instead of biomass. how is that good for our environment? it is essential that the e.p.a. produce final rules that are guided by the same commitment. the e.p.a. is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a more practical approach to the boiler mac. rules. but we have no idea where they are going to end up. they are a moving target, and we have had promises not fulfilled by the e.p.a. before. i believe that we can achieve the health benefits that we all desire, and i know we're going to hear on the floor that somehow i'm trying to harm children or delay health

benefits, and that's not true, mr. president. i'm trying to allow the time that the e.p.a. itself says is needed to get this right. we can achieve health benefits that we desire without putting thousands of people out of work and stifling the economic recovery. the bipartisan amendment that is before us will help ensure that result, and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment to preserve jobs and strengthen our environmental protections. thank you, mr. president. mrs. boxer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: mr. president, just for the people who are watching this debate, we are talking about a transportation bill. we are talking about preserving the jobs that go with that.

1.8 million jobs and an additional one million that will be created. but you're hearing a debate about which we should roll back a proposed rule that controls the following -- poisons, mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium, benzine, toxic soot, to just name a few. and if anyone believes that all this legislation is about is a delay, then they don't know, because this amendment which has been called the e.p.a. regulatory relief act would forever change the current standards allowed for mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium, benzene , box i can soot and

other dangerous pollutions. so it not only delays a rule that is critical, and i will tell you the number of lives that will be saved because of it, but it changes the standards for these toxins forever. now, i don't know about the senator from maine, but i have never had one constituent come up to me and say senator boxer, there is one thing you can do for me. i beg you, increase the arsenic in the air. i need more mercury. oh, i'm desperately in need of more benzene, chromium and lead. i have never heard one say i'm willing to risk the fact that my grandchild who is going to be born in a few months, i'm willing to risk the fact that they may have brain damage. oh, repeal the clean air act, repeal the rules. i hope we will vote down this amendment. this amendment is described as

being nothing but a delay when it actually changes the standards for the most poisonous pollution known to humankind. i would call it instead of the e.p.a. regulatory relief act, i would call it the increase poisonous pollution in america act. and let me tell you my friend who is supporting her amendment. let me tell you who opposes it. people from her own state. the national association of county and city health officials, the american lung association, the american public health association, the american thoracic society, the asthma and allergy foundation of america. that's just a partial list. we need to vote this down. my friend makes a number of points about biomass, and we have the great senator from oregon here who actually took this issue on in the beginning, and he's going to have some time

to talk about it and resolved a lot of our problems with this. he is to be credited for a compromise with the e.p.a. that will work. i just want to say here -- and i say everything i say is fact, it's peer-reviewed fact. these toxins cause cancer, heart disease and premature death, so to stand up here and say all i do is give e.p.a. another year because they are not ready anyway, madam president, i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from the e.p.a. saying they are ready by spring. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: when my friend says e.p.a. needs more time, they have had 20 years, 20 years on this in terms of regulating these pollutants. and senator carper from delaware who is a very moderate member of

this body has stood up in front of our caucus, madam president, and made a passionate plea. we don't need any more delays. we need action, and we need wise action, and e.p.a. has said they will work with our states, state by state. they will work with the polluters polluter by polluter. because of the leadership of the senator from oregon, they have written letters to many of us who are concerned, saying that they will work on this. well, i'm not going to talk too long because i want to leave time for my friend, but i must put in the record the following facts. if we vote for the collins amendment and if it were to become the law, a, it doesn't belong on a transportation bill, we should be debating the clean air act for weeks on end if we're going to start repealing standards for these pollutants, so just on that issue alone, we should vote against it. but if it were to pass, which i don't believe it will, 300,000

newborns each year may well have increased risk of learning disabilities from toxic mercury exposures in the womb. we know because of peer-reviewed science that if this were to pass and we would not have this rule go into effect, for every year it is delayed, we would see 8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks per year, 52,000 cases of aggravated asthma. and i want to show you a picture of what it looks like when a child has asthma. what does it look like when a child has asthma and they are gasping for air and too many of our children have asthma. madam president, i don't know about you, but when i go to the schools, i ask the kids how many of you have asthma or know someone who has asthma? about 50% of the kids will raise

their hands. i suggest you do that. this is our legacy. these kids, that's what we live for. that's why we are here, to make life better. so when people say we are going to save jobs, first of all, let me tell you something. if you have a heart attack that you didn't need to have, you're not going to be working. i think there is also 400,000 lost workdays per year. scientifically peer reviewed if this is delayed for every year. and it's been 20 years in the making. these pollutants, control of them. 400,000 lost workdays per year. and here's another thing. we talk about the costs. yes, it will cost $1.5 billion per year to clean up this poison. the annual benefits are $67 billion. i would say to my friends that's a heck of a good ratio.

a good ratio. and i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter by the american boilers manufacturers association. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: it strongly says the following -- "we urge senators to oppose the e.p.a. regulatory relief act." this is business. this is american business, made in america. the american boiler manufacturers association. "we encourage senators to vote it down." and i have that letter. and here is what they say. my friend says it's not technically feasible to clean up these poisons. they said -- "anyone who tells you it's not technically achievable by real-world boilers doesn't know what they are talking about." this is not me speaking. i don't say that.

this is what the american boilers manufacturers association said. so everywhere you look when it comes to this vote, it says to me vote no, vote no, vote no. at the minimum, madam president, we should do no harm to our people's health. we have it in our hands now to stop a rollback, a permanent rollback, not just of the rule. that's a delay. a marmt rollback of standards for the most poisonous pollutants there are -- chromium, arsenic, mercury, lead, benzene, toxic soot. and i would say all the arguments that you have heard here just do not hold water. in closing, let me say this. the polls on this are clear as they can be. the people want us to get out of the way and allow the environmental protection agency to do its work.

lisa jackson is not a radical person. she is one of the most -- how can i say -- she is a coalition-building type of person. she is someone who reaches out. when senator wyden called her and said he was very upset about the way this rule was going, she sat down with him, and i think rose to the occasion. when other senators met with her and i was in the room with several, she said we can deal with your problems. so let's vote no. a, this rollback of clean air act standards for the most poisonous pollutants, that doesn't belong on this bill. there is no way it belongs on this bill. number one. number two, it's opposed by every health entity you can know. it's opposed by our local county health officials and city health officials. and i would say to you if you look at the polls, it's opposed by 70% of the american people.

that's the last poll i saw. they want to be able to breathe clean air. they know that their people suffer when the air is filled with soot and particularly toxic soot which results in devastation for our families in very, very, very large numbers. thank you very much, madam president. i hope we will vote no on the collins amendment. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i ask the pending amendment be set aside and amendment numbered 1738 be called up. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 1738. mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: thank you. the c.b.o. just announced this morning that february was the largest deficit in the history of this country. we have run $690 billion worth of deficits through the first

four and a half months of this fiscal year. we will have a $1.6 trillion deficit. this amendment that the senate has voted on before -- it passed with 64 votes the last time it was voted on, and it's a very simple, straightforward amendment. but before i get into the details of the amendment, we need a highway bill. everybody agrees with that. this is the senate of the united states, and the right to offer amendments has been secured finally after two weeks of negotiation. where are we as a country? i think it's interesting to look back fiscal years 2011 and 2001. in 2001, the total bill for the federal government was $1.86 trillion. it is now $3.6 trillion, almost $3.61 trillion. in 2001, we had a surplus. now we have a $1.3 trillion to

$1.6 trillion deficit coming this year. i think the american people would like to see us do something about that. and yet, at every turn on every occasion, we have not risen to the challenge of creating an environment in this country where jobs can flourish. and one of the reasons is the federal government is squeezing the jobs out of the economy by taking such a large segment of it. what this amendment does, it's very straightforward and very simple. the g.a.o. through two reports now, one released just this last month, the second in a series of three which will become annual, has told congress where the problems are, and the problems are in continuing to do the same thing in multiple programs at multiple agencies. and they have outlined billions, hundreds of billions -- i can

calculate at least $100 billion worth of duplication that is they have outlined and said we didn't do anything about it last year when they gave us the first. now they are giving us another that has probably another $30 billion or $40 billion worth of savings for the american people because of duplications. and so what this amendment does is very straightforward. it asks o.m.b. to look at the g.a.o. reports, give recommendations to us on what they would recommend that allows the executive branch to participate in this in terms of $10 billion worth of savings this year on duplication. now, why is that possible? here's why it's possible. and this is just a small sample of what g.a.o. has told us. we have 209 different programs spending $4 billion through

eight different agencies to encourage science, technology, engineering, and math education in the united states. can anybody in this body defend the fact that we have 209 different programs? no. nobody will even stand up and defend it. so we ought to be able to -- there's nothing wrong with us wanting to encourage that, incentivize that, help create that because we know that's for a hire powered work force in the future. but 209 programs? why wouldn't we streamline that? we have 200 separate crime prevention programs. as a matter of fact, the g.a.o. said you have enough duplication just in the department of justice programs that they spent $30 billion over the last nine and a half years, if you would eliminate that duplication you would find billions to save. how do you get rid of a

$1.6 trillion deficit? the way you get rid of it is a million here, a billion here, $10 billion here, $15 billion here, a billion here. what this amendment would do will save us $10 billion this year through smart government. it doesn't question the motivation, doesn't even question whether or not it's our authority, but it says let's do this. the senate voted 64-36 on this when this was brought up in april of last year. same amendment. thought it was a good idea. the reason they voted for it is because it was fresh on their mind what the g.a.o. had told us. let's take some others. surface transportation program. here we have the highway bill. they did thankfully eliminate a few programs. we still are going to have a hundred programs involved in surface transportation even when this highway bill is completed. we didn't do we needed to do. we can do better and can save money.

