the benefit of having the support of the
White House, the support of every commission and every individual
appointed by the President supportive of this idea.
So I first thank the VP's Presidential commission that was one of the
first to step up and support this concept of an 80-percent set-aside
and redirect to the gulf.
I particularly thank Secretary Ray Mabus, whom we will remember led
the President's first commission, former Governor of Mississippi, who
knows the gulf coast well and understands Louisiana's coast as a
neighbor for so long. He stepped up and said: Yes, this is the right
thing to do. We had hundreds--and, really, thousands--of individuals
and hundreds of organizations that started to come forward.
Let me name a few: the Environmental Defense Fund was absolutely
instrumental, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation,
Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, Oxfam America, and GNO, Inc.--
Greater New Orleans, Inc. They were some of the first organizations to
step up.
The Greater Houston Partnership was invaluable in the early days to
build support among the business community, as were the Mobile Chamber
of Commerce, Ducks Unlimited, America's WETLAND Foundation, Restore or
Retreat--a vibrant local and dynamic organization in south Louisiana--
Chamber of Southwest Louisiana, Baton Rouge Area Foundation, and Women
of the Storm--representing thousands of women, not just throughout the
gulf coast, but as well from your State and every State. Women stepped
up who said this kind of accident has to stop. This kind of explosion
should never happen again.
Most important, they said the people who were hurt the most, the area
damaged the worst should be compensated by this fine. This money should
not come to the general fund of the United States to be spent
everywhere else in the Nation for a variety of unrelated purposes. The
RESTORE Act says: No, the right way for this money to be allocated is
to the area where the accident occurred, where the injury occurred, and
that is exactly what RESTORE does--no more and no less.
There is one other person who deserves particular thanks and a
shoutout, and that is the Senator from Rhode Island Sheldon Whitehouse.
When Senator Shelby and I finished crafting this bill, which was
introduced by a few colleagues--a similar bill--on the House side,
Representative Steve Scalise, Cedric Richmond, and Representative
Bonner from Alabama--we were having a great deal of difficulty moving a
bill through a committee that only had two gulf coast Members and
Senator Boxer.
The other Members were sympathetic but not that enthusiastic, and I
can most certainly understand why. As you know, this is going to be a
tremendous amount of money. It is going to direct these funds to only
five States. They were sympathetic, but what was in it for everyone
else? Sheldon Whitehouse and I put our heads together and came up--it
was his idea--with the bill itself and thought maybe we could, as a
part of RESTORE--an integral part

[[Page 10807]]

