backlog, how does it better meet the demands of our first responders? and in considering this, in awarding the funds, participants-to go through curriculum approval as well as undergo significant cost and time investments which to stand up the new program. won't this create a lag in the available training opportunities that we have in place at this time? ..

it is based upon what we see as a nation we need, and that we have the ability to measure what each one of these institution is doing compared to other wants? so this was our attempt to come back and say we recognize congresses authority to specifically say these are things we want to do. we came back and said, there's been a lot of growth here. how do we sustain it, make it more competitive and put more emphasis on, is this providing what we have identified across the enterprise as the training we need for the various disciplines? >> i get your argument. >> that's the thing. that's what i want to respond in writing. >> as you make that evaluation you have to, more important, the question would have to be is somebody making the evaluations of how these are meeting their criteria many. if i understand, the 60 million

is to allow others to create new centers of excellence, if you want to call it that way, and how do you call out the bad ones when you quit the good ones and how do you know the new guys that are seeking these grants will do better than the people that are failing in the mission, if they are failing? i certainly have one of the centers in my state and i will put up against anything as far as, we were doing it before fema came there and we are doing it since. i feel very confident that the center we have at texas a&m university is meeting that criteria, and then some. i would like that to be looked at. until we if i would feel place. >> i think the aggies will do well. one thing, they've been a leader in our storm shelter program, engine design of that. so i think that there's those programs that are such prestige and establish programs, this is not going to be as dramatic as they thing. but we do need to look at, are we targeting the right types of training we need based upon what the skill sets are?

i'll give you an example. there's a lot of folks my age in my profession that are going to be leaving these professions and. do have the capability to train all the new folks coming up? think about all the training we done in the last 10 years, and we are going to have to make sure we have the institutions, the higher level and also the discipline. this is not an attempt to take those facilities and institutions that have done a great job that it's kind of comeback and go are we identifying what the priorities are, are we investing in the training and the types of training? are we identify needs for training? look at cybersecurity. we know there may be areas we need to develop. we also have to make sure we have been investing in is giving us that return and it's looking at one of those needs as the next generations, up and with a cover -- we're doing pretty good industry but we still have lots of needs in these areas. are we getting that funding in the right institutions engaged? >> i agree with the concept.

i thank you, mr. chairman, i think my time is up. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> could you turn the microphone up, please? >> as i mentioned in november, fema said at the national preparedness system description to the president as required by presidential policy directive eight. and ended you describe the various components and how quote, there is components quote and how they interact to sustain and deliver passionate as the report describes how these components help us understand risk, and form current and future budget your plan, decisions and inform resource allocation plans and understand

the progress of nation. some of these components already exist as i understand and so will have to be developed. what are some of the existing programs that will be incorporated in the national preparedness system, and whitecaps do you see out there? >> the most significant one which was the requirement congress had to develop a recovery framework for catastrophic disasters. as part of that we are prepared and we are rolling out the national, national recovery framework, which with the evolution of the presidential directive to develop these frameworks, we were able to take that and actually move in and roll it out as one of the first remarks of that. we also had the framework which is undergoing review and updating. then we have preparedness mitigation prevention frameworks to build as part of that. so we have been working very hard to do both are in the agency but also, we just place on a website several of these documents for review, for our partners to interact and provide

his comments that we can educate. so we are on target to meet those goals that the president has laid out for us, including the national preparedness report which is in concurrence, which is another product that will be coming forward. so these are moving and they are, again, building upon the national response framework, the national disaster recovery framework. and then building three additional frameworks to support the overall national preparedness plan. >> how do you see this system in forming your budget decisions and resource allocations? >> well, it probably is best to give an example because when we talk about generalities you are just saying we will do this, this and this. let's take search and rescue. urban search and rescue teams we know that in the types of events we face with building collapses, bomb blast, partners and other things, that response is key. how long does it take to get a team there?

just having a team responding doesn't change an outcome. so we start what is the outcome we're trying to change. injured people do not have time, so we start with this idea that, and across the nation, looking at where committees are, concentrations of population. we look at the urban areas. we look at travel times. we have enough teams, where are the at question would make it a priority in funding for more teams, sustaining teams, or training of those teams? until you know how me teens and what area recovery and what your response times are, you don't know if you have enough, how do you maintain that. what once were able to, our threat has reductions, they should be response time across the country. this is how many teams will be required in these events and this is current capabilities. we may say, you know what? we are pretty good in search and rescue teams. may be well to put more emphasis over your or on the port side. but intel you know what that number is and you say this is what we need as a nation respond to these types of events, you're

not really able to say where you're at. so just one example how these frameworks as this are going to the process will define, not just we are going to respond, but for how long it takes to get something there. how much capacity is necessary. and this is again why it's difficult to do is buy jurisdiction by jurisdiction because what if you get the outlier? we didn't have a plan. and so we are looking at very large net size of events and going to is very basic things that have to be done in the first 72 hours to the first weeks the first month to be successful. and then going back and going how much of that have rebuilt, how much more do we need to build? again we are not necessarily looking at this is going to require that we will spend a way out of this. a lot of times is looking at the private sector, looking of volunteers, looking at what the military provides. the fact that congress gave the authority to call up the reserves now with dual status command is to support uniform

coordinated efforts is, what are we planning against, what is our target, and whether she would be interesting to get to that. >> that's a very comprehensive and. i thank you for the. also on ppd eight, just want to focus for second on that all the nation approach to disaster preparedness. what's specifically, you know, what will have to change to fully develop integration between federal government and state and local government? >> stop looking at steve local and federal and start looking at once and. you know, the public could really care less. who we are as long as somebody shows up. and i think we sometimes focus on much of what the federal government is going to do we have to step all over our local and state partners. i have to point this out. all of these disasters in the last year and a half, the initial response is not even the first responders. it was neighbor helping

neighbor, and in the local responders, and mutual aid and the governors and national guard. we were able to almost exclusively focused on recovery because we don't so much capacity since 9/11 that we really shifted the capabilities not in a federal government but to the local government and state government works faster and is easier and better to maintain. so again as we look at this, the whole of community is not just the government stopping to progressives in little pieces. who teaches everyday? it's not government to private sector. why can't we work together and not duplicate what each of us do best. >> how do you incorporate private-sector? >> bring them to the table, give them a seat and make them part of the king but we don't have a contractual relationship they are part of the team. if you can get a grocery store open, you can get a hardware store open, you can get a grocery store open. if we try to duplicate that, we don't help anybody. >> thank you.

>> thank you. we're going to try to get a second round here before we ask for the nextel but in order to do that what i would like to do is to abbreviated, no more than maybe three minutes just so everyone can have a chance to ask a second round before the second panel comes up. let me go back, administrator, to the removal issue we talked that i've asked about earlier. one of the main questions that after meeting with a lot of my constituents at april 27 tornadoes, and what happened with the contracting out with debris removal and core, i would come back to you and ask of are you concerned with the cost to the taxpayers of cleanup when you mission a sign the task to the core? with limited funds how can you justify the disparity cost between report cost charged by the corps of engineers and the

lower cost that commuters have incurred signing their own contracts for removal? have you provided written criteria and checklists of work that mayors know what they are receiving from the corps and what they can show to other contractors as they choose to do a private option for the work? >> mr. chairman, first things first. we did something in alabama we have never done previously, and that was we look at debris mission as a housing mission. we normally would not go in and take debris wholesale off a private property and loss. we were going to do business but in homes. since this was relatively new to us we look to the court to help manage that. because previously, under most of the debris management rules local jurisdiction would not have been able to go on private property and remove all a lot of that debris. it would've been almost a case-by-case basis. we were looking at one thing. we knew that housing was going to be our biggest issue, the

faster we got debris off those lost, the quicker people could rebuild. it was a new approach, had not been done before. we had authorities under the stafford act and we use the court help manage to get it cost more? yes, sir. have we learned from that? yes, sir. always looking at how to reduce the cost any future? absolutely. we put a premium on speed of the because our primary concern in the disaster, as you knew, was we its own homes destroyed that we didn't think the way we entered introduced debris would've been fast enough so we wanted to do something that was faster. we utilize the corps to help us manage that. >> there are numerous communities in alabama right now that are waiting for reimbursement. now, are there ways to someone simplify the process while still allowing for oversight of the funds? if you could briefly answer that, and then anything of georgia and for the record and we will proceed that we?

>> it's always a case-by-case. we're trying to move this as fast as we can. again, i want to get money into community to get rebuilding going, and i will go back and seat. again, if your staff could pass on specifics on what we're getting hung up so i can go back to my staff and say why is this. we're looking at within the authority of the stafford act, what steps to streamline the process to maintain accountability, but increase the speed of recovery. >> thank you. and we are happy to work with you on that to get your information. mr. price? >> administrator, i want to return to your national preparedness grant proposal, and make it very clear that i share your point of view, your desire, for a more efficient, more targeted, more risc-based way of making these grants available, of allocating these funds. in the state program we do have

an allocation formula, which aims at a certain minimum level of preparedness across these jurisdictions. and that too is a legitimate objective. but in your suggesting a fair amount of special pleading might be going on there. some special putting might have a good war, and others might not. to our objectives we need to make sure are going to be addressed. so all going to ask you how you proceed here, and, of course, you can elaborate this for the record, but just in terms of these two major pots of money, will that be an initial determination of how much goes to each, and then to the usual formulas apply, especially in the state grant? and then let me add one other quick question to the next. you are trying to deal here with the backlog, and with the difficulty of getting some of this money out the door, and your way of doing that is that you are going to require

grantees to complete project within a shorter designated period of performance. so what is going to be the practical effect of that? are you going to be, by shorting this timeframe, are you going to be in effect eliminating certain capital projects, certain longer-term projects such as title hardening? there to gym i want to give us more detailed answer for the record. but my concern here is in this open said is just to get a sense of how this is going to work, how your agencies are going to proceed to take these formerly desperate funding streams and to administer them as one. >> well, congressman, let me work backwards. on a budget has come a outstanding has not been drowned -- drawn down, i'm not saying will be grading more extensions are part of that is distorted to grant those extensions and also i found that is much people hate

deadlines, it gets stuff done. we also recognize that in getting them the nation to get those moneys drawn down on projects, as much as work is already done, getting a drawdown is we look at was eligible for funding and where we had inconsistencies, we were able to go back and provide additional eligibility so they could get those funds drawn down based upon expanding what was eligible in that scope of work. so we are doing two things there. one has been working hard to make sure people knew what they were at, what the timelines were on those grants, and also looking at, and this is based upon their request for more flexibility, we were able to go back and the secretary authorized us to authorize that flexibility so that they are more ability to get those grants drawn down quicker on that work. but no extensions. >> mr. latham? >> thank you, mr. chairman. as fema smoot along with their

flood and a modernization efforts, there's been some complaints, i'm sure you're well aware of the process and the cost of the localities to try to meet those standards, especially for the levees, and this is a big deal again obviously with flooding on the missouri. can you tell us what some of the complaints are on the accreditation, obviously the cost part of it, and telling any suggestions you have, or that you discuss with any agency about ways to improve the lead the accreditation process and light in the burden for these -- some are being asked to do studies that cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars come and they simply, if you get a count of 200 people, they don't have the money. how do you address that? >> currently under our rules we would only recognize a levy that was certified by the standards of the u.s. army corps of

engineers set. and we would not recognize anything else. so when we get our mapping we zero out anything that was there, if it was not an accredited levee. in many cases those may not be accredited but still serve in defending committed against floods, and whenever give them any any value in our mapping. we are at the direction and requested many folks here on the heel and rulemaking process to adjust our rules to incorporate levees as build versus those that are credited. we have received thousands of comments in the rulemaking process. it is our goal felt that when we publish this rule, recognize levees as build and the level of protection they offer even if it is not optimal in mapping out those communities. but judy raise one point though. where commuters are having to demonstrate that this levees are certified and don't have the funds, and this is, as you know this is not a huge problem, it's

a huge problem. it goes back to part of our challenges for this is managing risk is where is our investment strategy in mapping this and determine the risks and where do we fund the improvements. part of this, levees as bill will ask to get a better idea of mapping the levees as they are there, not necessary being accredited levees come and see what the problems look like. that may give us a better idea of where we need to invest. some communities may find, the protection there is already adequate and it doesn't change things to move to the credited levy. others may find this is a significant difference and that would in more targeted on where they need to invest. >> the problem is they have to do the study defined and they don't have the money. >> that's what ago with the levee as build, we will take it as is. not having it necessarily credited and then you can map and look at what the risk is. some cases though because it may not have enough elevation, some cases it may because of a design. but all those will be factored in and we would look at the risk of them.