even if the same amount of money gets out to the american public, the administrative costs will shrink dramatically. private sector glean buildings. we have 94 separate programs, 16 different agencies to incentivize green buildings and not one of them has ever been tested to see if it has an effect, whether or not it's positive, whether or not it's efficient, whether or not it's effective. not once. never. why would we have 94 separate programs for green buildings? we have 88 different development -- economic development programs. why? nobody can answer the question why. as a matter of fact, two months ago i offered an amendment on this floor that asked of us to have the c.r.s. tell us before we pass a new bill whether or not we're adding another due economic cif program -- due

duplicative program. because it was a rule change, it retired 67 votes and 40 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said we don't want to know whether or not we're creating a duplicative program. it required 67 votes, and therefore we're not doing it. so we're going to ignore the brains, ignore the knowledge and we're going to continue to produce and create duplicate programs. teacher quality. this is one of my favorites. we have 82 separate teacher training programs run by the federal government. not for federal teachers, for state teachers. 82 separate programs. not one of them has been tested to see if it's effective or efficient, whether or not it has value, whether or not we actually get anything out of it, whether or not there is a teacher improvement coming out of it, and that's run from seven different agencies. first of all, why would have any teacher training programs other than at the department of education? and yet we have 82. nobody can tell me why. nobody will stand up on the

floor and defend the fact that we have 82 because they realize it's the height of stupidity. it is stupid to do multiple things in multiple directions and waste the overhead. we're not talking about not sending -- we have 47 job training programs. we're in the midst of releasing a report on all the job training programs on how they affect oklahoma and i want to tell you, it is not a pretty picture. there is so much waste, so much ineffectiveness through those 47 different job training programs. we're spending $19 billion of american citizen money every year and we're not getting a billion dollars worth of benefit out of it but nobody wants to do the hard work. nobody wants to stand up and defend those 47 job training programs. but nobody wants to eliminate them, either. we have a real problem. this is the first step, a first amendment where we can make with this bill -- by the way, the highway bill, we're having trouble paying for it. we're going to pay for it two

years' worth of highway spending with 10 years' worth of reductions. this amendment alone if we pass it will pass for the highway bill differential between the trust fund and and what the e.p.w. committee says we ought to be spending on highways. this amendment alone. so when somebody comes down and says they're not going to vote for us to eliminate duplication, you got to ask why they're here. why is it we would not want to eliminate duplication? why is it we would not want to become efficient and effective in terms of how we spend not our money, but our children's money? because 40 cents, 38 cents this year, of every dollar we spend we're tacking onto a decreased standard of living for our children. everything we do. so tell me why somebody wouldn't want to get rid of some of the duplication, wouldn't want to do the commonsense thing that everyone of the rest of us in

our own personal lives do, all our state governments do, all our personal businesses and all our public companies are doing, doing more with less every year and the easiest way to do that is to consolidate and eliminate duplication. so when you see the vote today, if it doesn't get 60 votes, what should the american people learn from that? here's what they should learn. it's not about gridlock. it's not about partisanship. it's about incompetence, and a lack of thoughtful consideration for the people who will follow us. this is easy stuff to do. we have hard stuff yet to do in our country. we're going to be making tons of hard decisions over the next two or three years. everybody in this body knows it. they're kicking the can down the

road hoping they don't have to be involved with the very tough decisions. this is the easy one. this is easy. i would ask my colleagues to consider this. if you voted for it in april of 2011, i'd appreciate your vote again. if you didn't vote for it, i'd ask you to reconsider why you're here. are you here to perpetuate waste, are you here to perpetuate incompetency? are you here to protect some little small program's constituency that doesn't work yetways your children's -- yet wastes your children's future? this is an easy amendment to vote for. i would yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, we a discussion, a very sport discussion, i know the president of the senate cares a great deal about this topic as well with senator collins, and also senator boxer on this issue about boilers. and i want to be clear about what's really at issue in this debate. the debate about boilers, madam president, stems from the fact that e.p.a. did not originally get the boiler rules right. the agency admitted that they didn't get them right. and the agency said that they needed 15 months to fix the boiler rules.

but the court said that the agency couldn't have the time. they said that e.p.a. could have 30 days to fix the rules. and as colleagues said, this debate has gone on for so long, no way it's going to be turned around in 30 days. so, madam president, i joined in the legislation to give e.p.a. 15 months to rewrite the rules so as to protect good-paying jobs and communities that are affected by the boiler rules, while ensuring the health of our people and the protection of our environment. now, madam president, that was 15 months ago. e.p.a. got the time it said that it needed to rewrite the rules, and the new final rules will be out within 90 days. and i'd just like to outline for

the senate what the new rules will do. first, the new rules as proposed in the legislation change what constitutes solid waste so that boiler fuels, for example, that are wood waste can be used for fuels like biomass. and wastes from steel mills as another example can be used as a fuel as they are today, rather than to be regulated out of existence as a fuel source. second, madam president, as proposed in the legislation, the new rules will create an open to the public list of what can and cannot be burned in a boiler. this is going to provide important predictability and

certainty to american industry, and it will provide new accountability to our communities. all across the united states, madam president, folks are going to be able to know as a result of these new rules what can and cannot be actually burned in a boiler. third, again, just like the legislation, the rules address the fact that because e.p.a. was unable to get the rules right at the outset, more time is needed for compliance. i know the distinguished president of the senate has been interested in this issue as well. the question of compliance and the time that would be provided for industries to meet the standards. in the final rule, the compliance clock is reset with a rule providing additional time

for industry to comply. and, madam president, this is just like what is in the original legislation. so industry will have four years to comply, and administrator jackson stated in writing that she will assist any hard-hit community, any company facing extra duress in terms of complying, administrator jackson has indicated on a case-by-case basis she will provide additional time to help those communities and to help those companies. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that this point -- at this point that the administrator's letter to me be inserted into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: madam president, i want to address the discussion that we heard from our colleagues, particularly

senator collins and senator boxer, on the key point. the changes that i have described, madam president, the fact that we've made the rule changes so that so many of these materials will be treated as fuels, which is important in timber country that i and the distinguished president of the senate represent, the fact that we have this new process that provides predictability and certainty about what can be burned in a boiler, the fact that there is the additional time, madam president, all of this in my view has been spurred by the legislation introduced by the senator from maine, senator collins. we ought to make no mistake about it, madam president. the important rules changes that i have outlined this morning that i think will provide certainty and predictability to our businesses, while at the same time protecting the health of our people, the environment

of our country, have been spurred because senator collins was willing to pick up the challenge and address this issue. these new rules, madam president, are going to finally take effect in less than 90 days. but the question i would ask senators is who knows what will happen to these important rules that are just about ready for implementation if in effect we say, as the amendment does, let's go back to the beginning and talk about addressing this again over 15 months. if the amendment passes and e.p.a. is told as i have been advised under the text of the amendment to take another 15 months, in my view what would

happen is the agency would go back to spending this additional time working to try to get to the point where we are today. that in my view, madam president, just doesn't add up. it doesn't add up for the industries that have been concerned about this, it doesn't add up for the communities, it doesn't add up for the health of our people and the protection of our environment. let me close with this, madam president. having been involved in the legislation, number one, having tried to make clear this afternoon, madam president, that these important rules in my view have been spurred by the legislation senator collins has talked about today, i want to state that i intend and i know others in the senate will do as

well to watchdog the rules that will be out shortly every step of the way to ensure that they are fully implemented, to hold the environmental protection agency to the commitments that have been made in these rules that are forthcoming and to ensure that all our communities, all of our communities can see that finally this issue is being addressed and it's being addressed in a way that makes sense for the jobs that we're going to need in our communities and for the public health and the environment. madam president, i hope colleagues will look finally at the letter that secretary jackson has sent me. i think it addresses in particular the timetable that so many senators have been concerned about here. i have tried to out line some of

the other -- outline some of the other issues that i think are critical, particularly the fact that we got the changes and the definition of solid waste that is so important. a whole host of materials have been added to that list of fuels. that means that we can protect the jobs that stem from countries that use -- the products that use those materials, and at the same time protect the environment. so this makes sense from the standpoint of realistic rules on what constitutes a fuel openness in transparency because the american people will see what actually can be burned in a boiler. and to me -- and senator boxer has touched on this question of the years that have already gone into this effort. administrator jackson, in my view, has gone to substantial lengths to address this timetable that industry has been

so concerned about. in fact, i think it's fair to say that when you add up what she has committed to, it's almost the same timetable as in her original legislation. so why in the world would we want to set aside those rules and go back again to the period of starting a new 15-month clock, only to see, in my view, that after those additional 15 months, we would be back to the place that we are today in terms of the rules that will be shortly implemented. i urge the senate to reject the amendment. we're going to continue to watchdog this issue until these rules are fully implemented, and with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i am very happy to see that we are making progress. i still continue to believe that these controversial amendments didn't have to be on this bill, but having said that, we have our agreement. so our understanding is -- and i wanted for all senators to say that our hope is to begin voting sometime around the 2:00, 2:30 time frame and to do a great number of votes at that time, maybe as many as eight, nine, ten votes. so we're waiting for people to come to the floor to speak on different amendments. we expect that senator hoeven would be here shortly to call up amendment number 1537, and we urge him to do that. senator merkley wants to speak

on -- on the underlying bill. senator corker wants to speak for ten minutes at approximately 12:45. senator inouye would like to address us for ten minutes about 1:00. senator lautenberg wanted to speak against -- or about, i would say, the environmental amendments at about 1:15. and senator landrieu, i know, wants to talk about a number of things but particularly the restore act, i would assume, at 1:15. senator sanders wants to vote on the issue of keystone, and senator durbin also had some comments that he wanted to make. so i would just urge colleagues if you want to speak before we start voting, now would be a very good time, and we hope you will come over here. we are making progress.

this has been a very convoluteed process, a very difficult process to satisfy everyone, and of course you can't satisfy everyone, but you know senator inhofe and i when we wrote this bill originally knew he would not get everything he wanted and i certainly would not get what i wanted, and we had to find those sweet spots where we could come together, and that's what happened. and the other committees did a wonderful job doing the same thing. banking committee unanimous in their part of this bill. the finance committee, that is a tough one. they had to raise funds to put into the trust fund. the trust fund needs some more dollars into it. and i see that senator hoeven is here. i'm so delighted that he is here to lay down his amendment, so i would yield the floor at this time. senator hoeven, are you ready to speak at this time?