of RESTORE--say perhaps the oceans deserved justice as well because
water knows no boundaries. What happened in the gulf could have impacts
in the Atlantic, up the Atlantic, and out to the Pacific. Who knows.
And that is the problem. We don't have enough scientific research going
on in this Nation about our oceans, which is 70 percent of our planet.
In Louisiana, we derive great pleasure, joy, and income from our
oceans, and from our oil and gas exploration, which is usually safe, on
any normal day. This was not a normal day in the gulf, not a normal
operation when the Horizon rig blew up. We get our fish, our oysters,
our seafood industry, our restaurant industry, our hotels, and our
ecotourism--and I could go on and on--from the ocean. We make our
living from the ocean. Senator Whitehouse and I thought--and I think
most reasonable people agreed--the oceans deserve something out of
this. So at no cost to the five States, we put in a provision that a
small portion--a half percent of the interest earnings that would be
generated--not the fund itself, not taking money away from the gulf
coast, as some have claimed, but appropriately saying interest
earnings--would create a trust fund for the oceans so that every State
could use it for research along their coast.
But that was a bridge too far for the Republican leaders in the House
who think we can learn nothing, who want no partnerships, no research
whatsoever, I guess, to go on in the oceans. So as that amendment
became a part of the committee process over here, we had that amendment
connected to RESTORE at the committee level. It was part of RESTORE. It
was moved to the floor and it enabled us to build a broader coalition,
which is the way legislation is built. It is not one person's idea. It
is not one person's work. The best of the bills and legislation we pass
are about teams, about generosity and sharing and understanding, a
little give here, a little take there.
It is a shame there are some people on the other side of this Capitol
who don't seem to know that is the basic operation of a democracy. I am
not sure what books they read in school, but they weren't the ones we
read at Ursuline Academy, taught by the Ursuline nuns. But Sheldon
Whitehouse read those same books, and we put this bill together. I
couldn't have been happier. Not only could I go home and say we did
this great thing for the Gulf of Mexico and that everyone came together
to help us in our time of need, but I could also look at our great
friends from other parts of the country and say there is a portion in
here for the oceans.
That is how the bill came to the floor. One of my proudest days, in
my 16 years here in the Senate, was when this Senate voted, under the
leadership of Senator Boxer and myself and Senator Shelby, for this
bill--the RESTORE Act--with 76 votes. I don't think the transportation
bill itself got 76 votes, to indicate how difficult it is to get 76
votes. Other than just for immaterial items, it is hard to get 76 votes
for apple pie and Mother's Day greetings. But we got 76 votes, and I
was so proud. Not only was it the right thing to do--a great help to
the region I help to represent--but also very fair, with the inclusion
also of the land and water, which was not part of RESTORE but an
amendment that was put on to help this effort with other parts of the
country. So the good news is we passed that bill and paid for it in
full over here with a pay-for that was also agreed to by 76 Senators.
But when the bill went over to the House, one of the first and most
serious detrimental things that happened was the oceans endowment trust
fund was stripped out. I want those who stripped it out to know this:
We will be back. We are going to lead a coalition of Democrats and
Republicans in the Senate who are going to send a strong message to
House Republicans that the oceans do deserve our time, our attention,
our love and support and our money. We can't do this on a wish and a
prayer. We have wildlife and fish and migratory birds that depend on
healthy oceans. The people of our country and the world depend on that.