versus them having to look, bringing it up to and credited level. >> thank you. >> ms. roybal-allard? >> mr. covey, as you know los angeles is one of the most vulnerable cities for an earthquake, and in a 2010 red cross report, 7.2 magnitude earthquake were to strike ally, approximate 564,000 people would need to be sheltered. an additional 2.5 million would require food and water. unfortunately the l.a. metro area os 341 shelter facilities with on 84,000 beds. and you were talking earlier about working with local jurisdictions to respond. and eternal kind of progress has been made since that 2010 report? >> yes, ma'am. working with jim featherstone who is the emergency manager for the city, our region nine works with the state of california. you point out again, if l.a. has this earthquake they're not going to enough shelters.

the question is are the shelters even survivable in earthquake. so we know will have to depend upon surrounding communities. so we are very closely with california emergency management agency on their plans and our ability to support literally having to get people to shelters outside of the area versus what we can bring it to provide temporary shelters. so the plan is always about life safety first and life-sustaining activities, and to looking at the temporary housing, trying to stabilize population and get them back in. but this is a very good example of why only looking at what the city of los angeles gets for funding doesn't really tell the story because they could not shelter if they end up with that many people that are homeless, looking for a place to stay, we will not be up to shelter them in that area. will have to move them to surround committees. will have to bring a lot of resources from outside into support that response. this goes back to national preparedness. there are scenarios that are so big that for any jurisdiction to try to be prepared for is

impossible. you have to look at how to leverage those give those across not just with in a statement across state lines, and in some cases nationally. to work there is looking at that type of catastrophic planning. focus on how do we get to folks, life safety, looking at shelter needs, the fact that will probably have to use a lot of capability outside the immediate area, and then look at what it would take to stabilize even before we set the stage for getting people back in and repopulating. it's a very complex event. this is part of why we want these frameworks to really build that type of capability. this is not about respond to our day-to-day emergency. it is about this catastrophic events that can happen from earthquakes, hurricanes, or terrorist attacks. >> thank you. i was about the rest of my questions. >> mr. carper? >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator fugate, i have a letter here. i asked to be made a part of this record, from the governors of five states, texas,

mississippi, florida, louisiana and alabama, expressing grave concern about the decision of the united states air force to move the texas air national guards 136 airlift wing of c-130s currently located in fort worth to the state of montana. this airlift wing understand is the only domestic emergency airlift capability in the gulf region. according to this letter, the texas air national guard's 130 have flown 423 storm response sorties, and texas, louisiana and mississippi getting 3001 and 43 passengers and delivering 939 tons of emergency supplies. under current arrangement the texas governor can mobilize the c-130s them in a matter of hours. however, it's my understanding that requesting support in emergencies like these can take days due to federal bureaucracy. how then does this relocation of these c-130s from fort worth, texas, to montana affect the ability to provide for disaster

relief to the gulf region in times of emergency? was fema part of the decision-making process to move these as impact of emergency response as it sits in the gulf region? and should does not happen, what is fema's plan to assure appropriate resources are dedicated to the gulf area to ensure timely disaster response? >> again, i think secretary panetta has a better position looking at how he is having to make his budget decisions. there are several avenues that we worked on this. this is not something specifically but we are a participant with the secretary of homeland city on the council of governors which actually has lieutenant governors, not these governors, representing the national governors association worked with secretary panetta. the branches of the military and the national guard bureau as well as their adjutant generals. this is an issue as we draw down, one of these impacts and how do we look at those

responses. i think part of this has been congress recognizing that the national guard is now able to dual status command for tunnel x and state guard, as well as bringing up the reserves under secretaries call up not requiring a presidential mobilization disasters. but i would defer to secretary panetta and his folks as to this. but also state that the the council of governors, which i'm honored to be a part of under secretary napolitano's leadership, these are the issues that are being discussed with secretary panetta and a map of the adjutant general of what the impacts are two domestic response. >> this is not a drawdown. this is actually going to cost money to move to montana. they will have to build up the capacity to house 100 '30s in montana because they are an f-15 base right now. so it's not part of the drawdown that we are trying to do, save money and all of the department. this is a very confusing decision that has been made. is any kind of reporting as to

what these governors decisions are going to be asked to talk to panetta? >> they report back to the national governors association. that 10, national governors, which the congress directed the president to a point. both from the standpoint of domestic response but also the ongoing care and needs that states have, particularly in looking at the guards. i would defer to that body. i do know this issue, not the specific but the overall issues of how these are affecting governors and the ability to do that. and also the work that is being done at nor, to support states if we do require federal assistance. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. carter. before we and his first panel, session, i have one quick question. to follow-up from the conversations that you and i had yesterday, administrator fugate, and that's the fy '12 guidance. we are very concerned with the

new in clean of the additional legacy that would be eligible. my question is, do we have your commitment to address this issue? >> yes, sir. >> it's not our intention to have expanded that beyond those of the states have already done before but it was more to create a more uniform language and was not the intent and consequences to suddenly open up to brand-new applicants for funds under the emergency management preparedness grant. if you very much. we appreciate again your attendance at this point, and for answering some of the questions that i know this committee has had questions about your agency, such -- touches everyone on this panel on this committee, and as well as i would to every member of congress. before we turned our second panel, i do want to recognize the cfo for fema. he is with us this point and we understand he will be leaving to go to omb, and we will truly miss his knowledge and is working with them, but we do

thank him for his service, and we do wish you the best as you move over to your new job at omb. at this time we will turn to the second panel, and we thank you again, mr. fugate, for being here. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] >> the senate is about to gavel in. senators will spend the first hour on general speeches before

returning to consideration of the transportation bill. they will begin voting on an image to the transportation bill today. the bill says highway entrance but and policy for the next two years. authorization runs out at the end of this month unless congress agrees to renew the legislation. the house had been working on its own transportation bill. however, house speaker boehner pulled the houses five you build due to lack of support. the house today is working on a bill that cuts regulations on small and medium-sized companies going public. you can follow house debate begin at 10 on our companion network c-span. and now live to the senate floor here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, you are our strength and song. who is like you, majestic in holiness, wondrous in mighty deeds? give our senators this day understanding minds to legislate responsibly. as they seek to govern in a way worthy of your goodness, guide them by the light of your truth. infuse them with your perfect peace as they keep their minds focused on you.

may they overcome cynicism with civility in their relationships and work. o lord, we wait for you and acknowledge you alone as sovereign. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., march 8, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1,

paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: tphr-rbg the senate will be -- following leader remarks the senate will be in morning business for an hour. following leader remarks the senate will resume consideration consideration of the surface transportation bill. as most know, last night, late last night we reached an agreement to move forward on the highway bill. under the order that's been issued, i can schedule those votes any time after consultation with the republican leader. we have some 30 votes to complete today. we'll see how this works out. i think we'll have the first vote at about 2:15 today, start working through these amendments. there is not going to be a lot of debate, so if anybody wants

to speak on these amendments, they better come over after the morning business hour and start telling people how they feel about the amendments. because there's not going to be a time during the discussion of the amendments. mr. president, i believe that s. 2173 is at the desk due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2173, a bill to preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join or assist labor organizations or to refrain from such activities. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: last night the two parties reached an agreement on amendments to the highway bill. as the majority leader will indicate shortly, or may already have before i came to the floor, we'll be able to move forward on that later today. i'm also happy to report there are a number of strong, very strong job-creating measures in

the mix. one that stands out is senator hogan's amendment on the keystone x.l. pipeline, that massive private-sector project that will create 20,000 jobs almost immediately. most americans strongly support building the pipeline, and of course the significant number of construction jobs that would come along with it. it's incomprehensible to me that the president of the united states, i read, is actually lobbying against keystone pipeline amendment. there is a report this morning the president is personally making phone calls to democratic senators he thinks might vote for the amendment, asking them not to. frankly, it's hard to even comprehend how out of touch, how completely out of touch he is on this issue. think about about it, at a moment when millions are out of work, gas prices are literally

skyrocketing and the middle east is in turmoil, we've got a president who is up making phone calls trying to block a pipeline here at home. it's really almost unbelievable. what we're seeing in congress this week is a study in contrast. on the one hand, you've got a republican-controlled house that is about to pass a bipartisan jobs bill that would help entrepreneurs and innovators by getting washington out of the way. and today we've got a democratic-controlled senate trying to line up votes against amendments that would create jobs, and a democratic president lobbying against the biggest private-sector job-creation project in our country. so we've got an opportunity to work together to create jobs. we can do that with these amendments, and we can do that by taking up the bipartisan jobs bill the house will pass later today. let me just say a word about that. the bipartisan jobs bill the house will pass later today is

supported by the president. it is ready to go, and i hope that once it gets over to the senate we'll simply take it up and pass it. it's an example of a measure that is supported by republicans and democrats and the president that we believe will clear the house with a very large majority. i think the sooner we pass that here in the senate and send it down to the president for signature, the better. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership -- the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i was reminded this morning as i came to the floor of an old standard political joke. when i looked at my papers i had

here, the outline i was going to say, it was missing a page. that's what the republican leader and i were joking about here this morning. so that's why he went first, because i didn't have my speech. and the old political joke, as we've all heard many, many times, is this politician was giving this speech, and he was flipping through his pages. he's in the midst of giving this, he got so wound up in his speech, he was going through this speech and waving his hands and shouting and comes to the third or fourth page of his speech and it says, "you're on your own, you s.o.b." his speechwriter had had enough of him this morning. that's how i felt this morning but that's not how it was. phoebe wrote the speech and i left part of it in my office. i'm tphraoefd say democrats and republicans -- i'm pleased to

say democrats and republicans reached an agreement on the highway bill. it's a bipartisan bill. as i have said here over this past month, this is really a piece of legislation prepared the way legislation should be prepared. a very conservative member, jim inhofe from oklahoma; a very liberal member, barbara boxer, they have worked hard on this. just a little side note, mr. president. as we were struggling through trying to come up with these amendments, i was happy to hear from barbara boxer. she said to me privately, "i've talked to senator inhofe, and he thinks as we're coming to this agreement, this isn't what should be done." that was important to me in reaching consensus on how we move forward on this bill, because as i've said many times

not everything we do this year should be a big fight. we should be able to move things forward without waiting for a month to get things done. this bill is truly indicative of how we have to get things done and why i appreciate the cooperation of boxer and inhofe. we have a dilapidated system of highways. we have 70,000 -- mr. president, i'm not misspeaking. not 7,000. 70,000 bridges in america that are in dire need of repair or replacement even. 20% of our raordz not up to -- of our roads are not up to safety standards. thousands of pedestrians are killed because they rely on unsafe sidewalks or nonexisting sidewalks. every day millions of americans, a disproportionate number who are low-income, minority,

disabled or old, are forceed to rely on overcrowded mass transit systems straining to meet the demands of growing ridership. america's crumbling infrastructure is a terrible drag on our economy. think about it, mr. president, a number of years ago when my wife and i took a few days off around christmas in southern california, and rather than fly back i thought let me drive back to las vegas. we did that. this was just a couple of years ago. mr. president, i hadn't done it in a long, long time. i-15, this famous road, just jammed. we came to complete stops on a number of occasions coming back from san diego to las vegas. think about that. complete stop. trucks on that road.