mr. hoeven: i am, senator, but if you have -- if you were finishing up, that's fine. i would certainly be willing to defer. mrs. boxer: thank you, sir. we're very happy to have you here. please proceed. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: madam president, i am just waiting for my associate who has got some charts, but i certainly can proceed at this point. thank you for providing some time this morning. i'm here to speak in regard to my amendment, amendment 1537, which i -- 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 north dakota, mr. hoeven, proposes amendment numbered 1537. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. this is an amendment that would provide for approval of the

keystone pipeline project. congress has under the commerce clause of the constitution express authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries. that provides the very clear constitutional authority for congress to approve the keystone pipeline project, and that is something that we absolutely need to do. today there will be a very clear choice, there will be a very clear choice for the members of the senate. and make no mistake, i don't want to leave any doubt here. this is a clear choice. my amendment provides that the keystone pipeline project will move forward, authorized by congress. it is very clear that all of the protections, all the environmental protections are incorporated, as has been provided over three and a half years, three and a half years this project has been under review by the e.p.a., by the

department of state, by this administration. they have gone through not one but two environmental impact statement processes. they have met all of the environmental requirements. our legislation incorporates all of that. and in addition, provides whatever time is necessary for rerouteing the pipeline through the state of nebraska. here is a schematic of the project. and the one issue in terms of the routeing was through the state of nebraska. this legislation provides whatever time is necessary for the nebraska department of environmental quality to work with states, to work with e.p.a. and reroute the pipeline through the state of nebraska. so my point is we incorporate all necessary environmental safeguards into the project, but it authorizes that the project after three and a half years can go forward. and so i'd like to talk for just a minute about why that's so

important, because there is another amendment, an alternative that has been presented by senator wyden. that amendment -- let me be clear, that amendment will block this project. that amendment will block this project. let there be no con fusion. the hoeven-lugar-vitter amendment will advance the project. the amendment that is being put forward by my esteemed colleague, senator wyden, as a democratic alternative, that will block the project. this is a clear choice. nobody should be confused. gas prices. now, this chart is a few days old so it's a little bit behind the curve, but since this administration took office, gas prices have gone from $1.85 a gallon, more than doubled to to $3.70 a gallon. now, this is a little bit old, so the national average is actually higher. last time i checked it was $3.76

a gallon, going up. it's probably higher than that today. that's from aaa. the projection that gasoline prices will be $4 a gallon by memorial day and possibly $5 a gallon later this summer. that means every american is paying that at the pump. they are paying that at the pump. that's affecting our american consumers. that's affecting our businesses. that's affecting our economy. so what's the administration doing about it? what's congress doing about it? well, the obama administration has said we're going to have an all of the above -- when it comes to energy, we're going to have an all of the above strategy. i agree with that. we should have an all of the above strategy. but the point is you can't just say it. you got to do it. you can't just say it. you got to do it.

and the administration at this point, not only are they just saying it and not doing it, they are in fact blocking it. and i'm giving you as clear -- excuse me -- as clear an example as i can think of. i mean, i don't know how it could be any clearer that they are blocking energy development in our country. this pipeline project will bring 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil to our country. now, that's more than 700,000 barrels a day from canada, and that's more than 100,000 barrels a day from my home state of north dakota and our sister state, montana. 830,000 barrels a day bringing -- of product coming to our refineries. and the administration has said no to this project, and they continue to say no to the project. now, they have approved this portion of it. that doesn't bring one single

drop of product to our country. so they are -- i don't know. they are kind of confused, i guess, about exactly what they are doing, but they continue to block this project. so that means 830,000 barrels a day that we have to get from the middle east. and everybody knows what's going on in the middle east. you have got incredible turmoil, you have got incredible tension in the middle east. iran, they closed the strait of hormuz. they have threatened to do that. as a result, crude oil prices continue to go up and consumers continue to pay more at the pump. so in the face of all that, in face of real hardship to working americans, the administration is saying no to this project. they're saying no to my home state of north dakota. they're saying no to montana. they're saying no, we aren't going to allow you to build this project that gets that product to market and no to canada, we're not going to allow you to bring that oil into the united states. instead, you are going to have to send it to china. we're going to continue to get oil from the middle east and our consumers are going to continue to pay higher prices.

and again, make no mistake that this choice today is a choice. it's a choice whether we vote for an amendment to move forward with this project or whether we vote for an amendment to block the project. and again, there should be no confusion about that. so why, why would the administration hold up this project? why in the world would gas prices, you know, go to $4, maybe $5 a gallon, why in the world would anyone oppose the project? well, the opponents have put forward three arguments. so let's go through them. let's go through them and see if they -- if they hold water. let's see if they pass muster. let's see if they make sense. the first argument that, -- is that, well, somehow this pipeline is going to leak. somehow if we build this pipeline, it's going to leak. we

-- we broke the sister project and there have been no underground leaks? there were some leaks as they built it and put it together. those were handled in the normal sorts of construction and so forth. there have been no underground leaks in this sister pipeline. it's working fine. so why would this one be a big concern about leaking? doesn't make much sense. but if you don't buy that, let's look at the network of pipelines in this country. now, here are the pipelines that carry oil and gas in this country. there are thousands of pipelines, million dollar millif pipelines right now operating in this country. right through the very region that this keystone pipeline would pass. but somehow this one's going to leak, this one's a problem. this one is a problem. and these thousands aren't? and that's the reason to say no, after 3 1/2 years? come on. that doesn't pass anybody's test. that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. the second argument that's been

put forward is that the crude oil will come from canada and it will be the exported to china, we won't use it here in the united states. so we won't use it here in the united states and it won't help with gas prices. well, i don't know. for starters, let's just use the common sense -- some common sense on that one. i'm pretty sure if we don't build the pipeline, it's for sure going to china, isn't it, because it can't come here? so that's just for starters, that's just flat common sense. but even beyond that, the department of energy -- the department of energy for this administration did a study in june of last year, and in that study they said the oil will be used in this country and that it will -- not may but will -- lower gas prices on the east coast, on the gulf coast and for the middle west. and i had secretary chu in front of me at one of our hearings and

he acknowledged that, in fact, that is what the department of energy -- the department of energy of this administration provided, that the product will be used here and that we're going to need more crude and that it will lower gas prices. of course, that just stands to reason, doesn't it? if we're importing 30% of our oil from the middle east today, obviously we're going to continue to need crude from outside our borders. so then let's go to the third argument that i've heard against the pipeline project. that is that we should not -- that canada should not produce oil in the canadian oil sands. the reason greenhouse gas emissions are 6% higher than conventional and that the excavating process has a negative import on the arboreal forest. but the point is, let's deal with the real situation today. let's deal with the current situation. the current situation is that 80% of the development in the

canadian oil sands is insitu. 80% of the development today is in istu. what does that mean? that means drilling. drilling. not excavate, drilling like we do here in the united states. so you've got about the same footprint and the same greenhouse gas emissions as with conventional oil. so those are the arguments against it, and they don't hold muster. so here we are faced with a very clear choice. do we go ahead and get oil from our closest friend and trading partner, canada, or do we say no to them and have them send it to china? do we reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil, do we create more jobs, do we increase supply so we reduce the price of gasoline for our hardworking american consumers? how about national security? how about national security? would you rather rely on oil from the middle east or from canada? would you rather have oil produced in this country, north

dakota, montana, and our good friend canada? or would you rather get it from the middle east? i know how americans will answer that question. i know how americans will answer that question. i am looking forward to seeing how this senate answers that question and how the administration answers that question. again, this is a clear choice. these amendments are a clear choice. they are not similar amendments. one is for the project, the other is against the project. the other -- the amendment that the esteemed -- my esteemed colleague has put forward, the democrat alternative amendment, will block the project. it says after 3 1/2 years of study, start over. after 3 1/2 years of studying this project, start over. iso what does that mean? another 3 1/2 years before we build it, another five years? how long? how long do we have to study

vital infrastructure projects before we can build them? do you think that might be one of the problems with our econo economy? do you think that might be one of the problems with energy development in this country? so that's where it starts. it starts by saying, trans-canada, start over. after 3 1/2 years, start over. and then it adds additional impediments. well, what are those impediments? well, it says, for starters, none of the crude and none of the refined product can be exported from this country. none of it. not one drop. you can't export any of it. well, the reality is, there are refined products that we don't even use in this country. you can't. some of the coking products and so on and so forth. there isn't the demand or we can't use them. so now if the refineries can't sell those products, they've got to recoup that revenue stream, don't they? how do they recoup it? well, they have to recoup it when they sell gasoline and diesel in our country. what does that do? that pushes gasoline prices higher when they're already

going higher by the day. does that make sense to anybody? i don't think so. another impediment in this legislation is that not one penny of the inputs -- not one penny -- can come from outside the united states. even though 75% of the steel and 90% of all the other materials in this multibillion-dollar project, all paid for by private enterprise -- no government spending -- 75% of the steel, 90% of all the other inputs come from north america. but that's not good enough. nope. we're going to say every single penny of the inputs has to be bought in the united states. and, of course, the company can't do that because they've already bought a lot of the steel, they've already bought a lot of the other materials. so it's just a way to block the project. and think about it. think about that absurd level of protectionism. we're really going to grow our economy, we're really going to create a lot of good jobs with

that kind of protectionism. you can't import anything and you can't export anything, and we're going to grow and expand and diversify this american economy? we're going to put people to work? we're going to raise income with that approach? i don't think so. so, again, i go back to where i started. we have a clear choice today, very clear choice. we can stand with the people of america. we can stand with the workers. we could stand with the famili families. we can stand with small busine business. we can work to grow our economy. we can work to create jobs. we can work to strengthen our national security. or we can choose to say, nope, we're going to continue to rely on oil from the middle east. we're not going to work to increase supply. we're not only going to turn down our good friend and partner, canada, we're going to turn down some of our own states, like north dakota and montana and say no, we don't want that oil. we'd rather get it from the middle east. so today is a clear choice.