This will not be the last time they see the national oceans
endowment. I will be proud to have my name right next to Sheldon
Whitehouse's and we will go into battle again.
But around here, you don't win everything every day, and so they cut
it out. But we will put it back and it will be bigger and stronger than
it was when they took it out.
The other thing the House Republicans did, which I have no
understanding of why, to pay for this RESTORE Act, the student loans,
the transportation bill, and the flood insurance bill, is they took
$700 million away from Louisiana's Medicaid budget. I will have more to
say about the details of that later, because I want to stay focused on
RESTORE, but I want to put in the record what our Commissioner of
Administration said, who, of course, works for Republican Governor
Bobby Jindal, and Republican Secretary of Health and Hospitals Bruce
Greenstein:

. . . the loss of more than $400 million--

And that was in fiscal year 2013, and it was another $250 million, so
it was $650 in 2014.

--in so-called FMAP money, already built into the state's
Fiscal 2013 budget passed by the Legislature and signed into
law by Gov. Bobby Jindal, would altogether lead to a loss in
Medicaid dollars that would require $1.1 billion in cuts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a copy of this quote from Paul Rainwater and Bruce Greenstein.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Louisiana Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater and
Secretary of Health and Hospitals Bruce Greenstein said the
loss of more than $400 million in so-called FMAP money,
already built into the state's Fiscal 2013 budget passed by
the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal,
would altogether lead to a loss in Medicaid dollars that
would require $1.1 billion in cuts.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The House Republicans who came up with this idea
insisted on this offset when there were others that could have been
offered that were much more fair, much less impactful, and much less
hurtful. There were some Republican Members who absolutely insisted
this offset be included, and so the Republican Governor Bobby Jindal,
with a Republican legislature and a Republican delegation in the House,
will have to find a way forward. I am not sure what that way is going
to be, but when the bill left the Senate that was not even discussed
under any circumstance whatsoever.
But even this terrible action taken on the House side cannot diminish
the extraordinary victory of the RESTORE Act. Bills such as this, that
basically distribute anywhere from $5 billion to $20 billion for
coastal restoration efforts, take years, even decades to pass. We did
this in 2 years, working together, staying focused, and building a
support structure nationwide from the business community to the
environmental community. The Chamber of Commerce stepped up, the
American Petroleum Institute did their part, and many of the oil and
gas companies stepped up as well. With the coalition of
environmentalists, business organizations, wildlife enthusiasts, we
were able to get this significant bill passed. It is going to be a
tremendous downpayment for the challenge in the gulf coast.
Let me, for the record, say again that there were 86,985 square miles
of water closed to fishing, approximately 36 percent of Federal waters
in the gulf that were closed to fishing for months, causing a loss to
the industry of $2.5 billion. There were 600 miles of the gulf
coastline that were oiled. Over half of those miles were in Louisiana,
and some oil is still lingering. In fact, scientists who have been
studying the baseline said the erosion of the marsh that was oiled was
eroding at twice the speed as normal, and that normal erosion is pretty
breathtaking in terms of its rate.
We have lost basically the size of the State of Rhode Island in the
last 50 years. If our delegation is not successful in continuing to
have victories such as this, it is conceivable, with the climate change
that is happening, the rising of the tides and the frequency of these
great storms, that one day, if we