drivers are being paid for their time on the road. the cargo they're hauling that needs to get someplace. it really is not only someone wanting to take a vacation coming to las vegas. it is what it does to commerce to have these roads in a state of disrepair. so it's certainly, this crumbling infrastructure is a drag on our economy. but rebuilding this infrastructure will have the opposite effect. investing in our transportation system will create or save almost three million jobs. this legislation has to be completed before the end of this month or we have no way of collecting the taxes. when you buy a gallon of gasoline, that funds what we need to do here to repair our roads, bridges, et cetera. this is not some wild program invented in the last few months here in washington. this is a program that was initiated by president

eisenhower. this week i received a letter from an organization called "i make america," a group of more than 850 businesses and 20,000 individuals who support this transportation bill. many people across the country, some in this chamber, would write off the rest of this congress. i'm not going to do that. we have a lot more to do. we need to get it done. when we complete our work, mr. president, we have -- we need to look back and say what has happened that's good, there is no single piece of legislation now before congress that will do more to immediately create american jobs and sharpen our global competitiveness than this piece of legislation said dennis slader on behalf of "i make america" the program i just talked about. so we need to push this bill over the finish line, and epbgt finish line is -- and i think the finish line is now in sight. it is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we can consider. and i've indicated earlier why.

but even as i recognize the bipartisanship that made this progress possible, i sound a note of caution. 85 senators voted to begin debate on this legislation. only a handful -- it wasn't 15 -- only a handful, because we had absent senators that day, said we should move forward on it. yet it's taken a month to begin voting on amendments. republican leaders have wasted weeks of the senate's time directing this valuable jobs bill to extract purely political, purely political votes on unrelated matters, completely unrelated matters. weeks wereweeks wasted on this s were wasted on this iconic attack on women's health. so i suggest to the republican leader who just left the floor, if it takes more than a month to pass a noncontroversial, bipartisan bill that has the support of almost 90 senators,

how can we expect to get anything more done? we have to. we have much more to do. much more to do. americans are not satisfied with the glacishall pace and neither am i of this body. americans are tired of delay tactics and distractions, and so am i. people across the country and in this chamber would write off this congress and say we've done enough. i'm not going to do that. when we complete our legislation on this transportation bill, we have lots of things to do. mr. president, we have a score of judges that have been waiting, some waiting way into last year. we have to do something about the post office. the postal service in america has changed. people don't pay their bills the way they used to. they don't send letters the way they used to.

so we're going to have to reorganize the post office. we have to do that. we had a demonstration here in our classified briefing room. talk about what's going on in america and what could go on in america with bringing down our -- bringing down our country. the demonstration last night dealt with electricity, but it could be banking, it could be our hospitals. we have to recognize that we now have no enemies in the world -- new enemies in the world. not enemies that are flying airplanes, dropping bombs necessarily, shooting us with bullets, but there are prepared to do something that is so damaging to our economy, and we were given that i will strags last night. -- that illustration last night. we have a cybersecurity bill that we have to bring to the bill, another bipartisan bill. senator lieberman, senator collins, democrat and republican, independent and

republican acknowledge that they want to bring this bill forward and they have it done, and so we're going to bring it to the floor. we have all of our transportation bills. we have to do those. so we, mr. president, have a lot to do to accomplish even a fraction of our to-do list. it's going to take more corporation and less conflict. nothing everything has to be a knock-down, drag-out fight, as it was on this highway bill. to think that we wasted three months on a matter dealing with the health of women in america. but we did. so we stand ready to work with our republican colleagues. the republican leader mentioned the small business jobs bill. we've been trying to do one for a long time. we're going to do a small business jobs bill. the house bill is not perfect. we're glad it is moving forward, and we're going to try to do something here to match so we can get to conference and get this done. i'm hopeful that when democrats reach across the aisle we'll

find willing partners on the other side for a chaifnlg chang. thank you, mr. president. i ask the that i remember announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that david panelli from the national highway traffic administration be given floor privileges during the duration of s. 1813. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i come to mark international women's day here on the senate floor. this day, which across the globe 0 is celebrated in many different ways, is a day to

reflect on the acheevmentz of women, achievements in politics, business, society. it is a die reflect on what -- it is a day to reflect on what the woman's role was in the not-so-distant past and to celebrate how far we've come. but, unfortunately, on this international women's day in the year 2012, we cannot celebrate the progress we have made without also acknowledging the unsettling truth that that progress is under threat. today a shadow has been cast on this day of celebration by efforts to turn back the clock here in washington, d.c., and across the country, efforts that we all must fight back against. mr. president, here in the senate only a week ago we had a debate on the ability for a woman -- women across this country to access contraceptives. it is a debate we had all hoped was in the past.

however, in a scene that was early reminiscent of a -- eerily reminiscent of a half a century ago, one woman brave enough to come forward and give voice to the importance of birth control was targeted. first her story of a friend's battle with ovarian cancer was purposefully left out of a house hearing on wims health. then as we've all heard, she was scorned and ridiculed by a right-wing pundit. it was a galvanizing and eye-opening moment for millions of women in our country. it was a reminder that there are some who still see women as easy targets, and it awakened many women to the fact that the gains we are meant to celebrate on a day like today could easily be lost to political strategy that preys on women. now, mr. president, for many of those who watched the last few weeks play out, it may have seemed just like an ic an isolad incident. it could have appeared to be a

swift effort by republicans that has been blocked for the time being, but that's not the case. women's access to care has rarely been at greater risk. when the moment they came into power, the republicans in the house of representatives have been waging a war on women's health. if you don't believe me, just luke at thlook at the very firss they introduced when they arrived here. they campaigned across the country on a platform of jobs and the economy. but the first three bills they introduced when they got here were direct attacks on women's health. the very first one -- h.r. 1 -- would have totally eliminated title 10 funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention, and it included an amendment that would have completely defunded planned parenthood and cut off support for the millions of women who count on it. another one of their first bills would have permanently codified the hyde amendment and the d.c. abortion ban, and finally, they introduced a bill that would

have rolled back every single one of the gains we made for women in the health care reform bill. that republican bill would have removed the caps on your out-of-pocket expenses that literally protect women from losing their homes or their live's savings if they get sick. it would have ended the ban on lifetime limits on coverage, so important to everyone. it woof would have allowed insue companies to once again discriminate against women by charging them higher premiums than men, or even denying women care because of so-called preexisting conditions that they have. like pregnancy. and if would have rolled back the guarantee that insurance companies cover contraceptives. mr. president, republicans have shown they will go to just about any length to limit access to women's care, even shutting down the federal government. now, that may seem extreme to all of you, but that's exactly what happened one year ago when

republicans nearly shut down the federal government over a rider that was yet another attempt to go after title 10 and planned parenthood. i remember sitting in those meetings here late at night after months of negotiations over the numbers in the budget, astonished that republicans were willing to throw all those negotiations over -- away over one issue, and that was their attack on women's health. and, mr. president, the attack on women's rights are not just taking place here in the nation's capital. in state after state across the country, legislators bent on putting politics between women and their health care are undoing years of important work. a recently enacted law in texas not only strips women of their rights but of their dignity. it's a law that nicholas kristof of "the new york times" recently wrote of in a column. i ask unanimous consent to put it in the record today. the presiding officer: without objection.

mrs. murray: it is law that all women across the country should be insulted by and outraged over. today nearly 40 years after roe v. wade has passed, a woman in texas who seeks out an abortion -- one of the most difficult choices a woman and her family can face -- she's not met with compassion and care but with humiliation, and that's because they have passed a law by republicans that she is now subjected, against her will, to a vaginal ultra sound. then she's instructed to listen to a fetal heartbeat, watch the ultra sound, and numerous other state-mandated hurdles. then she has to go home and wait for 24 hours before she can access a health care procedure that was made right for women four decades ago. now, you would think that after two years spent railing against any government involvement in health care republicans wouldn't

want to dictate to states -- or want the state to dictate procedures that a doctor must perform on a woman, whether she wants them or not. but then you'd be confused, because, clearly, when this comes to women and their health care choices, these republicans are willing to do whatever it takes for them to call the shot; not the woman, not the doctor, not her family. and, mr. president, the sad part is, other states across the country are now contemplating similar laws. so, mr. president, the threats to women's health care are very real, and they're growing. we saw it on a panel on contraceptives in the house that didn't include a woman on the panel. we saw it in a young woman being called horrible names for telling the stories of a friend in need. we see it in republican efforts to allow an employer to dictate whether a woman has access to contraceptives. and we're seeing it in state laws across the country aimed at stripping women of their rights

and more. so on this international women's day, we celebrate our gains with the clear understanding that they must always be defended. and we join with women everywhere to make sure that progress is not reversed. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: mr. president, let me thank senator murray for her comments and let me concur in her objection observations, what we've seen on wims healt on womh care issues here in this body. some are trying to turn back the progress we have made. i was listening to my colleague talk about the ultra sounds. well, virginia just enacted an ultra sound bill this week. we talk about big government, government mandating ultra sound for pregnant women. this is outrageous and something that on international women's day, it is right that we bring this to the attention of our colleagues.