it's a clear choice about building a better energy future for our country, more jobs, more security. and i ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment i have put forward to move the keystone pipeline project authority forward so that they can advance the project and to vote against the amendment that's been offered as a democrat alternative which will block the project. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i have filed an alternative to the amendment offered by my friend from north dakota. i would ask unanimous co unanimo call up amendment 1817 and i would ask that the clerk report it by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oregon, mr. wyden, proposes amendment numbered 1817. mr. wyden: madam president, i would yield the floor at this time.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak about the highway bill and i want to start by first thanking the chairman and ranking members of the e.p.w. committee, the commerce committee, and the banking committee, all of which worked to put in place some reforms that this bill reflects. there is a component of this bill, though, where work has not

been done in a satisfactory manner and that is actually paying for this bill. i know the senator from north carolina's been involved in numbers of discussions about deficit reduction. i know we've had just add has im meetings about how we get our spending really under control in this country. and last year after the erskine bowles from your state and alan spimp son frosimpson from wyomie together with the bowles-simpson report, there was a pretty big effort in this body to try to adopt the principles that were laid out there. as a matter of fact, 32 republicans and 32 democrats sent a letter to the president asking him to embrace those. later on, there was another effort put in place by -- a super committee wasupercommittee and numbers of people on both sides of the aisle that this supercommittee really do something outstanding for our country and reduce the deficit

by $4 trillion, if possible. my point is, is that there's been a lot of bipartisan efforts towards reducing our deficit and yet the only thing that we've done thus far, the only thing that has any meat on it at all was the budget control act, which was passed on august the 2nd. the budget control act was passed in a trade, if you will. at that time, the country's debt was beyond the debt ceiling that was allowed by law and so in order to raise the debt ceiling, there was an agreement reached by this body to lower the amount of spending that was going to take place over this next two years by an equal amount. and so we passed something on august the 2nd of last year called "the budget control act." and the budget control act laid out specifically what we were supposed to do as a country to

be responsible in reducing our spending. again, this was something that was passed in a very bien bipartisan way. bipartisan way. as part of of that process, because we haven't passed a budget here in some time, there was a budget resolution, there was a deeming process that was put in place as part of the budget control act. chairman conrad laid that downright after the fact -- chairman conrad laid that down right after the fact, and we are governed by that deemed resolution in this body. unbelievably, we have this very popular program. this -- the highway bill is something that people on both sides of the aisle strongly support. i want to see a highway bill. i was the mayor of a city and understand how important highway infrastructure and transit spending is to this country. so unbelievably, with a very -- highly supportive bill, what this body is doing is already

violating -- violating -- the spending levels that were deemed by virtue of the budget control act passing and a budget resolution that came thereafter. so what i would say is this body already, seven months, seven months after this nation and actually the world watched as we wrestled with our debt ceiling, they watched us pass the budget control act, they knew that it had a deeming process that took place where a budget resolution was deemed, and we are already in violation of that. and all i'm doing is asking the members of this body, so many of us in a bipartisan way have raised up and said we have to do those things to get our budget and our spending under control, to control deficits in this country. so many of us took tremendous heat in voting for this debt ceiling that took place last --

last august, and yet this body in passing a very popular bill that you would think would cause us to want to prioritize and say okay, we do need to spend money on highways and so therefore, let's spend less on something else. this is a very important piece of legislation and i want to thank the chair -- the chairman of the e.p.w. committee for the reforms that have been put in place, the way their committee worked in a bipartisan way. and these comments this morning have nothing to do with the work that the e.p.w. committee did. but the fact is, we are not paying for this piece of legislation in the appropriate way per the guidelines that we laid down as a part of the process that was put in place by the budget control act. and to me, that is absolutely irresponsible. especially when you look at the spending levels that the -- the amount of spending levels that are above that deemed budget resolution. so at this time i want to offer

a point of order. i know the chair -- chairman is back, and i've been filibustering slightly until you got here. madam president, the pending measure, s. 1831 as amended, will exceed the aggregate level of budget authority and outlays for the fiscal year 2012 as set out in the most recent budget resolution deemed by the budget control act of 2011. therefore, i raise a point of order under section 311-a-2-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. ms. er: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: with great respect for my friend and i appreciate his opinion on this, this bill is paid for. it's paid for through the highway trust fund and it is paid for through bipartisan work in the finance committee, who

worked overtime to come up with a plan to ensure that this trust fund has enough in it to support the work we need to do to fix our bridges and our highways and to support 1.8 million jobs, more than 11,000 businesses out there, as well as the real possibility of creating an additional million jobs with an enhanced program we called tifia, which leverages federal funds. so, madam president, with due respect but pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 197, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions and section 4-g-3 of the statutory pay as you go act of when the 2010 i move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for the purposes of the pending amendment and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

mrs. boxer: madam president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: madam president, the amendment from the junior senator from tennessee would load a nondiscretionary budget act by $20 billion in order to offset transfers from the general fund necessary to

replenish the highway trust fund. this amendment, madam president, is a clear violation of the budget control act we agreed on less than a year ago. in simple terms, the amendment would impose a % -- a 4% cut to nondefense discretionary spending in order to pay for a shortfall in mandatory spending. i wish to remind my colleagues, madam president, that discretionary spending will rise at a rate that is less than the rate of inflation over the next decade, and that's according to the c.b.o. mandatory spending, on the other hand, is slated to rise at three times the rate of inflation. clearly, if there is a desire to offset one area of mandatory spending, the place to find such an offset should be on the

very same mandatory side of the spending ledger. in an op-ed in "the washington post" post -- the yesterday, are senator baucus said finding funding for the trust fund is, and we should all support the amendment. but in the opening portion of the editorial the senator noted the solid bipartisan support in the senate for a balanced approach to real deficit reduction. this approach, this balanced approach, would include revenues, mandatory spending, and discretionary spending. and i agree with the senator that only a balanced approach would truly solve our long-term challenges.

and yet, in this amendment what do we find? cuts. nothing but cuts to nondefense discretionary spending. no revenues, no mandatory spending, just the same approach that we have seen again and again from our republican colleagues. cut discretionary now, and we'll do other things at a time to be determined later. even the ryan budget did nothing to social security or medicare for ten years, but the cuts to discretionary spending and to medicaid programs that save lives of hundreds of thousands of elderly and children living in poverty took effect immediately. not ten years. and that is the approach of this amendment. clearly, there was an opportunity to present a

balanced approach. the senator could have proposed modest cuts to spending with increased revenue and changes in the rules that would lead to a fully funded highway trust fund for years to come. but that would require hard work, madam president, and compromise, and this amendment requires neither. across the board -- across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending are easy. this amendment, madam president, is one page. change one, and that's it. we can all go home and say what a great job we've done cutting down. but the truth of the matter is that when it comes time to implement these cuts, agencies will be forced to look at reductions in force and deferring desperately needed maintenance and repairs, and if

you're considering upgrading your technology to better serve the american people, you can forget about it. 4% is no small matter. coming on top of flat budgets for the past two years, and with no increase for inflation or population growth, as with so many amendments we have seen in the past year, nondefense spending is again targeted because it is good policy. but also it's an easy policy. and as i've done on each of these past occasions, i once again urge my colleagues to reject these unreasonable and reckless cuts, and to vote no on the corker amendment. and, madam president, if i may, i'd like to speak on another amendment.

madam president, in september of 2011 this senate rejected an amendment very similar to the one offered today by the junior senator from oklahoma. at that time, members saw this amendment as a back-door attempt to remove more from discretionary accounts than had been agreed to the deficit budget cuts. nothing has changed in the intervening six months, and we should again reject this amendment for the same reason. it violates the deficit reduction agreement reached last fall. senator coburn claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce duplicative programs, but in reality the amendment

would require a $10 billion reduction in existing discretionary caps regardless of whether there are actually $10 billion in discretionary savings from consolidating duplicate programs that can be identified only by the o.m.b. further, the $10 billion figure is completely arbitrary, and almost certainly will not be reached. in fact, there is no methodology or specificity that verifies that there are, in fact, $10 billion in discretionary savings to be found. the senator's amendment cites two reports on the government accountability office, the g.a.o., on how programs may be duplicative or somewhat duplicative could be streamlined

or eliminated. madam president, what the senator fails to mention is that the g.a.o. in its recent report notes that on 81 issues it raised last year, the congress or the executive branch have begun to respond to all but 17 of the issues raised. this amendment also ignores the fact that the majority of the items on which no action has been taken are unrelated to discretionary spending, but the coburn revenues are mandatory spending. moreover, in reviewing the details of the tens of billions that g.a.o. indicates might be saved by eliminating duplication , it is apparent in those areas in which g.a.o. has provided somewhat auditable estimates that the bulk of the savings are in three categories.

these categories are raising revenues, cutting mandatory spending, and cutting defense. for example, agency recommendations in two reports would come by cutting defense programs, including military retirement, health care, military compensation. furthermore, $2.5 billion in annual savings would come from social security, and at least $10 billion from eliminating tax expenditures or making other changes to the tax code. madam president, my colleagues on the other side have not demonstrated any zeal for cutting defense or raising revenues. and frankly, madam president, neither side has expressed much

willingness to cut mandatory spending. instead of targeting tax increases or mandatory spending, this amendment once again goes after the easy target, which is domestic discretionary spending. the same target that is attacked time after time, even though it only represents 15% of the federal spending. so, madam president, we have once again an amendment offered by the senator from oklahoma which has become a familiar pattern in this senate. on its face, the amendment might seem to have some value. but the details of the amendment show that the amendment is a trojan horse, disguised with the goal of discretionary spending, indiscriminate cutting without any real base or

justification. in other words, this is simply another attempt to circumvent the deal that we reached less than a year ago on spending cuts for fiscal year 2013. understanding that senator coburn doesn't believe those cuts went deep enough into discretionary spending, i and many -- remind my colleagues that we believe that they went too far. but in the end, madam president, a deal is a deal. we must honor the agreement reached by leadership and signed into law by the president. is it really in the best interest of the american people or this institution to force vote after vote on discretionary spending levels because one side

did not get everything they want in the budget control act? clearly the duplicate programs targeted in this amendment on any number of programs that the senator does not approve of. let us be clear, the objective here is no better government. it is cutting discretionary spending on programs government supports hiding under the guise of good government. the irony of the coburn amendment is that the amendment itself is redundant and duplicative of existing rescission authority which has been in the law since 1974. the congressional budget and empowerment control act of 1974, this act has been successful in

addressing the very situation. setting aside everything, the problem with this amendment is circumventing the checks and balances between the legislative branch and executive branch, it turns over all decision making in terms of which programs are duplicative to the office of management and budget with absolutely no difference to congress -- no tkoefrpbs congress and programs authorized by congress. madam president, the senator from oklahoma is constant in his efforts to weaken congress's power by shifting out our responsibilities to the executive branch. and, madam president, i will