[[Page 10808]]

are not successful in preserving these wetlands--and these are wetlands
of all of America, that drain 40 percent of our Nation, that supply 40
percent of the fisheries to everybody, and 80 percent of the oil and
gas to everyone--that New Orleans will be existing as a city with a 30-
foot concrete levee around it and everything else washed away--our
culture, our hope, our way of life.
I have said this a thousand times: We are not sunbathing here in
south Louisiana. We are not vacationing in south Louisiana. We have
fun, we have weekends where we fish and we hunt, but we are not
vacationing for weeks and weeks in south Louisiana, lying on the beach
and getting a tan. There are no beaches to lie on. We only have two.
Grand Isle is 7 miles long, and Holly Beach, which got washed away in
Rita and still has not been rebuilt.
The Corps of Engineers continues to tell me there is nothing they can
do for the last inhabited island off the coast of Louisiana. Well,
there is a lot they can do, and we will see to that in another bill.
But we want these wetlands preserved for our children, for our
grandchildren, and for the economic vitality of the Nation. This is the
mouth of the greatest river system in North America and we intend to
save what we can. We will never get everything back. We have lost 1,900
square miles since 1930. We lose 25 square miles of wetlands each year,
and we lose a football field every 30 minutes.
Two million people live in coastal Louisiana, about \1/2\ million in
Mississippi, about 1 million in Alabama, and probably about 4 million
in Texas. We cannot get up and move. There is no place to go. We don't
want to live in Arkansas and Missouri. We want to live on the gulf
coast, and we have been there since before this Nation was a nation,
and we are not leaving. We are tired of retreating. We know this can be
done. We have been to The Netherlands and places around the world where
wetlands have been saved--levees built that don't break. It is cost
effective in the long run. In the short run it costs investment. In the
long run, it creates wealth for everyone.
Three trillion dollars is contributed to the national economy by the
gulf coast every year, 17 percent of the national GDP comes from the
gulf coast every year, 50 percent of all the oil and gas that fuels
this Nation comes from the gulf coast, and 80 percent comes from
offshore. Every year, despite how much we do, we get zero back from
offshore oil and gas drilling off our shore. The interior States have
received 50 percent since 1923, but not Texas, not Louisiana, not
Mississippi, and not Alabama. We drill, drill, drill, and send oil
everywhere, keeping lights on everywhere. The pipelines just run
through our State. We are happy to have the industry, but we would like
to share the revenues with the Federal Government. We send to the
Federal Government about $6 billion a year, and have for decades. So
when people say, don't you ever get embarrassed by asking for so much
money? No. I could not possibly ask for as much money from Washington
as we have already sent here. So I am going to continue to ask for
funding for our State because we send off of our coast, and we are
happy to do it, but we believe in fair partnerships and mutual respect.
And until we get that, I am not going to stop advocating for our State.
So RESTORE is a first step. It is the right step.
It is the fair step and justice for the goals for right now. This
isn't taxpayer money. No taxpayers are paying this. BP is going to pay
this. But we are going to come back next year and talk about the
sharing of the tax revenues that the oil companies--not individuals but
the oil companies--pay to the Federal Government every year for every
barrel of oil, every cubic foot of gas they take out of the gulf. That
sharing should be done not just here in America, it should be done off
the coast of Africa, off the coast of South Africa, off the coast of
Brazil, off the coast of Ghana, so the people who live along the coast
can be respected, since that is where the drilling and the exploration
is taking place.
Just as people in North Dakota and Utah and Wyoming share their
revenues with the Federal Government, we intend to have a more robust
revenue-sharing effort in the future. But until the day that happens--
and I am confident, as sure as I am standing here, it will--this
RESTORE money will go as a significant downpayment to help jump-start
coastal efforts. We are not doing it like every man or woman for
himself. It is not a grab bag for Governors. Senator Shelby and I
carefully crafted this so the money will be spent wisely, well, and
efficiently in coordination with the Federal and State governments.
Is it going to be perfect? No. I am sure we are going to have some
stumbling blocks. But this is unprecedented in its nature. This kind of
public works effort has never been undertaken in this great way. So the
scientists hopefully will lead us, the engineers and designers will
design what we need, and we can continue giving our best effort in
hopes of saving a great place on this Earth; that is, the great marshes
of the gulf coast and the great delta that this mighty Mississippi
River built thousands and thousands of years ago and leave it better to
our grandchildren than most certainly we found it.
It has been a wonderful part of my life's work. It has been a worthy
project to work on. There are others who have most certainly joined me
in this leadership. But I am very proud of the work this Senate did and
very disappointed in some things the House did on it. But as Senator
Boxer said, it is legislation and we just can't have a perfect bill. It
was better to get this than to leave it on the cutting-room floor, even
though they did leave important pieces of it there.
I wish to thank Senator Boxer's staff, in particular, Senator
Inhofe's staff for being so courteous, and Senator Boxer's staff for
being very tenacious--to Tina and Jason particularly--to help us
negotiate one of the great environmental pieces of legislation in
decades.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the
transportation reauthorization bill that passed today. Having served on
past transportation bill conference committees, I know the long hours
and intense negotiations that were required to prepare this bill for
consideration today, and I want to extend my congratulations,
appreciation, and respect to Senators Boxer and Inhofe. I know from
past experience that they are both principled, tough negotiators, and I
am sure that is why the transportation bill returned from conference
with so many key provisions intact.
In March, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner to pass a
transportation bill that contained significant achievements for our
country, and would have greatly benefited my State of Connecticut. The
bill would have reduced red tape for transportation projects while
still protecting our environment and resources. It included a provision
I worked on with my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, which
would have required cities and States to take air quality goals into
account when drafting transportation plans. It also would have provided
mass transit benefits the same tax beneficial treatment as parking
benefits, and would have funded Connecticut's transportation programs
at a level that met our basic needs for the next few years.
The bill that came back from conference retained many of these
provisions, but I regret to see that it weakened others and discarded
some of the rest. As I stated earlier, I am no stranger to working on a
conference committee, and I fully realize that the best legislation is
produced through a give and take on various issues. Clearly, that was
the case here. Despite my disappointment on some of these compromises,
I believe that it was essential that we acted to ensure that our
national transportation programs did not lapse on July 1, and that is
why I supported the transportation bill conference report. I would like
to take a few minutes to briefly explain some of my concerns, and why I
ultimately voted the way I did.
My concerns can generally be broken down into three categories:
environmental, Connecticut-specific programs,