we've seen the same type of action taken against family planning, those who want to repeal roe v. wade. we need to stand with women's health care issues as we lead in the international community. around the world, international women's day is a time to honor women for their accomplishments. i stand here with my colleagues to celebrate women who are making a difference, both here in america and around the world in countries where they lead in the fight for justice, equality, and fairness for all women. all of us, women and men alike, can help by supporting women's efforts to claim their legal rights to be free from violence, earn a decent income, get a decent education, grow food for their families, and make their voices heard in their communities and beyond. i believe in the power of women to change the world and to help them hasten that change, u.s. international assistance policies should address and remove barriers between women,

women's rights, and economic empowerment. empowering women is one of the most critical tools in our toolbox to fight poverty and injustice. integrating the unique needs of women into our domestic and international policies is critical. as chairman of the international development and foreign assistance subcommittee of foreign relations, i can attest that this must be the bedrock of our foreign assistance programming if it is to be successful. i defy anyone's assertion that women's gowrmt shoulwomen's empe a backseat to so-called more important priorities. decades of research and experience prove that when women are able to be fully engaged in society and hold decision-making power, they're more likely to invest their income in food, clean water, education, and health care for their children. this creates a positive cycle of change that lifts entire communities out of poverty. simply put, when women succeed, we all do.

accordingly, i was very pleased by last week's release of the new usaid policy which makes integrating gender and including women and girls central to all u.s. international assistance. this policy which updates guidelines that were over 30 years old recognizes that the integration of women and girls is basic to effective international assistance across all sectors, like food, security, health, climate change, science, technology, economic growth, democracy, governance and humanitarian assistance. it aims to increase the capacity of women and girls and decrease inequality between genders and also decrease gender-based violence. this new policy is as welcome as it is necessary. as secretary clinton declared earlier this year, achieving our objectives for global development will demand accelerated efforts to achieve gender equality and women's

empowerment. otherwise peace and prosperity will have their own glass ceiling. unfortunately, as we know, there are still places that this glass ceiling exists and there are major obstacles to women. worldwide one in three women will experience some form of violence in her lifetime. women and girls in emergencies, conflict settings and natural disasters often face extreme violence including being forced exchanged sex for food. the world health organization reported up to 70% of women in some countries described as having been victims of domestic violence at some stage in their lives. the united states has the potential to be a true leader in preventing and responding to violence against women and girls, an issue inextricably linked to u.s. diplomacy, development and national security goals. while violence against women and girls has a major consequence and cause of poverty, violence

and poverty go hand in hand. violence prevents women and girls from getting an education, going to work and earning the income they need to lift their families out of poverty. we know that one in three women will be victims of physical or sexual abuse in their lifetime but we also know women have the potential to lift their families and communities out of poverty. violence against women and girls is an extreme human rights violation, a public health epidemic and a barrier to solving global challenges such as extreme poverty, hiv-aids, and conflict. it devastates the lives of millions of women and girls in peacetime and in conflict and knows no national or cultural barrier. today let us reaffirm our commitment to end gender-based discrimination in all forms, to end violence against women and girls worldwide and encourage the people of the united states to observe international women's day. on this day and every day i'm proud to stand in support of women across america and worldwide.

investing in and focusing on empowering women and girls is one of the most efficient uses of our foreign assistance dollars and one of the best ways to make the world more peaceful and prosperous. as secretary of state clinton pointed out women's rights are human rights and nothing is more fundamental, in my opinion. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i'm really pleased to join my colleagues senator cardin and earlier senator murray, this morning in commemorating international women's day. it is a day observed the -- around the world and celebrates the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future. it's a day which recognizes the obstacles that women still face in the struggle for equal rights and equal opportunities. one year ago today i along with

a group of bipartisan senators introduced and passed a resolution in the senate recognizing the significance of the 100th anniversary of international women's day. today's the 101st anniversary. and like the centennial milestone before it, it is a testament to the dedication and determination of women and men around the tworld address -- around the world to address gender and equality for the good of all people. there are more than 3.3 billion women in the world today. and across the globe women are participating in the political, social, and economic life of their communities in an unprecedented fashion, playing a critical role in providing and caring for their families, contributing substantially to the growth of economies and advancing food security for their communities. yesterday i had the wonderful, humbling and inspiring opportunity to recognize and

celebrate the ten recipients of the 2012 state department international women of courage awards. this prestigious award, which is the only award in the state department given only to women, annually recognizes women who have shown exceptional courage and leadership and advocating for women's rights and empowerment around the globe, often at significant risk to themselves. these award winners, including activists in the sudan and saudi arabia, politicians in turkey and afghanistan, and representatives from six other countries, are truly remarkable and inspirational women. mr. president, i would like to submit all of their names and brief bios for the record so that they're properly recognized by the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. this morning i want to pick just one of these amazing women and

tell her story. shad b tkpw*eu -- begim is a representative of the women's welfare. as the founder and executive director of the program, the union of women's welfare, she provides political training, microcredit, primary education and health services to women throughout her community. she not only encouraged others to run for office, she herself ran for a district counselor seat in 2001 and 2005. winning the seat against local conservatives who tried to ban women from participating. despite numerous threats to her life and her family, including calls for suicide attacks against her by local extremists, she continues to work to improve the lives of women throughout pakistan. ms. shad is one of ten

remarkable women that the state department honored this year, and every one of their ten stories is inspirational. but they represent literally millions of women around the globe who are out there fighting and suffering to be heard. there are countless women who don't receive recognition that they deserve, who continue to be silenced by persecution and harassment. and today we recognize, honor and celebrate all of those nameless, faceless women around the world who are continuing the fight. far too many women remain excluded from full participation in society, to the detriment of their communities, their countries and the world. and although strides have been made in recent decades, women across the globe continue to face significant obstacles in all aspects of their lives, including the denial of basic human rights, discrimination and

gender-based violence. according to the world bank, women make up 70% of all individuals living in poverty. women account for 64% of the adults worldwide who lack basic literacy skills. women continue to remain vastly underrepresented in national and local governments around the world. so there's no doubt that we have a lot of work to do. but all of society benefits when women are more fully integrated into their communities and their villages around the world. in the words of president obama, "our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential." as we reflect on the past, present and future achievements of women, i think it's important to recognize the vital and untapped resource that women represent for our world. the ability of women to realize

their full potential is critical to the ability of a nation to achieve strong and lasting economic growth, political and social stability, and enhanced security for all its people. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. stphaoepb i ask that the quorum call be -- mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. stphaoepb i have six unanimous consent requests -- mrs. shaheen: i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet today. they have the approval of the minority leader and majority

leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. isakson: i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: thank you, mr. president. i had i had he alsoi'd also likn

to display this box. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, thank you. irm proud to stani am proud to y on international women's day on march 8, 2012, to pay tribute around thtowomen around the wor. the founding of the girl scouts in savannah, georgia. girl scouts around the world will be celebrating the founding that have great organization, which has had a positive effect on women around the world. mr. president, each of us that right now is well aware of the girl scouts because this box that you gave me permission to display is what's left of a box of thin mints. i eat far too many of them. they're good for me and for america and they're good for the girl scouts.

you know the girl scouts is an organization of leadership, developing women for the future. while over 17% of this body are women, almost all of them were girl scouts. almost all women of business were girl scouts, and almost all women who were in girl scouts pay tribute to the girl scouts of america and the contribution that they made to their life. there are 3.2 million active girl scouts today, and there are 50 million girl scout alumni. that is a tremendous impact on all that's right about america. and the girl scouts have been pace setters. dr. martin luther king jr. cited them, the girl scouts of america, as an agent of desegregation during the troubled times of 1950's and 1960's. the girl scouts of america also pledge themselves and they make a promise. "on my honor i will try to serve my god and my country, to help

people at all times and to live by the girl scout law, which reads, 'i will do my best to be honest and faithful ring friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, responsible for what i do and to respect myself and others, respect authority, to use resources wisely, to make the world a better place, and to be a sister to every girl scout'." that's not just a mott foe just for the girl -- that's not just a motto just for the girl scouts but for all of us. i'd like to acknowledge that on monday when we're not in session, around the world womb n will celebrate the girl scouts of america. i yield back the ba balance of y time and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: are we in a quorum call? officethe presiding officer: yee are. mr. corker: i would like to vitiate the quorum call. call. the presiding officer: without objection,. mr. corker: i have been down here several times during the course of the last several days. i think a large majority of the people in this body have been a part of encouraging us to in a very bipartisan way solve the budget problems of this country. we sign of ad signed a letter te president encouraging him to embrace the proposals in the bowles-simpson recommendations.

and i've been down here, mr. president, multiple times talking about the various oddities in this bill. what's getting ready to happen in this bill is we're actually over the next two years going to create a $10 billion to $11 billion deficit because of the various gimmickry we use. we're efind wage to get around that. we're going to spend the money over a two-year period but is going to pay for it over a ten-year period. two years' worth of spending, ten years' worth of revenues. the senator was, i think, here during the period of time we had the health care debate in our nation. many of the folks on my side of the aisle, rightfully so, were concerned about the health care

bill because there were six years' worth of the cost and ten years' worth of revenues. a lot of people thought that was a budget minimum rick. candidly, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle were also concerned about those same types of gimmicks being used in the health care bill and caused them concern. my point is that in a bipartisan way we have tried to deal with our budget deficits in this country. i notice the senator from illinois just stepped on the floor -- has been a major, major player in those initiatives. so what we did is last year we passed something called the budget control act. we did so in order to raise the debt ceiling and to accomplish discipline in this body so that over the next two years we established overall caps on spending. this bill, believe it or not -- here we are in march with a very popular bill, which speaks the

fact to me that it's the kind of bill that many of us would think, if you really want to pass a highway bill, you would prioritize it higher than other spending. it is the kind of thing that, in a bipartisan way, we would come together and say, okay, we really want to see infrastructure spending in this country, so let's make this a higher priority than other spending. that's not what we're doing, mr. president. believe it or not, this united states senate, which has talked big about deficit spending, written lots of letters, had lots of meetings, what this senate is getting ready to do with this bill is violate the budget control act that we passed last year trying to show the american people we had at least a modicum of discipline. let me say it one more time. this highway bill in march of this year -- we passed this, i think -- we passed it last accuracy thaugust, the early paf

accuracy to demonstrate to the american people that this united states senate, this congress, had the discipline to put caps on spending over the next two years, to begin the process of addressing deficit reduction, and what we're going to do, if we pass this highway bill as laid out, is we're going to violate that budget cap right nowvment i just want everybody in this body know that i plan to offer a budget point of order. i would hope that at least all of those 64 senators -- 32 on each side -- would join me in opposing breaking the budget control act that we just put in place in ave an effort to demonstrate to people who buy our treasury bonds that we have the ability to deal with the fiscal issues that we have in our nation. manmr. president, i know we have the distinguished senator from texas, who was to speak exactly right nowvment i yield the floo.