remain constant in pointing out to my colleagues why this is a bad idea. the power of the purse is the single-most important check on the power of the executive branch. and every time we chip away at that power, we chip away at the founding fathers' vision of how our government should operate. in addition, we also are dodging our accountability to the american public. congress should be held accountable for the tax dollars we appropriate and the tax dollars we receive. in closing, madam president, we should reject this amendment because it makes no sense. and in this case it is an inferior one. when we are trying to address

duplication, and we should reject it because it violates the spirit, if not the letter of the budget control act which was signed into law eight months ago. finally, we should oppose this amendment because it fails to attack the real culprits of our economic woes: revenues and mandatory spending. and, therefore, madam president, i urge a "no" vote on this coburn amendment. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you so much. i ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes equally divided prior to each vote, all after the first vote be ten minute votes that the baucus amendment be listed as 1825. further, if a budget point of order is raised against the underlying bill in a motion to waive the budget point of order is made, i ask a vote on the

notion waive occur today within the sequence of votes this afternoon at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the republican leader. finally, that the time until 2:00 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. finally, senators on -- that's the second "finally." sorry. senators on the majority side be permitted to speak up to five minutes each, and they would be in this order: lautenberg, landrieu, wyden, stabenow, and merkley. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. lautenberg: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: i rise today in support of jobs and national security. first i want to take a moment to express my condolences to families who have lost loved ones in the tornadoes that struck indiana and other states on march 2.

mr. lugar: last weekend senator coats and i toured the damaged areas of southern indiana and met with people who are dedicated to a full recovery from total devastation. i want to pay special tribute to advanced preparedness by the schools and many others that prevented even greater loss of life. also our gratitude goes out to the first responders who are doing amazing work in, some cases while facing their own devastating circumstances. i'm returning this weekend to encourage the continuing progress for recovery, and i'm working closely with governor daniels and other state officials to coordinate federal assistance that is appropriate given the level of devastation. madam president, i do rise in support of american jobs and national security in a very strong way and to encourage my colleagues to support the keystone x.l. pipeline amendment i've offered with senators hoeven, vitter and others. the hoeven-lugar-vitter

amendment number 1537 mirrors legislation that 46 senators from both parties have cosponsored. let me give special thanks to john hoeven for his partnership and his leadership in this effort. america's overdependence on oil imports from unstable and hostile regimes endangers our national security and puts our war fighters and civilian personnel at risk. it also worsens our national budget situation as we spend billions of dollars to ensure safe passage of oil around the world. but today we have a dramatic opportunity to change that energy and national security equation by building the keystone x.l. pipeline to bring oil from canada, our good friend, to north dakota and to montana and then to the gulf refineries. and better yet, building

keystone x.l., a private-sector project, will create thousands of american jobs now. job creation is the number-one issue in our nation. the keystone x.l. pipeline is the country's largest shovel-ready infrastructure project. president obama had the opportunity to create thousands of new jobs right away plus bolster job prospects for thousands more throughout the manufacturing supply chain, such as our hoosier firms, hundress howser, koonz and caterpillar. allowing $7 billion of private kpheubgt activity -- private economic activity should be a no brainer. even after reviewing keystone for over 1,000 days, president obama caved to pressure from extreme environmentalists by

rejecting ketone x.l. jobs and security. the president ignored analysis from his own department of energy that said oil supplies coming via keystone x.l. would most likely lower gas prices. president obama's rejection of keystone x.l. implicitly says that the administration prefers to send billions of dollars to unfriendly regimes rather than expanding trade with canada. it says that democratic leadership prefers going hat in hand seeking more oil from saudi arabia rather than taking control of our energy future. it is incomprehensible. no objective standards of u.s. national security interest could justify such a decision. i recognize that there is opposition to keystone x.l. among certain segments of the

environmental community and i take those efforts and concerns seriously. that is why our legislation contains perhaps the strongest environmental and safety safeguards for a pipeline ever put into united states law. it ensures the federal government will not interfere with individual property rights or tell nebraskans what to do in their own state. opponents believe that by blocking the pipeline, they will stop development of the oil sands in alberta. that is a false hope. there is no doubt that canada will continue to develop the oil sands regardless of u.s. decision-making on keystone x.l. the government of canada is racing ahead with plans to export crude to china. recent high-level agreements between canada and china demonstrate no reluctance for oil trade through the puget sound and across the pacific. others say we should encourage

alternatives to oil and greater fuel efficiency, and i agree with that. but even under the most optimistic scenarios, oil will continue to be an important part of our economy, and oil from domestic sources and reliable neighbors will be more affordable and secure than foreign imports. crude oil from keystone exports will replace oil exports from venezuela and the middle east. the less we depend on oil from adversarial and unreliable regimes, the more protection americans will have from price spikes and shortages and the more flexibility we will have in diplomatic and defense options in oil-rich hands. let me say finally, "politico" reports that president obama is so anti-keystone that he personally is calling senators to oppose our bill.

the democratic alternative aligns with president obama's rejection of keystone x.l. and is a massive overreach into the private sector. senator wyden's bill will ultimately hurt the workers it chooses to help and will penalize america's refinery workers directly. in sum, the keystone x.l. pipeline would create thousands of private-sector jobs and would help protect united states national security interests. it comes at no taxpayer expense. it will strengthen vital ties with our ally, canada. i urge my colleagues to support the hoeven-lugar-vitter keystone x.l. pipeline amendment. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to include my full statement in the record, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey.

mr. lautenberg: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak against three republican amendments that pose grave threats to our health, our children, and our environment. the first seeks to delay and weaken new e.p.a. standards that would reduce the pollution produced by industrial boilers. these boilers emit dozens of toxins, including lead, which reduces children's intelligence levels and dioxins, which can cause birth defects. boilers also release mercury, which is brain poison for children. and i ask my colleagues here: just think for a moment how lucky you are if all of your children are healthy and feeling good. under the republican amendment, polluters will have at least six additional years to continue releasing life-threatening toxins into our air.

madam president, we've already waited far too long to see the health benefits these standards would achieve. back in 1990, both parties came together in congress and told the e.p.a. to set new pollution standards by the year 2000. if we delay these standards another six years, our country will suffer as many as 28,000 premature deaths. we will also see 17,000 heart attacks and more than 180,000 asthma attacks. this amendment would also fundamentally weaken the clean air act. it forces the e.p.a. to set the least burdensome standards for industry. imagine that. instead of reducing toxins our children breathe, this amendment orders the e.p.a. to reduce the burden on polluters. and under this amendment, children lose and polluters win.

and that's inexcusable. i also want to express my strong opposition to senator hoeven's keystone x.l. amendment which is nothing more than a rubber stamp for a project that poses serious risks to our environment and public safety. the keystone x.l. pipeline will be one of the largest pipelines outside of russia and china. it will be 1,700 miles long, cut through six states, carry nearly one million barrels of tar sands each day -- tar sand oil each day. and make no mistake, the keystone pipeline is not ready for approval. the fact is, the people variety to know the facts about projects like this. this is one of the reasons that i wrote the pipeline safety act, which president obama signed into law in january. this law requires the

transportation secretary to determine if we need better rules for the movement of tar sands oil, which is thicker and more corrosive than queeningal oil. and keep in mind, the existing keystone pipeline has had 12 oil spills in its first year of operation. let's get the facts about keystone x.l. and finally, i want to express my strong opposition to a vitter amendment to vastly expand offshore drilling in this country. madam president, i won't stand by while republicans put new new jersey's coast in the hands of oil companies. tourism and other coastal activities generate $50 million a year in new jersey and support a half a million jobs. just likes with the keystone pipeline, the oil industry is

telling you don't worry about the risks posed by offshore drilling. they say, "trust us; everything will be fine." but, madam president, we know how empty the oil industry's promises are. in 1989, before the valdez spill in alaska, exxon told us their oil tankers were safe. two years ago b.p. insisted it could handle an oil spill in the gulf of mexico. that's fresh in our memory. we shouldn't forget it. we don't need more empty assurances from the industry. we need to defeat these amendments, pass a clean transportation bill, and with that, i yield the floor. mr. roberts: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment number 1826. the presiding officer: is there objection? no objection, so ordered.

the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kansas, mr. roberts, proposes amendment numbered 1826. mr. roberts: madam president, i ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: madam president, i rise today to ask for support for my amendment to promote progrowth energy and tax policy, especially consistency for the remainder of this year. my amendment addresses a significant tax policy concern. within the tax code there is a long list of provisions simply known as tax extenders. now, some might ask why i'm offering an amendment on tax extenders to a bill dealing with the federal highway program. well, in a nutshell, here's why: these provisions are used by millions of families, individuals, and business taxpayers, but these provisions expired over two months ago, cause uing utter chaos in regars

to -- well, it caused the lawyer full employment act. the base of this amendment includes most but not all of the expired energy tax incentives addressed in the amendment offered by my friend on the other side of the aisle. it's your amendment. in my amendment, however, we increase these energy production incentives. with spiking gas prices hammering families and businesses, this is precisely, it seems to me, the tom time toe policy that will increase our supply of energy. to begin with, addressing the oil supply issues, my amendment would cut red tape and open up more federal land for oil and gas exploration and drilling. we are all painfully aware of the president's rejection of the keystone x.l. pipeline application. my amendment gives our canadian

neighbors the green light to send energy our way. let me now briefly describe the amendment. this amendment extends popular and much-needed tax relief, ranging from tax deductions for families sending kids to college to the adoption tax credit. by supporting my amendment today, we can provide a much-needed tax relief certainty to millions of families and businesses for the remainder of this year. i want to highlight this point because uncertainty in business and personal financial planning is something that i think all of us hear about daily when we come back home db - -- or when we gok home and come back here. the benefit for college tuition. this benefit goes to middle-income families. a lot of these folks around low-income, so their kids don't qualify for pell grants, but they are not high-income either. a lot of these folks are paying significant federal, state, and local taxes and they get no help

in defraying the high cost of their kids' college education. again, this would make it consistent just for this year. this tax deduction helps families by increasing access to higher education. this deduction ran out at the end of the laugh year and if we don't act on this amendment, these families will continue to face a tax increase. another very important expired provision is the deductibility of state and local sales taxes. over 10.3 million americans are paying more in taxes because this provision has expired. madam president, on the business side, my amendment would address expiring business provisions, including the research and development tax credit and tax incentives for lease holding. it also extends enhanced small business expensing. many use this benefit to buy equipment on an efficient aftertax basis. it good for small business.