[[Page 10809]]

and the long-term viability of the transportation system. First, let me
touch upon the environment. We have come a long way since the days when
Federal and State transportation departments labored under the mistaken
belief that building our roads and highways bigger was better, no
matter the consequences. We have long since realized that land deserves
to be preserved, the purity of our water protected, and our air quality
improved. I worry that the bill would be a step backwards because it
would waive environmental reviews of many transportation projects,
including some in environmentally endangered areas of our country. By
providing a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental
Policy Act for any projects within an existing operational right-of-
way, I can foresee wetlands being filled, sensitive habitat threatened,
and resources spoiled, all without any environmental review. There is a
right way and a wrong way to expedite projects, and I believe this is
the wrong way. I understand this was a necessary concession in order to
get a conference report agreed to, but I hope it will be addressed in
the future.
The second concern I have is the impact of the bill on my State,
Connecticut. The Federal highway program is just that: a Federal
program that is intended to address the needs of the national
transportation system. Nonetheless, our country's different regions
have particular needs. Connecticut, and the Northeast in general, have
urgent needs when it comes to transportation. My State has one of our
Nation's oldest transportation systems, because Connecticut has been
around a long time, one of the Nation's highest ratios of traffic
volume to miles of road, and is a frequent pass-through State for
commuters throughout the Northeast. Federal transportation funding
should go to areas with the greatest need, just as happens with other
government programs such as farm subsidies and disaster relief.
Connecticut residents do not protest these agricultural support
programs despite our paying a disproportionate share of taxes for them,
but we deserve to receive adequate funds to address our unique
transportation needs. Under this bill, Connecticut will receive
inadequate funding. I would urge my colleagues to reconsider this
problem, as well as the 95 percent minimum rate of return for all
States, during deliberations on the next transportation bill just as we
did during consideration of the 2005 transportation bill.
Finally, I want to take a moment to address a growing concern across
the country: the future of our Highway Trust Fund. Since the
establishment of the Federal highway system, we have utilized a user-
fee system to fund our transportation programs. That system served us
well for years, and relied on a gas tax to fill the Highway Trust Fund,
which in turn distributed funds to our States. As is so often the case,
with the good comes the bad: as we make cars that are more fuel
efficient, thereby cleaning up our air and reducing emissions, we also
purchase less gas per mile driven, and the amount of money flowing into
the Trust Fund shrinks as a result. The gas tax has stayed static at
18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. Because it is not adjusted for
inflation, the federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in
purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993. For 4 years now, the Trust
Fund has been running a deficit and we have had to bail it out with
transfers from the Treasury. This is not the way the system was meant
to work, and it is not a way it can long survive.
The blame lies at all of our feet. Neither party has had the courage
to face the reality that we are running out of money for our roads and
bridges. Instead of dealing with the problem, we have continued to bail
out the trust fund, hoping that some future Congress will take
necessary steps to fix this problem. I applaud my colleague from
Wyoming, Senator Enzi, who took a stand and proposed adjusting the gas
tax for inflation, basically a half-cent a gallon increase. This could
have gone a long way to reducing the amount of money we need to use to
bailout the trust fund. Unfortunately, we never had a chance to discuss
the matter. I understand that colleagues do not want to talk about
raising taxes. But in the end we have no choice but to talk about
raising taxes if we want our transportation infrastructure to keep pace
with our people's needs.
We need leadership from Congress, and the President, to face the
facts: our transportation system is both broke and broken. The system
does not have funds for some basic repairs, let alone to make the new
investments for infrastructure we urgently need. In 2002, the United
States was ranked fifth, in terms of infrastructure quality, worldwide.
Today, we have dropped to twenty-fourth. We have fallen 19 places down
in less than a decade.
Unfortunately, the large-scale investments we need will not be
possible until we can fix the funding issue. The Simpson-Bowles
Commission recommended a 5-cent per year increase to the gas tax for 3
years. Others have recommended shifting to a system that charges users
for vehicle-miles-travelled. Such a VMT would ensure that those driving
fuel efficient, electric, or alternative fuel vehicles pay for the
wear-and-tear to the roads they cause. Although I will not be a member
of the Senate when the next transportation bill is debated, I would
urge my colleagues to begin to address this issue before the trust fund
goes broke once again. Washington must have the courage to keep all
options on the table, and then do what works to fix this problem.
In closing, I wish to again express my gratitude to Senators Boxer
and Inhofe. This is a true jobs bill, and it will guarantee that
millions of construction workers are still employed come Sunday, that
student loan interest rates do not double this school year, and that
our truly important flood insurance program will be reauthorized.
I thank Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, the staff of the EPW
committee, as well as the staffers at the Departments of Transportation
both in Washington and Connecticut, for their efforts in bringing this
bill to fruition.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I forgot to thank my own staff, which
would be very important to do. Elizabeth Weiner, Elizabeth Craddock,
Jane Campbell, my chief of staff, and my entire staff for their
tremendous work--we are all going to get a good rest in the week to
come--and other staff, Tanner Johnson in particular, no longer with my
staff but who put the original bill together.
I yield the floor, and 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.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________