i yield the floor and thank you for the time . mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: what is the regular order? the presiding officer: we're currently in morning business with 20 minutes and 16 seconds left. on e the republican side. mr. cornyn: thank the chair. mr. president, i come to the floor to express my concerns on behalf of the 26 million constituents that i have in texas about rising gas prices and the administration's failure to take reasonable and rational and practical steps to help ease the pain that americans are feeling at the gas pump. just think about it. we know unemployment is unacceptably high and intractable, notwithstanding our private-sector economy's best

efforts to get -- to grow and to get and create jobs. so we know people are out of work. we know many of them are unable to pay their mortgage. and are literally losing their homes to foreclosure. those who are fortunate enough to have jobs are experiencing higher prices when it comes to food, when it comes to health care, notwithstanding the passage of the patient protection and affordable care act, which the president said the average family would save $2,500 in health care premiums last year alone. it was almost a double-digit increase in the cost of health care for most american families. and now to add insult to injury, we have higher gas prices which are crowding out other spending and lowering the standard of living for american families who are struggling with the slow

economic recovery that we're experiencing. the average u.s. price of gasoline has more than doubled since the week of the inauguration of president obama in january 2009. in january 2009, a gallon of regular gas was $1.84 a gallon. today it averages $3.79 a gallon. the associated press reports that the average american household spent $4,155 filling up at the pump in 2011. that's the annual cost of gasoline for a typical u.s. household. i remember arguments, passionate arguments about the payroll tax holiday and the president holding press conference after press conference saying if we would just pass the payroll tax holiday, then families would

have $40 more a month spending money in their pocket. well, higher gas prices has wiped that out and more. gasoline costs now amount to 8.4% of the median household income. 8.4%. i'm not telling anybody something they don't already know, and they haven't already felt, haven't already experienced. everyone has experienced these higher prices. this is the highest price for gasoline since 1981 when costs soared because of the crisis, another crisis in the middle east. two weeks ago president obama said that there's very little he could do about high gas prices in the short term. i tell you it's good he made those comments in miami, florida, and not midland, texas, because texans know that greater domestic energy production would help reduce oil prices and,

therefore, reduce gasoline prices. roughly 70% of the price of gasoline is the price of oil that is refined, that gasoline is refined from. sometimes i feel like in washington, d.c. we are operating in a parallel universe that has very little in common with the rest of the country. and here it says if, not to mix my metaphors, but ships passing in the night, but the fact of the matter is the laws of supply and demand cannot be suspended by the united states congress or the president of the united states. president obama used to agree with that. last march, for example, he said producing more oil in america would help lower oil prices. well, lip service will not produce lower oil prices, but, yes, producing more oil will,

because the greater the supply, we know that the laws of economics say that demand being the the same, greater supply will lower prices. the fact of the matter is there's greater demand all around the world, not just in the united states as economies are growing in china, in india and brazil and places like that. to add insult to injury, this administration has adopted policies that directly conflict with the goal of lowering oil and gasoline prices. i don't know how to reach any other conclusion but to say it appears to me that the administration is intentionally enacting policies that will raise gasoline prices. i know they will deny that. they'll say it's just not true. but i don't know any other explanation. let me provide you the evidence that i think led me to that conclusion and perhaps you will agree. today we learned that president

obama has been busy calling senators on the other side of the aisle and asking them to vote against an amendment being offered by senator hoeven of north dakota that would allow the keystone x.l. pipeline project to move forward. the president on the phone calling senators saying vote against the keystone x.l. pipeline amendment offered by senator hoeven. the president has previously said there's not a single morning he wakes up when he does not think about creating jobs. but apparently he woke up today thinking about how to lobby against jobs, because the keystone pipeline, in addition to providing an additional supply of crude oil from the tar sands in canada that would be transported to the united states and turned into gasoline in places like port arthur, texas, apparently the president got up and thought about how can i, how

can i obstruct additional supply? how can i destroy the jobs that would be created, which is directly contrary to what he professes he does when he wakes up each morning thinking about how to create new jobs. the keystone x.l. pipeline is a $7 billion private investment that will create 20,000 jobs in construction and manufacturing alone. it will add tens of thousands of additional jobs throughout the economy and other sectors that will support the pipeline construction. now this is kind of personal for me and my constituents in texas because we're an energy-producing state. we actually think that's a good thing because it's created a lot of jobs. it's allowed us to weather this recession we've been through, because people have voted with their feet and they've moved from other parts of the country to texas because that's where the jobs are, so they can provide for their families and

they can try to achieve the american dream. but texas as a whole provides more than a quarter of america's total refining capacity. last month when the subject of the keystone pipeline was very much in the news, i visited with a number of refinery workers in port arthur, texas, who expressed concern about the future of their livelihood. these constituents of mine in port arthur, texas, could care less about the politics here in washington, d.c. who wins, who loses, the sorts of stuff that seems to be a fascination, an obsession here inside the beltway. but they were particularly upset -- not just republicans but democrats, nonpartisans, unaffiliated folks, they were particularly upset with the obama administration's rejection over the permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline, which as i say, would terminate the port arthur

region and allow our state to refine an extra 700,000 barrels of oil each day. turn it into gasoline and other refined products that would increase the supply and, thus, according to laws of economics, have a tendency to bring prices down as you increase supply. president obama's behind the scenes maneuvering in this crusade is the starkest reminder yet he is the only thing standing between this country and more jobs and energy security. i regret to reach that conclusion, but i don't know any other reasonable conclusion to raise. rather than ask saudi arabia and other opec countries to produce more oil in a region where our troops have been deployed for ten years or more, is there any coincidence that in the oil-producing regions of the world that we depend upon for oil that our american troops have fought and some made the

ultimate sacrifice to protect our country, to protect our economy, to protect our way of life? but there have been some in this chamber who have suggested that we ought to go hat in hand to saudi arabia and say would you please open the spigot a little wider? will you please supply us more oil so we don't have to do it in america? you can do it for us, and we can buy it from you. well, i believe that this administration should work closely with our partners in canada, a friendly country, where we don't have to worry about a disruption of supply because if the iranian threat to block the strait of hormuz comes to pass, 20% of the world's oil supply passes through the strait of hormuz. and you know what that would do to price, not to mention other consequences which are entirely negative. canada is a reliable and geographically secure trading

partner whose oil exports are insulated from the potential supply disruptions in the middle east. rather than demonizing oil and gas companies that employ millions of hardworking americans while wagering more taxpayer dollars on boondoggles like solyndra, the obama administration should take its regulatory boot off the neck of our domestic energy producers. as i said, this is personal for me and my constituents because texans are proud that our state remains the leading united states producer of oil and gas. and, as i said, it's what's helped us grow and create an awful lot of jobs, which people are grateful for. and we know as a scientific fact that america has just begun to tap the potential of its vast resources. according to the congressional research service, our country has more recoverable energy

resources than canada, china, and saudi arabia combined. as american enterprise institute scholar kenneth green has noted, the outer continental shelf of the united states alone contains enough fuel, enough oil to fuel 85 million cars for 35 years. yet, more than 97% of that territory is not under lease as a result of obama administration policies. expanding access to federal offshore and onshore and offshore lands, eliminating permit delays in the issuance of leases can help reduce prices and strengthen our energy security while creating jobs and boosting revenue to the local, state and federal government. that would help us close our budget gap. unfortunately the obama administration's proposed

offshore oil and natural gas leasing plan for 2012 to 2017 eliminates -- eliminates -- 50% of lease-sales provided for in the previous plan and imposes a moratorium on developing energy from 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the atlantic and pacific oceans. the moratorium on the natural resource-rich gulf of mexico and persistent delays in permits in shallow and deep water lease could result in a 19% decrease in production in 2012. a 19% decrease in production sofplt we're not only -- so we're not only talking about keeping production static, we're talking about decreasing supply as a result of federal administration policies, and decreasing supply will have the inevitable effect of raising

gasoline prices as thafplts then there is the regulatory impact. everywhere i go in my state and as i talk to people around the country, they come to visit us in the capitol, if they're in the private sector they say the biggest threat to our ability to start a new business or grow existing businesses and create jobs is regulatory overreach. we know during the last election the voters gave us divided government. they made it harder for the obama administration single-handedly to pass policies on a partisan basis like the president's health care bill, like the stimulus, like dodd-frank. so we got divided government. what we did not get is an ability to stop the regulatory overreach of executive branch agencies. if the president is serious about looking for every single area where we can make an impact on gas prices as he pledged in miami, he must reverse the regulatory overreach of the last three years.

the u.s. chamber of commerce reports that the environmental protection agency alone is moving forward with 31 major economic rules and 172 major policy changes. that's not something that congress is legislating. that's what the e.p.a. is doing on its own, because they're an executive branch administrative agency. but they're going to have a negative impact on our energy supply. the chamber of commerce rightly calls this an unprecedented level of regulatory action, and it has a chilling effect not only on energy production. it has a chilling effect on jobs, something we need more than anything else as our economy struggles to recover. even as gas prices have approached $4 a gallon, the environmental protection agency has proposed a tier 3 rule to

cut air emissions from fuels and light-duty vehicles. this rule alone would force refiners of oil to gasoline to make dramatic changes in the way they do business. a recent study concluded the rule would increase the cost of manufacturing gasoline by 12 cents to 25 cents per gallon. so as high as they are now, once this rule goes into effect, the price you pay at the pump could go from 12 cents to 25 cents higher. it could also inflate the refining industry's refining cost by $5 billion to $13 billion annually. and lead to a 7% to 14% reduction in gas supplies from u.s. rye finers an refiners andy refineries to cut down. we've already seen some east-coast refineries shutting

down because they can't do business exikly unde economicale they can't do business under this regulatory burden. the american energy producers are deeply worried about the e.p.a.'s proposed greenhouse gases regulations. they are as also worried about the agency's new-source performance standards and its control technology rule. now, i know a lot of this sounds like arcane stuff that's not something that people talk about over the kitchen table, but each and every one of these and cumulatively had a negative impact on gasoline prices that are directly harming american families in that i remember pocketbook, lowering their standard of living, making it harder for them to get birks eve-- makingit harder for them , even as they struggle with the

slow economic recovery. if we were to have a moratorium on these regulations at least until we begin to see unemployment come down, the economy grow, gas prices come down, collectively these regulations put more u.s. refiners out of business and lead to ever-higher gasoline prices at the pump. so conversely, if we were to have a temporary moratorium on them, it would provide much-needed relief to hardworking american families. and if that weren't enough, u.s. fish and wildlife service has been very active as well. i mentioned midland texas, which is part of the historic permian basin, which has been a huge source of oil and gas production. thanks to enhanced production techniques, new technology, innovation, it's experiencing a second boom and creating lots of jobs and a lot of american energy. so, what a surprise it was when

the u.s. fish and wildlife service announced it's intention to list the sand dune lizard, a little five-inch lizard in the permian basin, the u.s. fish and wildlife service said we're going to list that as an endangereendangered species, wit adequate investigation, without adequate investigation of the science. it threatened the jobs of nearly 20,000 texans in the basin, which is home to more than one-fifth of the top 100 oilfields in america. looking at all the evidence on energy prices, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than that higher energy prices are part of president obama's plan. he talks about green energy and green jobs? those are great, but they only supply a single-digit percentage, a low single-digit percentage of our energy needs.

we have to produce american energy from our oil and gas reserves. but president obama's policies have intentionally elevated the price of gasoline, much to the detriment of the american consumer. so one of the things we could do is we could pass this keystone x.l. pipeline amendment. it will eventually provide 700,000 barrels a day of oil from canada to be refined here in america, creating jobs and creating more supply. which will have a beneficial impact on gasoline prices, notwithstanding the other policies that i meptioned this t i mentioned this morning. so i hope my colleagues will support senator hoeven's amendment. i think certainly will. i would -- i certainly will. i would love to hear the controversial argument. all we hear are crickets when we talk about the beneficial effects of this policy.