it is good for small business workers, it is good for our nation's economic growth. the amendment closes a tax loophole that includes -- or, pardon me, that ensures that taxpayers claiming the refundable child tax credit provide proper identification on their tax returns. finally, this amendment includes a special deficit-reduction trust fund. the trust fund would contain the savings from the energy production incentives. the refundable child tax credit provision and the extension of existing federal employee pay freeze. this amendment does not add to the deficit, does not add to the deficit. it contains robust energy production incentives and restores expired individual and business tax relief provisions. and most of all, it promotes economic growth and provides much-needed consistency, as these tax extenders simply do not exist at the present time. and only for this year. everybody knows 2013 we have the

obligation, responsibility to rulely go intreally go into anda tax refor reform plan that will improve our tax policy. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. let me begin by thanking the almost 15 members of this body who have been working on this very important piece of legislation for almost two years, since the deepwater horizon tragedy. i really particularly want to thank senator shelby, who has been the lead on the republican side for cosponsoring this important and significant environmental and economic recovery of the gulf coast. we could not have done it

without senator vitter and senator sessions, who were on the authorizing committee where this bill came out with almost unanimous support. i think we didn't get two votes in the committee. everyone else, republican and democrat, was supportive. i particularly wnts t want to tk senator whitehouse, who led the effort on the democratic side as we have shaped with this help for the gulf coast, which is flepperepresented in this bill,y to invest in our oceans by smartly using some of the interest earnings. and, of course, we would not be here on the floor without the extraordinary leadership of senator boxer from california, whose coast gets virtually no benefit from the restore act as it was originally introduced, but was willing to step up because she knows how important the gulf coast is to the united states of america.

let me first remind people what this accident looked like. it's been two years, but we remember the horror that we saw on our television for months about the largest environmental accident in the history of our country; 5 million barrels of oil spilled along the coast of louisiana, alabama, mississippi, and seeped onto the coast of florida and had economic damage in texas. let me tell you that 600 miles of the gulf coastline was oil. 86,000 square miles of waters were closed to fishing, causing a $2.5 billion loss to the fishing industry, and we still have concerns about what that industry will look like. the u.s. travel association estimated a $23 billion impact to tourism across the gulf

coast. so although texas did not technically get any oil, they had an impact along their coast with a tourism decline. madam president, every commission -- independent commission, secretary of the navy commission, the president's commission, the independent commissions -- have all advocated that the proper response of the federal government is not to take this penalty money and stuff it in the general treasure but, rather, to take a significant portion -- our bill is 80% -- and send it back to the gulf coast where our people have great needs, both economically and environmentally. this is the time to act. louisiana has lost 1,900 square miles since 1930. if we were a state, we would in our -- if we were the size of rhode island -- we're not, we're

bigger -- we'd only have 49 states. as the senator from california know, we've already lost the size of rhode island. this is a national tragedy. not just for the 4 million people -- 4.5 million that live in our state, but can i put into the record for the few minutes that i have left that we contribute $3 trillion to the national economy every year. the gulf coast states represent 17% of the g.d.p., nearly 50% of the oil and gas that we consume every day in states all over this country come from the gulf coast, and we contribute $8 billion to $10 billion directly every year. madam president, all we're asking in the restore act -- and let's put that up here, the restore act for these states -- is to fund -- direct 80% of the penalty money that 3w*7 i b.p. g

to pay. the taxpayers don't pay this. this doesn't come out of any program. it does not come out of any education program, any other program. it is going to be paid for by b.p. let's do justice to the gulf coast. america's energy coast and, might i say, the coast that produces the most vibrant fisheries, the coast that supports proudly ecotourism, the coast that re revels in clean beaches. i ask for 30 seconds to wrap up. and please give us the resources that we need to restore this great coast. and, again, i want to just thank senator baucus and senator bingaman, who have joined now as supporters of this because we have added a portion to fund just for two years the land and water conservation fund for the entire country. so we will be sending money to the gulf coast, creating a an oceans trust fund and fully

funding the water and land for two years. i think it is a fair bill. madam president, thank you so much and again to the chairman of the committee, i can't tell you how much, senator boxer, we appreciate your extraordinary leadership. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i would just ask for 30 seconds before we torn to senator vitter. -- before we turn to senator vitter. i want to say to the senator from louisiana and her colleague, senator vitter, what an honor it has been for me to work with you on this. senator landrieu, you are the most passionate person i've ever met when it comes to fighting for your state. and what your state went through was nothing short of a disaster. it was a disaster many-fold. i was there. i saw it. senator vitter was eloquent in pointing out the many problems. senator sessions worked hard on the committee as well. and every democrat supported you in this. i would only say to my

colleagues, who may be watching this debate, please vote "yes." we need 60 votes for this. this is going to take funding from b.p. directly to fix up the areas that they wrecked. this is not costing the taxpayers any money, and because of the negotiations, every state will now benefit, if it has a coastline. so i'm just -- i was honored to do it. i was excited we got this out of our committee. but, you know, we don't have photographer. -- but you know, we don't have forever. i yield the floor. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. vit vitter i certainly want to join -- mr. vitter: i certainly want to join with my colleagues in support of the restore act amendment. that will be an upcoming vote, the fifth vote in line once we start voting in a very, very short order. this approach dez indicating 80% of the

cleanwater finds just from the b.p. disaster to gulf coast restoration is widely supported and on a bipartisan basis. the obama administration strongly supports it. outside groups who looked at the devastation in the gulf, outside groups strongly support it. all across the spectrum. this has been a concept that's been building for months and there is disprong widespread support for this 80% dedication. that's reflected in the fact that there is a bipartisan push, a bipartisan bill and now a bipartisan floor amendment this restore amendment. as mary landrieu and senator boxer mentioned, it had almost unanimous support coming out of our environment and public works committee. the cosponsors are fully bipartisan. so i urge all of the members to join together in this effort. this is completely deficit-neutral. we have an offset built into the

bill such that this bill does not increase the deficit in any way, shape or form. and let me point out, the money that we're using, as has been said, wouldn't exist but for the b.p. disaster. they're fines paid by b.p. and others. so that money didn't exist before the disaster, and yet still we offset that full amount with an offset. so, really, in essence, we're lowering the deficit compared to what it would have been but for the disaster and before that revenue created only by the disaster. and in addition, built into the bill in this latest version is significant funding for the land and water conservation fund, which has significant bipartisan support in the senate. again, all of that, all of that is fully offset. so we're not increasing the deficit in any way, shape or form. this is an offset that has been approved and used before, again

on a bipartisan basis. one of those previous votes using this same offset passed 98-0, in fact. so i urge all of the members of the senate, democrats and republicans, to come together and, please, do the gulf coast right, do the nation right in terms of this vitally important effort. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, the senator from north dakota earlier offered a proposal to develop the keystone pipeline. i rise to speak on the alternative this afternoon. the alternative, madam preside madam president, ensures expedited approval of the pipeline once the current environmental requirements are met. the alternative, madam preside madam president, ensures that the thousands of jobs associated with building the pipeline go to

the workers of the united states. the alternative says there is to be a ban on the export of all canadian crude oil transported on the keystone x.l. pipeline. and, obviously, there may be some exceptions and we've worked out a process to waive that, but if this oil is really intended for americans, then the export restrictions that we offer in this amendment ought to be very clear. and that is, madam president, the heart of the concern reflected by the backers of this amendment. we believe there is substantial evidence -- substantial evidence -- on the record that this oil will be for the export market. according to the trans-canada application to the canadian government, the canadian oil companies expect to reap as much as $3.9 billion more in annual

revenues from the higher prices they can tap once the oil reaches the gulf coast. once it reaches the gulf coast, it competes at the same prices as other oil supplies on the global market. it will be extremely lucrative for the company and the incentives clearly are for the export market and that's why the trans-canada application to the canadian government even admits that. the fact of the matter is, madam president, u.s. gulf coast refineries are already responsible for 75% of u.s. refined products and those exports are rising rapidly. gulf coast refineries also have a cost advantage over struggling refineries along the east co, and the keystone x.l. pipeline can, in effect, accelerate that advantage and likely accelerate the closure of east coast refining capacity. less east coast refining capacity means, again, higher gasoline and heating oil prices

for our country. and perversely, according to a separate report that we've received from the energy information agency, closure of east coast refineries could result in more imports of gasoline and other petroleum products, some possibly to come from as far away as india. that is particularly perverse because, madam president, this is the first time since 1949 when we have actually seen exports of a number of our refined products, such as gasoline, see that dramatic change compared to previous years when we were always importing so many of -- of those energy resources. so contrary to the assertion by the pipeline backers, more supply from canada does not automatically mean more u.s. supply and lower prices for u.s. consumers, especially when the evidence indicates that that

supply is going to be hard wired by the pipeline to world prices and world markets once it reaches the gulf of mexico. so i simply say to -- to senators, this debate, colleagues, has always been about domestic energy security. that is the centerpiece of the argument that was made by my distinguished friend from north dakota and we have heard on television commercials for weeks and weeks. the argument is, billed this pipeline, the energy is going to go for americans. this amendment guarantees that will be the case. this amendment, in effect, puts teeth behind all of the debate that this energy is going to be for the american consumer. i think that the evidence shows, particularly as you look at how you're going to see refineries bypassed in the midwest, that it's going to go to the gulf ports, you're going to see this

energy used in the export market. that may be good, madam president, for the chine chinese, but the evidence could indicate it would produce higher prices for americans. and, in fact, this trend, madam president, with respect to putting the export of american energy on autopilot, assuming that it is automatically good is something, frankly, i think we ought to look at more carefully. in this amendment, we make it clear -- madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent for just 30 additional seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden wyden: -- we make it r in this amendment we want to protect american workers, american consumers, and we're going to have expedited approval of the pipeline. the only point i'd make, madam president, is the author of the secure rural schools legislation, we're going to be voting on that in just a few minutes. this has always been bipartisan. i've been working with chairman baucus to ensure that it remains bipartisan. i hope colleagues will keep faith with rural communities and