i just invite my colleagues to go on the internet and google or use bing or whatever search engine you want and just type in "u.s. oil and gas pipelines" and look at the picture that comes up. you will be aston ieshed perhaps to see -- you will be astonished perhaps to see all of the pipelines operating in america, safely without the public really knowing about it but providing the oil and gas and other refined products that we need in order to keep our commit growing. so this -- in order to keep our economy grow. so this pipeline is not a threat to our environment because we have adequate protections in place. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1813, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 311, s. 1813, a bill to

reauthorize federal aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes. mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: mr. president, i'd like to follow up on the comments of my friend, the senator from texas. on an issue that we will be voting on this afternoon i understand regarding the construction of the so-called keystone x.l. pipeline. mr. president, i've been somewhat frustrated by the debate around this issue and, unfortunately, i think we are going to be confronted again with kind of a bifurcated choice here that doesn't get to the possibility of us actually putting in place a comprehensive energy policy that will remove

this nation's dependence upon foreign oil, start to look at the ability over the longer haul to bring down the price at the pump, and to make sure that we are truly a participant in the opportunities of a glowing, multifaceted energy policy going forward. mr. president, i support the construction of the keystone pipeline. i believe that we need to have an energy policy that has an all-of-the-above approach. i believe there are appropriate regulatory reviews that need to be made, and i frankly think that any construction of a keystone pipeline should take into consideration the very serious environmental considerations that particularly affect the state of nebraska, and there will need to be a route for this pipeline that

would avoid that potential environmental damage. however, because of the way this process is being laid out, i will not be voting for the keystone amendment today because, by making this a straight up-or-down issue without taking advantage of the opportunity to put together the beginnings of an energy package, we're missing out on a great opportunity. as i've mentioned, if we are truly serious about energy security and if we are truly serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, i believe we need an energy policy that has an all-of-the-above approach. yes, that means more domestic oil and gas, but it means that when we have an opportunity of an issue, controversy like this regarding keystone, that we could have taken this

opportunity to include a rational approach, with appropriate environmental reviews to get to, i believe, a positive answer on keystone but also link that with other energy policies that would make sense. i know the presiding officer has got in his state a number of wind facilities and solar facilities. unfortunately, those areas that need as well to be part of our energy mix, the tax treatment that allows those projects to move forward have been put in limbo because of the failure of congress to extend the so-called tax provisions, the tax extenders, on a going-forward basis. so wind projects all across the country -- as a matter of fact, i was just visiting with some folks right before this coming to the floor where they have a

variety of wind projects that are stopped dead in their tracks because of the uncertainty regarding whether congress will act. the ability to get a keystone pipeline passed in combination with passing as well the extension of these appropriate renewable energy tax credits, i think, could have built the kind of bipartisan consensus around energy policy that would be needed. i also believe that one of the most -- the lowest-hanging fruit in terms of how we save and can have a rational energy policy in this country means a much greater involvement with energy conservation. there is a very strong bipartisan energy conservation bill -- the shaheen-portman bill -- that could have been included in this package as well.

i think if we're going to get serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, if we're going to make sure that we give the american taxpayers a vision that in the future we're going to see the ability to reduce our dependence upon, again, foreign oil that ultimate are-- that results in higher gas prices, we actually could have put together around this keystone proposal a true bipartisan, bipartisan consensus that would have included construction of keystone with the appropriate environmental reviews, with the making sure that those key areas of nebraska are protected, inclusion of the energy tax cuts and tax provisions that we do an on annual basis that would continue to allow wind and solar and other renewable energy construction and production to continue in this country, and a

meaningful energy conservation bill -- the shaheen-portman bill, a bipartisan bill. those three policies linked together, i believe, would have resulted in a vote that would have been overwhelmingly bipartisan, that would have been a demonstration to the american people that we're going to kind of get out of our respective foxholes and put the beginnings of a truly energy comprehensive policy in place. unfortunately, i don't think we're going to have that happen. we're going to have a straight up-and-down vote on keystone that dismisses any of the appropriate review process, that doesn't bring in the issues around the so-called energy tax extenders or the conservation bipartisan legislation that was put together by senator shaheen

and senator portman, and instead getting a more comprehensive vote this afternoon that i believe would have passed overwhelmingly. we're going to end up with one more vote that's for the most part going to break down on partisan lines. so i'm disappointed in that. i do believe that we need the construction of the keystone pipeline. i do believe we need meaningful energy conservation legislation. i do believe we need meaningful tax policy that promotes renewable energies -- wind, solar, biomass. and unfortunately we're going to have missed the opportunity today to send that strong signal of a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy policy that would move this nation forward. so i know my friend, the senator from texas, is no longer here. i would have been able to support a package that would

have been comprehensive, that would have allowed the keystone effort to move forward in conjunction with these other efforts. that's not going to happen. perhaps later in the year or on a future debate we'll have the ability to cobble together something that includes more of an all-of-the-above energy policy and we can get around to making sure we have a national energy policy that includes all of the above, as there is no silver bullet on this. we are going to need to make sure we take advantage of all the potential energy resources that we have in this country -- oil and gas, offshore oil, with appropriate revenue sharing for states like mine, virginia, nuclear, but energy conservation, renewables as well. the sooner we ghoat tha get to d of debate, the sooner we can build the kind of bipartisan coalitions that will allow that to move forward. with that, i yield the floor and

note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i now call up my amendment number 1535 which is at the desk, and i ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes

amendment number 1535. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, amendment number 1535, the vitter amendment, is very simple and straightforward, and it goes to an awfully important issue. it goes to the issue of the price of energy, particularly the price of gasoline at the pump. and this amendment will be a vote today, mr. president. in fact, it will be the first vote we take this afternoon. the amendment is very simple. it would allow us to go back to the previous lease plan for the outer continental shelf, replacing the current obama administration lease plan which cuts that previous plan in half, moves us in the wrong direction in terms of producing our abundance of domestic energy, including oil and natural gas. mr. president, everybody is concerned about the rising price

at the pump. it is on the rise again. it's significantly increasing. and that hits middle- and lower-class families right in their pocketbook, right where it hurts. and it's particularly harmful in a down economy. we're struggling to get out of this past recession. we're trying to mount a recovery. we're trying to make positive things happen. and these increasing prices at the pump are hitting at the worst time possible. now what do we do about it? well, there are a lot of things we can do, but certainly increasing supply, including domestic supply, is one major positive thing we can do. 88% of the price of an average gallon of gasoline is attributable to the cost of crude oil and taxes. 88%. that only leaves 12% that is

refining, marketing, and distribution. and, by the way, that 12% also includes the complying cost for a host of mandates required by statutes and regulation related to refining, marketing and distribution. so again, the huge bulk of that price is representing the price of crude oil as well as taxes. well, i could argue forcefully prevent data that taxes on oil and gas are actually too high. but i don't expect a majority of this senate to listen. so what we're left with as a way to impact those rising prices at the pump is to find more, develop more, increase supply. and that brings price down worldwide. we can do that starting right here at home. mr. president, most americans don't realize it because of federal policy, but the united states is the most energy-rich

country in the world bar none. when you look at all of our energy resources, certainly including oil and gas, the united states is the most energy rich. and we're far richer, by a long shot, in terms of those total energy resources than any middle eastern country like saudi arabia. the only other country that comes close is russia, and they're well behind. but the problem, mr. president, is that the united states is also the only country in the world that puts about 90% of those resources off limits and says no under current federal law, under the current obama administration lease plan. no to drilling off the east coast. no to drilling off the west coast. no to production of energy in the eastern gulf, at least as of now. no to most things offshore alaska. no to anwr, the alaska national

wildlife refuge. and increasingly this administration wants to say no and wants to put up hurdles and blockages on land where a lot of energy production is happening because of enormous shale finds and relatively new technology. and so, one major thing we can do to affect the price at the pump ne rice direction, to -- pump in the right direction, to lower it, is to develop more of our domestic energy. unfortunately in the last several years, under president obama we've been moving in the opposite direction, and we've been moving away from that production. and an excellent example is the outer continental shelf. this first chart that i'll put up is the last lease plan prior to the obama administration that was actually beginning to say yes in a significant way. this was the result of the

outcry from the public, the appropriate outcry after the summer of 2008, the last time prices at the pump spiked so significantly. and people said, wait a minute, why aren't we producing more at home and washington finally responded to that, and through this lease plan we were saying, yes, more and more. we're saying yes, green line on the east coast. yes, do more in the gulf. yes, green light off the west coast. yes, do more in offshore alaska. unfortunately, that came to a screeching halt under the obama administration. one of the first energy actions this administration took, president obama and secretary of the interior salazar was to very quickly cancel this lease plan once they took office. they scrapped this. then they studied it for quite awhile with no lease plan in

sight. and finally, several months ago they announced and put forward their own lease plan, the first under the obama administration. and what a difference an election makes. what a difference a change in administration makes. and all of a sudden the green lights became red lights again. we reverted to the old policy of moratoria on production again. and the answer again was no, no, no, no, no. no off the east coast. no for now in the eastern gulf. no offshore alaska. no off the west coast. no, no, no. this plan is half as much only as the prior five-year lease plan. so instead of moving in the positive direction, accessing more of our energy, including in the outer continental shelf, we're backing up. we're turning around. we're turning our back to the needs of the american people, and again saying no, no, no, no,

no. this amendment, vitter amendment number 1535, would reverse that, would say yes, would say no this plan isn't a good idea. let's go back to the prior five-year lease plan. les develop, explore, produce in a responsible way u.s. energy. again, we are the single-most energy-rich country in the world bar none. we have enormous resources, including offshore, including oil and gas. but we are the only country in the world that says no, no, no, no, that puts over 90% of those resources off limits. this amendment will begin to change that. this amendment will reverse that mistaken policy. and in so doing, it would significantly increase the supply of oil where we can control it most right here at home. and when everything else stays

the same, you increase supply, demand is the same. what happens? price goes down. that's the first law of economics. so let's say yes. let's say yes to good, reliable u.s. energy. let's say yes to increased energy independence by doing more for ourselves right here at home. let's say yes to great american jobs, because that's what this amendment would produce as well. jobs which by definition can't be outsourced. you can't take good u.s. energy jobs and ship them to china or india. you can't do that by definition. let's even say yes in this amendment to deficit and deficit reduction, because this increased activity, what does it do? it produces significant federal revenue. the federal revenue or royalty on domestic energy production is the second-biggest source of revenue to the federal government, second only to the

federal income tax. let's say yes. let's do something about the rising price at the pump. let's take control of our own destiny. please support amendment number 1535. as i said, mr. president, i urge all of our colleagues to support this important amendment, democrats and republicans. it will be the first amendment vote which we take this afternoon. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i'm going to speak against the vitter amendment because i think it is a huge danger to our economy, and i will explain why. and it's a huge overreach by the federal government into the abilities of the states to determine if they want a recreation industry, if they want a fishing industry, if they want a tourist industry.

i will speak more about it, but before i do that, i want to let meme know where we are. -- i want to let people know where we are. thanks to the extraordinary patience of our majority leader, harry reid, today we finally have a path forward to the transportation bill. and i want to say, normally i would name lots of other people. yes, we've all been involved. but senator harry reid is extraordinary, and he sat in his office last night, 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, 10:00 -- i was calling him, finding out what's happening, i was calling his great staff he has, working with my staff and senator inhofe's staff, who i have grown to respect so much; given all the issues that are facing you we ologall knew that having a transplantation bill is critical -- a transportation bill is critical. and we do debate very fiercely

on lots of things. and you're going to see that this morning. when it comes to infrastructure, we have found common ground with most of our republican friends. now, i do want to say, those who tune in to this debate today are going to be a bit confused because they're going to hear debates on amendments that rulely are not about highways, bridges, roads. they're not going to hear too much about that for a while. why is that? because the national is the senate is the senate is the senate. and we tried very hard to limit the debate to relevant amendments, but we were thwarted a couple of times. we couldn't get the 60 votes, pretty much part-line. colleagues wanted to have votes on very controversial amendments, which i do not think are going it pass, but we'll find out. and one of them is the amendment offered by senator vitter of

louisiana. and this amendment would essentially take the drilling plan that was released in the last few days of the bush administration and would open up for drillin drilling entire newn the atlantic, pacific, the eastern gulf of mexico, and bristol bay. and the fact is, since that plan was offered, we have to understand that we are drilling more now than ever before. we have four times the number of rigs out there. we are now exporting oil. now, does everyone agree we want more oil? i want more oil. i want it to stay in america. but i don't want to endanger entire economies by saying to our friends in the states, uncle sam says, forget about your fishing industry, forget go you-

forget about your tourist industry, forget about everybody who depends on it -- i can tell new my state, tourism is the biggest industry we have and the beauty of our state and coast is what draws so many people there. so this heav heavy-handed amendt says, we don't care what you think. we're just going to open up everything. now, in 2006, this body passed the gulf of mexico energy and security act, and i know my friend from florida is on the floor. that act offered up 8.3 million acres for drilling in the central and eastern gulf planning areas in exchange for protecting florida's coast -- until 2022. we will see if this were to pass. lease sales, 220 -- lease sale

number 220 off the coast of virginia go forward despite this will interfere with the navy's and nasa's activities in the region. and the vitter amendment requires drilling in bristol bay, one of the world's richest fishing grounds which supports a fishing industry worth $2 billion a year. $2 billion a year. now, let's be clear, america. we have 2% of the world's proven oil supplies. and we us we use 20% of the wos energy. so you can't drill your way out of this. what you can do, if you vote for vitter, is maybe feel that you're doing something. but you are destroying whole areas of our nation that are so dependent upon the beauty of our coastline. on top of it all, this amendment would waive environmental review of this the entire plan. no environmental review.

so nobody in the country would know what lay ahead. look, we don't need anymore giveaways to big oil. they are having raging profitsment even at thprofits.ee recession, billions of dollars. and here's the point: they're sitting on 50 million acres of onshore and offshore leases that they have yet to drill upon. let me repeat that. senator vitter wants to open up huge swaths of the coastline to big oil companies who are making record profits. the price of gas is soaring. and they're sitting on 50 million acres of land onshore and offshore leases that they have yet to drill upon. they've done nothing with more than 70% of the offshore acres, and nearly 60% of the i don'tene

onshore acres on which they currently hold leases. so when they had a chance to bid on more lease sales, they only bid on 5% to 6% of those offshore acres in 2009 and 2010, so they're not taking advantage of the leases they hold. but senator vitter wants to open up huge swaths, waive owl environmental re-- waive all environmental review, put at hisrisk -- how many jobs in california alone? -- 400,000 jobs. that's larger than some of our tiny states. well, maybe a little bit smaller. i think one of our states has about 500,000. this is 400,000 jobs, folks. and we have to bring -- we have to defeat this. you know, it is a great bumper sticker -- drill, baby, drill is a great bumper sticker. but i could write another one that says "keep the oil here in

america" and they're exporting the oil. we're exporting oil. and we're going to have more of that debate when we come to the keystone pipeline. so here's the deal: the vitter amendment is a giveaway to big oil. they made a combined $137 billion in profits last year. the american consumer doesn't see a dime of savings at the pup. -- at the pump. it would doin do mog to lower gs price -- it would do nothing to lower gas prices. it would encourage them to sit on their assets. that's what i think this is about. they list their assets in their yearly report to their shareholders, and those assets have value. and so they just show them year after year, and they never drill. so in reward for that, we're going to give them even more assets that they can brag about.

i'm going to put again into facts what i said before. domestic oil production under president obama is up. there's 1,272 active oil rigs in the u.s. right now, more than four times the amount in 2009. in 2010, for the first time in 13 years, imported oil accounted for less than 50% of the oil consumed in america. now, why is this happening? its eighit's happening for manyy different reasons. we are drilling more and we're doing it in a sensible way. not destroying areas that immediate to be protected and jobs that need to be protected. but in a wise way, in the regular order, in the regular process. but also we're driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, and that's extremely important, because i already told you, you can't drill your way out of this

mess with only 2% of the supply, using 20% of the world's energy. it is a tilt, it is a mismatch. so we have to have more fuel-efficient cars. and of course our president led the way on that, and detroit has rebounded because of this president, and those in this senate and house who voted to assure that they wouldn't go bankrupt. so the truth is, the vitter amendment is dangerous. it's very dangerous. if he wanted to come here with an amendment that had any chance of passing, why doesn't he go after the speculators on wall street who are triefg u drivingp prices? it is calculated that consumers pay an additional $7 to $15 on each tank of gas due to oil speculation. so you want to come here and really do something this we could all support, come here with an amendment that says, the

oil companies should drill on the lands they already have leases on, that we are very willing to open up more acres that make sense, with the understanding that that oil will stay here; we will work to stop the speculation on wall street that's driving up prices; and frankly i think if we see this continued upswing in prices, my belief is we should go to the strategic petroleum reserve, which has been done time and time again under republican and democratic presidents, and we've seen a salutory impact on gas prices. they go down -- at least one time it was 10 cents -- i remember 10 cents a gallon right away. and one time they stablized the prices. so we've seen it happen before. that's why we have a strategic petroleum reserve. so you want to come with a

balanced plan, talk about how the oil companies have leases on lands, how we support drilling where it makes sense and it doesn't put people out of work in the recreation and tourism and fishing industry, go after the speculation on wall street, and tap the strategic petroleum reserve, which is 97% full, if it looks like we can't get a handle on these prices. now, that's a plan, in addition to which we should continue to give tax credits and tax write diswrofs those people who -- and tax write-offs to those people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles. and i would love to see an added benefit for those made in america. so vitter should be defeated. it is very, very controversial. it doesn't help us at all and it would only pad the paychecks of the oil companies. i thank you very much, mr. president. mr. nelson: would the senator yield? the presiding officer: the senior senator from florida is

recognized. mrs. boxer: yes, i would. mr. nelson: i just want to underscore the senator from california's statement with regard to the outer continental shelf and point out that the vitter amendment would allow drilling in the one place on the outer continental shelf that is off-limits in law, and that is the gulf of mexico off of florida. and the reason that that was passed in a bipartisan way, with my colleague, senator mel martinez, back in 2005, is several reasons. in the first place, there is no oil out there of any appreciable amount. and the senator has already pointed out that there are 50 million acres under lease that are not drilled. well,ing 30 million of those

acres -- well, 30 million of those acres under lease that have not been drilled are in the gulf of mexico, where the oil is. in the central and western gulf, and there's very little oil in the eastern -- and gas in the eastern gulf of mexico. why? because mother nature had those sediments coming for millions of years down the mississippi river, and then the earth's crust compacted for millions of years and made that oil and the oil is where the sediments were. it's not out there. and the oil companies know that, and that's why they have 37 million acres under lease and only 7 million in the gulf of mexico are drilled, are producing of the 37 million. now, that ought to be pr prima

facie evidence of why you don't need to go in the gulf of mexico off of florida. but there's more. didn't we have some lessons from the b.p. oil spill two years ago of what happens to tourism when oil comes up on the beach, and it came very little on the florida beaches, thank the good lord. but the tourists thought that the beaches were covered up, and so that tourist season on our gulf coast beaches was a bust all the way from the barack -- e way from the alabama-florida line. you get down to clearwater beach, st. petersburg beach, lo and behold, they had a devastating dropoff of tourists that didn't come to those hotels and those restaurants and all of

those ancillary businesses. and part of what we've been doing with the b.p. money is trying to make people whole for all of the income they lost. that ought to be reason enough. but there's another reason. and this is where people often are so surprised when i tell them, the gulf of mexico off of florida is the largest testing and training area for the united states military in the world. and this senator from florida has two letters from two successive secretaries of state. by the way, both republican. secretary rumsfeld and secretary gates, that says you can't put oil drilling and oil-related activities in the gulf of mexico off of florida in the test and training range, which in effect is the gulf of mexico off of

florida. and so i just wanted to bolster the senator's statements about why we have got to vote this vitter amendment down. mrs. boxer: i was just going to suggest that, senator nelson, you continue with the time because i don't need any more time at this point. so please continue. mr. nelson: okay, mr. president, if i may be recognized, i want to point out that later on today, we are going to have an amendment that is bipartisan. it is an amendment that of its original bill filed, there are ten senators, three of them are democrat and seven of them are republican, and it's called the restore act, and what it does is

when the fine is allocated on b.p. because of the five million barrels of oil that they were spilled, the fine allocated according to the water pollution act which says that a fine will be levied upon anyone that spills a barrel of oil in public waters, and of course because of the enormous amount of oil that were spilled, this is -- could be a very substantial fine. five million barrels of oil and once that fine is determined, then the question is how is it going to be allocated. well, if -- if nothing is done, it goes into the -- only about a billion and a half would go into the oil pill liability trust

fund, and the rest of it is undeclared. and so naturally, what the gulf coast senators wanted to do was to have some of that money to come back to restore the gulf, the critters, the water and the people who are the ones that suffered as a result of the b.p. oil spill. and so what we have worked out is a formula that 20% of whatever the fine is would go back to the oil liability trust fund. the remaining 80% would be allocateed according to a formula advised by a national gulf restoration council appointed by the states and the

federal government, and it would go to make the environment of the gulf whole, go to help with economic development along the gulf that had suffered, and very critically to this senator would go to help research the long-term health effects of the gulf because no telling with all that oil sloshing around out there, we are already seeing just enormous effects and are going to be seeing that for years and years. for example, there are two senators -- two professors down at l.s.u. that i visited with that have been doing research on a little fish that roots around in the marshes to get its food.