when it comes up for a vote here in a few minutes, support the baucus amendment and our rural schools and law enforcement and road programs that are a lifeline to those rural communities. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: madam president, we conclude the debate on this very important bill. i rise for a very special honor to be given to the girl scouts of the united states of america on their 100th anniversary. 100 years ago in savannah, george, juliet gordon lowe brought together a group of 18 girls from very different backgrounds to give them opportunities to develop physically, mentally and spiritually. from that meeting, miss lowe came to recognize the need for an organization that would help girls develop self-reliance and resourcefulness in the face of a changing society and in their future roles as professional women. from that modest single troupe in savannah, miss lowe's vision has grown into the largest

organization for girls in the world. with 3.2 million girl scouts and more than 50 million girl scout alumni. despite their growth, the girl scouts of today have stayed true to miss lowe's vision, focusing on topics such as leadership, science and technology, busine business, and economic literacy and outdoor and environmental awareness. it is admirable that the girl scouts throughout their 100-year history of supporting women's leadership, have truly been a voice for all girls, regardless of background. as girl scouts, young women develop their leadership potential through activities that enable them to discover and develop their values and skills and to take action to make a difference in the world. and while we all know about the beloved american institution that is the girl scout cookie sale, it's not just about the cookies. scouting also provides girls with the skills and self-confidence to become leaders in their own lives.

girl scouts have an impressive record of success. former girl scouts make up a majority of women who have served in congress, and 53% of all women business owners are former girl scouts. we are fortunate that the guidance and opportunities that girl scouts have provided during the last 100 years will remain for the next generation of women leaders for georgia as well as for the united states. madam president, i ask our colleagues to join me in congratulating the girl scouts of the united states of america, founded in the great state of georgia, on 100 years of supporting female leadership. and i yield back. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. i rise to address the baucus amendment that maintains the

core federal commitment to our timber counties through the secure rural schools and the payment in lieu of taxes programs. let me give you a sense of what this is all about. this is equivalent to a farmer who is told by the federal government, we have a new set of rules and you can't grow crops on your farm any longer but we are going to substitute payments that you would otherwise recei receive. well, the farmer doesn't like it, he'd rather grow crops, but what can he do? then along comes the government a few years later and says, you know what? you can't grow crops and you're not going to get compensated for our rules that tell you, you can't grow crops. and, of course, that's outrageous. that's like a taking of proper property. and yet that is exactly, exactly the situation that exists for our timber counties in terms of the lands effected by the secure

rural schools program. the timber harvest cannot proceed in its original method and the compensation is not guaranteed to be in place. so we have to fix that. we have to make sure the federal government abides by the deals that it has struck. now, this deal is essential to rural timber counties throughout our nation. it's essential to so many counties in oregon. you know, five years ago when my colleague, senator wyden, was working to make sure that this commitment was upheld, i was in the role of -- of speaker. and in that role, i organized the delegation of democrats and republicans to go out and talk with our county leaders. and there was such mistification about the fact that the federal government wasn't going to stand by the deal it had struck. well, today, through the amendment that senator baucus and senator wyden and others have been working to put forward, we have the chance to make sure that the word of the

federal government is good. that's why we need to pass this amendment. i would like to tell you that we were going to put forward an amendment that secured the word of the government for a good long time to come, but, unfortunately, it's only a minimalist, one-year agreement but that's what we have before us and that's what we must do. thank you, madam president. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority floor leader. mr. reid: mr. president, at 2:00 we're going to start the votes on our massive number of amendments. the first one will be on outer continental shelf. it's my understanding that there -- that i have the right to call -- start the voting at 2:00. is that right?

the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: everyone should know -- staffs, alert your senators -- the first vote will be 20 minutes. and with consent, i ask all subsequent votes be -- the first vote will be 15 minutes with a five-minute time for people to get here. after that, we'll have 10 minutes. i ask unanimous consent that all subsequent votes be 10 minutes. first one be 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, all subsequent votes will be 10 minutes. mr. reid: madam president, we are going to enforce that. if people are not here, we have 30 votes to get through today. it's going to be a lot of work on the clerks to do this, but our senators should just stay here rather than wander off and do other things. otherwise, they are suggest to missing votes. so i want to make sure everyone understands that. the only time we would deviate from that is those votes that's one or two votes, three votes

separating, we usually have to take a little longer time on that to make sure there are no mistakes. other than that, we're going to whip through these votes as quickly as we can. has the hour of 2:00 arrived yet, madam chair? the presiding officer: it has. the senator is correct. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on the vitter amendment. who yields time? mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be following senator vitter's. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, in my one minute, i hope we're going to vote down this antijobs amendment that threatens our coastal economies. many of our coastal states treasure their coasts, and it is an economic engine of growth, because the tourists come there, we have recreation, we have the fishing industry, and therefore it's very important that we vote down this amendment, because this amendment is a big brother amendment. it tells the states what they have to do, what they must do, even if their value is to protect those coastal-related economies.

we have 2% of the proven oil supplies in the world, madam president, and we use 20% of the world's energy. so we all know we can't drill our way out of this, and yet the senator from louisiana wants to open up every area of our state to drilling when the oil companies are sitting on more than 50 million acres of offshore and onshore leases. so this is a giveaway to big oil. we should go after the oil speculators. we want to bring down gas prices. let's do that. let's vote down this bad amendment. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the question is on the amendment. is there a second? there appears to be a second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members who have not yet voted or who wish to change his or her vote? if not, on this amendment the yeas are 46, the nays are 52. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes, the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the baucus amendment number 1825. a senator: the senate is not in

order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i ask the yeas and nays on this amendment. mr. president, i call up amendment number 1825 and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. baucus for himself and others presents amendment numbered 1825. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. baucus: i ask consent to add senators crapo and risch to be cosponsors on this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. baucus: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order.

mr. baucus: mr. president, this is a simple amendment. it compensates counties for the lack of federal land base, counties that don't have the ability to collect property taxes because of federal land. this revenue goes to schools, it goes to jobs, roads. i might add that in the state of oregon 20% goes to highway spending. this is a highway bill. it's been supported strongly in the past by this body, and the offsets have been worked out and i strongly urge my colleagues to support it. this is a good, solid program. i yield the balance of my time to my colleague from oregon, senator wyden. mr. wyden: mr. president, the baucus amendment is a life line for rural america and particularly for the west and the south, where the federal government owns so much of our land, and this money is absolutely essential to keep school doors open, to keep cops out there protecting our people and our roads program.

this program has always been bipartisan since the days when our former colleague, senator craig and i authored it. i urge my colleagues to support chairman baucus on this and provide a life line to rural america and i yield back. the presiding officer: who yields time? time is yielded back. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not yet voted or wish to change

their votes? if not, on this vote the yeas are 82. the nays are 16. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. mr. baucus: mr. president sph. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i move to reconsider the last vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the collins amendment number 1660. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i ask unanimous consent that senator murkowski be add add as a cosponsor to the preceding amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, could we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.the sen. -- the senate will come to order.

the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, this is a very modest, bipartisan amendment. it simply gives the e.p.a. more time to get these regulations right and our struggling manufacturers more time to comply with them. it is a false choice to say that this is the environment versus the economy. we can have both. the presiding officer: the senator deserves to be heard. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, if this amendment is not adopted and the current regulations go into effect, the estimates are that they will cost manufacturers $14 billion to comply and that we will lose

200,000 manufacturing jobs at a time when we can least afford it. all we're asking is for more time to get these regulations right. i yield back the remainder of the time and urge support for the amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, could we have order. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: colleagues, what we do here makes a difference in people's lives cht and we have peer-reviewed studies that show that if the collins amendment passes and we go back to square one, we will see 8,100 premature deaths per year, 5,100 heart attacks per year, and talk about jobs -- 400,000 lost workdays per year. why is it? because what the e.p.a. is

trying to do under the clean air act is make sure we don't have too much arsenic in the air, make sure we don't have too much chromium in the acres make sure we don't have too much lead or mercury. these are devastating toxics, especially to our children. the manufacturers of boilers say there will be many jobs created. i put this letter in the record and they say, "anyone who tells you otherwise is not a boiler manufacturer and doesn't know what they're talking about." senator wyden, who was an original cosponsor, is off this bill because the e.p.a. has worked with him and has managed to answer his concerns. thank you. please vote "no" on this. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator who has not yet voted or wishes to change his or her vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 52, the nays are 46. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. without objection. there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the coburn amendment number 1738. the senator from oklahoma. the senate will be in order.

senators, please take your conversations out of the well. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: this amendment is very similar to an amendment we voted on the small business bill. it passed 64-30-something. i can't remember the exact number. very straightforward. we ask the o.m.b. to look at the two most recent g.a.o. reports, combine $10 billion worth of savings, send back to us the recommendation so that we can in fact accomplish that purpose. the g.a.o. is showing us exactly where we need to go in terms of saving money. we're involving the executive branch in that. they also have other plans they are working on, which i am trying to work with the administration on. you want to pick up the difference between what we're really needing to do for infrastructure in this country, the best way to do it is support this amendment and find another $10 billion to go for infrastructure. i yield back. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. inouye: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii.

mr. inouye: madam president, last september, we rightfully rejected a coburn amendment. i think it's almost identical to this one. senator coburn claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce duplication, but in reality, it would just give a $10 billion reduction to discretionary caps. regardless of whether there actually are $10 billion in discretionary savings. in addition, there is an existing rescission authority in place, thus making this amendment on reducing duplication redundant. this amendment is a back-door attempt to lower discretionary spending caps agreed to by the budget control act. but, madam president, we should not violate the b.c.a., and i urge a no vote. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 46. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the nelson-shelby-landrieu amendment number 1822. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mrs. boxer: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: will the senate please be in order. mr. nelson: madam president, we're going to divide one minute 15 seconds here, 15 seconds there and 30 seconds to senator

shelby. and i'll just say this is the b.p. fine money to come back and restore the gulf of mexico and the people who earn their living from the gulf. ms. landrieu: madam president, this money will be shared with all of the states. it's appropriate, new money paid by b.p., not taxpayer money, to the gulf. let me thank senator boxer, whitehouse and baucus for their extraordinary help on our side and thank senator shelby. we'll take the next few seconds. i don't know if senator vitter wants to say a word. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, i urge support of this amendment. it is bipartisan. it's -- this concept is supported by multiple outside groups as well as the administration and it is fully offset, does not increase the deficit. ms. landrieu: thank you. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition?