and so this little fish called killifish -- it's about the size of a silver dollar -- that little fish they took and took slices of its gills, put it under a microscope, and have shown dramatic results of the fish that live in the marshes where the oil penetrate it, such as the bay where it's all mixed up in the sediment and then taking samples of the killifish that came from the marshes where not much oil hit. and the dramatic result shows that these little fish don't reproduce. the ones that are there are stunted in their growth. they have all kinds of

aberrations in their actual biological makeup, and this spells bad news for the future of the gulf. and so we are going to have as one of the amendments to the transportation bill, it's about five down on the list. hopefully we will vote on it this afternoon, with seven republican senators being the sponsors of the original legislation. we are going to have this up, and i plead with the senators if you're concerned that you don't want all of this money that is being fined as a result of the spill in the gulf, think want it to go elsewhere in the country,

i plead for you to recognize if you were in our shoes what you would want. but acknowledging that you want some of the money, there is, because we had to get a pay-for and the pay-for is a -- it's not controversial, and yet it produces about a billion and a half dollars additional that can go to the land and water conservation fund. the pay-for is something that the senate has extended every year a portion that was passed back in 2004 having to do with the world trade organization, a very complicated thing, and each year the senate has put that in abeyance for another year. that's our pay-for.

to put it in abeyance for the ninth year of the ten years that this provision was to be in effect, and what it does, it produces about a billion and a half dollars for the land and water conservation fund so that it will have an effect for those concerned outside of the area of the gulf of mexico. now, as you know, the deep water horizon oil spill was right at five million barrels. it coated the beaches. it seeped into the wetlands. it kept fishermen at the dock during one of the busiest fishing seasons. it killed wildlife. it kept the tourists away from the gulf. the long-term impacts are not known because there is still a lot of oil down there at

5,000 feet on the floor of the gulf of mexico. the fish and the wildlife that were not immediately killed are showing the signs of damage as i have indicated with killifish. and the gulf residents and the communities continue to suffer. in the united states senate today, we have a chance to take a step to make the gulf coast whole again. and a sign of -- in a sign of solidarity for the gulf, of the five gulf coast states that collectively have two democratic senators and eight republican senators, all but one senator of

those five states signed as a sponsor of the bill. it's bipartisan. this commonsense legislation, it's supported by so many people out there that look at this stuff. national environmental groups, sportsmen, chambers of commerce, academic institutions, local governments, the business community, and so today's vote is going to be a huge step toward making sure that the fine that's going to be imposed upon b.p., however much it is, ends up in the local communities that will harm by b.p.'s oil spill. otherwise, the money is going to end up in the federal treasury, and there is no telling then where it's going to be spent. so the restore act amendment

provides funding to each gulf state for ecosystem restoration and economic recovery. it also creates a federal-state council responsible for developing and executing a holistic plan to increase the resiliency of the gulf ecosystem. you've seen why were dolphins, why were baby dolphins dying? we don't know, in record numbers. we've got to find out, and we have got to test these results for years to come. the amendment is also going to ensure that each gulf state would come up with a state plan that's consistent with the federal-state council plan. and finally, this bill sets

aside funding for science, specifically dedicating funding for data collection for our fisheries, for our wildlife, for long-term observation and monitoring and sets up centers of excellence to carry out research on the gulf for years to come. but there's also a national component to this bill. it creates and sets aside the funding for an endowment for the oceans. an endowment for the great lakes, so that in addition to restoring the gulf where the harm occurred, we can better protect all of our coasts from environmental harm, and it provides substantial investments in the land and water conservation fund which i mentioned which protects and conserves land in each and every

state in this union. i believe that our people, the whole of america, deserve a healthy and productive gulf, and the civil fines that are going to be assessed to b.p. are a place that can ensure that. i'd like to share with my colleagues a vision for a restored gulf of mexico. one of the lessons that we learned and we learned it too late is that we do not have sufficient understanding of the gulf ecosystem. we know that one-third of our domestic seafood comes from the gulf waters. but we didn't have a clear picture on the biological status of two-thirds of the federally managed fish stocks that call the gulf home, so it's important that some of these fines go

toward dedicateed long-term science about the gulf ecosystem. that was one of the main things that i wanted to get into the restore act because of the obvious implications for the long term in the future. a restored gulf is one in which clean water that's free from algae blooms and free from tar balls is home to oyster reefs and fish habitat and seagrass beds, where charters ferry tourists from hotels to pristine beaches and then on out to the productive fishing spots and an integral part of the restoration is to shore up the coastal communities that were hardest hit by the economic impacts of the oil spill, and it's going to take a substantial investment to achieve those goals.

ladies and gentlemen of the senate, the gulf cannot wait. the rigid partisanship that sometimes has gridlocked this body has given way to a spirit of strong collaboration and bipartisanship in this senate when it comes to the restore act. i want to thank all the cosponsors of the amendment, and the cosponsors of the restore act. and i would urge, i would plead with our colleagues to support this amendment. it's the right thing to do for the gulf, it's the right thing to do for the country. mr. president, i yield the floor. just one second. i'll make -- i call up my amendment 1822 which is at the desk and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report. the clerk: the senator from florida, mr. nelson for himself and others proposes amendment numbered 1822. mr. nelson: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: mr. president, i call up my amendment, number 1660, which is at the desk and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from maine, ms. collins force herself and others proposes answer amendment numbered 1660. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to offer the regulatory relief act which is amendment 1660 to the highway reauthorization bill. i'm very pleased to have senator alexander, senator pryor, senator toomey, senator landrieu, and senator

mccaskill joining me as cosponsors of this amendment. mr. president, last year i introduced the legislation very similar to this amendment to provide the e.p.a. with the time that the agency itself says that it needed to rewrite the proposed boiler mact rules, to better serve the public interest and protect vulnerable manufacturing jobs. the legislation had the support of 41 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and an identical bill, nearly identical bill, passed the house of representatives with broad bipartisan support this fall. the e.p.a. regulatory relief act is straightforward. it will help ensure that the

final boiler mact regulations will be achievable and affordable, and that manufacturers will have adequate time to bring their facilities into compliance, thus preserving jobs. mr. president, we hear over and over again that the top priority of the senate should be to create an environment where jobs are created and preserved. well, this, mr. president, this amendment is all about saving jobs. since the e.p.a. proposed these new boiler mact regulations in april of 2010, there has been widespread bipartisan alarm over the cost of the implementation and potential job losses. it has been our shared goal to ensure that the final rules

crafted by the e.p.a. protect public health and the environment while preventing the loss of thousands of jobs that we can ill afford to lose. enactment of this legislation is necessary to protect and to grow america's manufacturing work force. this is all about jobs. we have urged the e.p.a. to set a emission standards based on real-world capabilities of the best-performing boilers currently available. after all, that's what boiler mact is supposed to be all about. unfortunately, the e.p.a. did not begin its rule making with that goal in mind, and the consequences are so serious, the forest products industry is the life blood of many small,

rural communities in my state of maine and many others. i was therefore, and remain alarmed by a study commissioned by the american forest and paper association which found that implementing the e.p.a. rules as originally drafted could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the country to close, putting more than 20,000 americans out of work. that is 18% of the work force in just this one manufacturing sector. now, mr. president, you may have heard that the e.p.a. has revised its rules, and it has. but despite these revisions, the boiler mact rules remain an issue of great concern to manufacturers across the country

and to many of my constituents. with the reconsideration process the e.p.a. has taken some initial steps, but they are not even close to sufficient. the agency's reproposed rules still do not address the serious and real threat to factories and mills that will be most directly affected. the revised rules, the revised rules, mr. president, are still estimated to cost billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. regions across this nation already struggling with the decline in manufacturing would be the hardest hit. furthermore, a recent court ruling has created even more uncertainty and confusion, and has increased the pressure on e.p.a. to just rush through

these rules without careful consideration. legislative action is needed to ensure achievable and affordable rules to allow adequate compliance time, and to reduce the risk to industries posed by the pending legislation which has created so much uncertainty that manufacturers are telling me they are putting any job expansions on hold. enactment of the e.p.a. regulatory relief act remains the best way to provide the need, to provide the time that the e.p.a. itself says is needed to develop and implement boiler mact rules that will deliver the intended benefits to public health and our environment without devastating our economy. there's no need for a choice here.

it's not the environment versus jobs. with carefully crafted regulations, we can protect the environment and preserve jobs. there are several factors that reinforce the continuing need for this legislation. first, the overall capital costs to manufacturers of the boiler mact rules remain a staggering $14 billion and threaten more than 200,000 critically needed good jobs. think about that, mr. president. the revised rules have an estimated cost of $14 billion and 200,000 jobs that would be lost. second, following the january 9 court decision that overturned the e.p.a.'s stay of the march

march 2011 rules -- and this was the stay that the e.p.a., to its credit, requested, but, unfortunately, was denied -- businesses are facing serious and ongoing legal and regulatory uncertainty. third, the revised rules still do not allow companies adequate time to comply with the new standards and install the required equipment. fourth, important biomass materials are still not listed as fuels. that makes no sense at all. we're trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels. we should be encouraging the use of biomass in boilers. and, in fact, the department of energy is doing just that while the e.p.a. is doing the opposite through these rules. it makes no sense to force mills

to use fossil fuels while landfilling renewable biomass materials. that makes no sense whatsoever. finally, the e.p.a.'s current schedule for finalizing the rules is inadequate for fully analyzing the comments and data that will be received during the comment period. and the e.p.a. itself recognizes that. that's why it asked for the stay. so, mr. president, i would ask of my colleagues, do not be deceived by the e.p.a.'s hollow promises that somehow, some way everything will be fixed and that we no longer -- or that we don't need this legislation. the fact is that the e.p.a. regulations are a moving target.

who knows what they ultimately will propose? the biomass boilers, some of the materials are still being considered as solid waste and treated as an an incinerator with far more costly and onerous regulations. biomass. but then again, this is the same e.p.a. that initially proposed that we no longer treat biomass and wood as carbon neutral, overturning years of treating wood as carbon neutral. that made no sense, either. under tremendous pressure the e.p.a. finally backed off on that for three years. but we don't know what's going to happen. now, let me say, mr. president, that the e.p.a.

does perform some vital functions in helping to protect public health by ensuring that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. and i've opposed many attempts to delay or overturn e.p.a. regulations. but we need to make sure that as the e.p.a. issues new regulations, it does not create so many roadblocks to economic growth that it discourages private investment, which is the key to maintaining and creating jobs. we need to make sure that e.p.a. both protects the environment and protects our economy, and does not impose billions of dollars of new costs on manufacturers, leading to an estimated loss of hundreds of

thousands of jobs in manufacturing at a time when our economy can least afford it, and when there are alternatives. i'm not saying that there should not be boiler mact regulations. i'm saying we need more time for e.p.a. to get it right, to work with industry, to get real-life emission standards. i'm saying that we need more time for compliance so that we're not imposing these huge costs at a time when our manufacturers are struggling and thus jeopardizing jobs. mr. president, a coalition of 380 companies and organizations organizations -- i don't think i've ever offered an amendment with more support and which has

so many companies so upset about what this is going to do to the much-needed jobs that they're providing, endorsing a proposal. 380 companies and organizations, including the national federation of independent businesses, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, and the american forest and paper association. those are just a few of the 380, have called for passage of my amendment. the members of this coalition are committed to working with e.p.a., to being good stewards and to supporting the development and implementation of achievable boiler mact rules, not rules that don