the question is on the amendment. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the yeas are 76, the nays are 22. the amendment is approved. without objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment 1817 offered by the senator from oregon, mr. wyden. the senate will be in order. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, and colleagues, this amendment ensures that the keystone pipeline is built by american

workers, using american steel. that our priority is reasonably priced energy for american families and american businesses rather than their chinese competitors. and it contains an spited -- expedited approval process so when air and water and environmental laws are complied with, the pipeline application must be approved within 90 days. put simply, when you build a pipeline that is 2,000 miles across the nation, our challenge is to do it right. a senator: the senate is not in order, madam president. . the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

mr. wyden: madam president, there are two alternatives. this one gives us a chance to do it right for our workers, our businesses, the well-being of all our communities. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the keystone x.l. pipeline will bring more than 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from canadian and also have states like mine in north dakota and montana. we need that crude oil rather than relying on the middle east. this bill is a vote to block the project. make no mistake. this not only requires the trans-canada start over after three and a half years, it says start over after three and a half years. what does that mean? another three and a half years before they can go forward? and it adds additional impediments to the project. with gasoline prices going up every day, we need more

supply, we need it from canada, we need it from north dakota and montana, frn the middle east. please vote no on this amendment and yes on the next one which will allow to us move forward for american workers, american consumers, for businesses, for economy and for national security. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on amendment number 1817. is there a second? appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the yeas are 34, the nays are 64. the amendment is defeated. there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 1537 offered by the senator from north dakota, mr. hoeven. the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: madam president, i

rise in support of this amendment, which authorizes the keystone -- the presiding officer: will the senator hold for a minute while the senate chamber gets in order. the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: madam president, i rise to speak in support of this amendment which would authorize the keystone x.l. pipeline project to move forward. it provides an authorization after more than three and a half years of study. it incorporates all of the safeguards that have been developed through the environmental impact statement process with both e.p.a. and the department of state, and it allows whatever time may be necessary for rerouting in nebraska. so it addresses the concerns that have been raised, as far as the environmental impact statement, but authorizes that the project can proceed. this project will bring 830,000

barrels a day of crude to our refineries. as i mentioned earlier, not only from canada, but from my home state of north dakota, as well as from montana. this s abouthis is not only abog more energy here at home and with our closest ally, canada, but it is also about national security. it is about reducing our dependence on oil from the meef. we have got to demonstrate -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. hoeven: i urge your strong support for this amendment on behalf of american workers and consumers. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition in. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i would urge oppos opposition to s amendment. i with a nts to outline why. first, under this amendment, the oil is not going to be going to the united states. this oil is going to be going to the export market, and the

company, the trans-canada application to the canadian government showed this beyond any question. the canadian oil companies expect to reap as much as $3.9 billion more in annual revenue from the higher prices they can tap once their oil reaches the gulf coast, and it competes at the same prices as other oil supplies on the global market. no protection for workers, no protection on the environment, and i believe higher prices for american businesses and american consumers. i'd urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the amendment. the presiding officer: question is on amendment number 1537. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 42. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes -- mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: could we have order. the presiding officer: order in the chamber. order in the chamber, please. take your discussions outside. mr. reid: mr. president, it's 4:15. we have a matter that i will -- i believe will be decided by voice? just a few minimum -- voice in just a few minutes. this will be the last vote until tuesday, when we finish this bill. i really appreciate everyone's cooperation. i've talked to -- before about how fortunate we are to have the two managers that we have on this bill, senators boxer and inhofe. they've done a remarkably good job. we have a locked-in set of amendments now. there's no reason to work into

the night. we should -- we've had a good week. we'll have a good week next we week. and i wish everyone a good break. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to have all applicable budget points of order. mrs. boxer: mr. president, can we have order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order, please. take your discussions outside. take them in the cloakroom. order in the senate. the senator from california. she would like for all of you to hear this. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i'd like order because this -- this is a vote -- if we don't get this vote, this bill dies today so i really need to have order. thank you. colleagues, we must waive the budget act in order to continue working on this bill, and my friend from tennessee will tell you otherwise.

this bill is 100% paid for. the c.b.o. score is actually $5 billion surplus over the next ten years. how is it paid for? and i could tell you, my friend, jim inhofe, made sure it would be paid for and we agreed on it. through the highway trust fund, plus the bipartisan work of the finance committee. we have filled this trust fund to cover this bill. 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance. all the work we did today hangs in the balance. we need 60 votes. so if you're for the transportation bill, please vote aye so we can continue our work next week. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i -- let me first say that i am a very strong supporter of a highway bill and of infrastructure. but i also believe that we should have integrity as it relates to this issue of

spending. if i could have order. the presiding officer: please, order in the senate. mr. corker: last august, the world and the country watched as our nation almost came to a halt. and we agreed in order to raise a debt ceiling that we would pass the budget control act which put strict limitations on spending for last year and for this year. we are making a mockery of what happened during that time. if we waive this budget control act point of order that i've put in place, basically what we have said -- and we've had all kind of senators on both sides of the aisle that have focused on the deficit issue in good faith -- but we basically are saying we cannot make it seven months without violating the budget control act, which we put in place to create discipline in this body.

i urge a no vote on waiving this motion. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask for 30 sect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i -- i've had the rankings of the most conservative member of this body many times and have often said there are two areas where i'm a big spender. one is national defense. one is infrastructure. we desperately need this bill. and it's interesting to me that so many of my good friends -- and they are friends, including the senator from tennessee -- that they'll vote as they did back in 2008 for $700 billion for a bailout and then something like this comes up and -- and somehow this is an excuse to kill the bill. you can kill the bill and we can go back and start all over again. i wish and i think that the finance committee's going to come up with something that is going to allow us to get this done by the time we get in to conference. and i would urge my conservative friends particularly to go ahead and vote for a highway bill. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee.

mr. corker: just 30 seconds. the presiding officer: thyme has expired. the senator asked for 30 seconds. mr. corker: mr. president, the fact is the amount of money that it would take to not have a budget point of order is so small that we ought to just offset discretionary caps for this year, the amount that we're spending above that for this highway bill. this is ludicrous. that we cannot set priorities in a way that causes us to live within the budget control act and break it within seven months of passing it and break faith with the american people. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: and i would note -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: and i would sugges suggest -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. without objection. mr. inhofe: we don't have senator thune here, who was doing a great job in the finance committee. unfortunately his mother died and he's not here. and we would be able to sit down and solve this problem and not delay this bill. right now it's set up so we can have a highway bill.

this could kill it. and i hope that you folks will talk to your people at home. you can't do it before this bill but afterwards you might -- i might suggest you do that. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: yeas and nays. the question has been put. is there a second? sufficient second? the question's on the motion. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote in the affirmative or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays are 31. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order fails. the senator from massachusetts. a senator: on roll call vote number 33, the wyden amendment, i mistakenly voted aye and meant

to vote no. it will not change the outcome. i ask that that be made. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, on roll call vote number 29, i voted aye. it was my intention to vote no. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome. and, mr. president, let me just explain very briefly that i was told that the amendment had been modified to accommodate concerns that i have raised and then the amendment was not so modified, so i wanted to put in that explanation to explain why the error was made. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, on roll call vote 29 i voted aye. it was my intention to vote no. i ask unanimous consent i be permitted to change the vote since it will not affect the outcome and it is for exactly the same reason that senator

collins has mentioned. it was our understanding when coming to the floor that the modification had been accepted. it was not accepted. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i wanted to thank my colleagues. most of them have gone, bijust -- but i just feel this record reflect the last vote we had had. basically it was a vote to undo everything we worked so hard on all day. it basically was a back-door way of killing the transportation bill, a bill that is fiscally responsible. it's current levels plus inflation --, inflation, fully paid for. senator inhofe and i agreed at the outset if the e.p.w. committee we would only support a bill that was fully paid for. i'm honored we got so many republican votes on that. i understand the senator from michigan has something he wants to get accomplished by voice vote and i ask unanimous consent that he be able to explain that

so that we can continue making progress and then he would yield the floor to the republican side. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, the next item on the unanimous consent agreement is my amendment number 1818. and it's my understanding now that this amendment can be adopted by a voice vote, that it's been cleared for that. i will. and i ask concept to set aside the pending amendment to call up that amendment number 1818. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from michigan, mr. levin for himself and mr. conrad proposes an amendment numbered 1818. mr. levin: mr. president, let me see if there is anyone else -- it's been on the list for unanimous consent, so i'll just let the chair rule on this, see if anyone else has something else. if not, i want to speak for a

few minutes afterwards. the presiding officer: without objection. is there further debate on the motion -- on the amendment? if not, all in favor say aye. opposed. the ayes have it. ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it, motion passes. the amendment is agreed to. mr. be levin: i ask that the motion to, mr. levin: i ask that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i would ask just for three minutes here to very, very briefly explain and i'll put the rest of my statement in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, under the patriot act congress gave the treasury the power to take a range of measures against foreign financial institutions or jurisdictions that it finds to be of -- quote -- "primary

money laundering concern." the conrad amendment would allowed the treasury to impose the same types of measures on the same entities if treasury finds them to be impeding u.s. tax enforcement. this amendment that has been the subject of a bill for a number of years and it comes out of the hearings of the permanent subcommittee on investigations which i chair. and those investigations show that each year the united states loses literally tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue from people using offshore tax havens to dodge their u.s. tax obligations including through hidden accounts at tax haven banks. we issued a lengthy bipartisan support in our subcommittee, we detailed case histories involving tax haven banks that helped thousands of u.s. clients dodge their u.s. taxes, banks that used a long list of secrecy tricks to make it nearly

impossible for u.s. tax authorities to trace funds sent to them off shore. mr. president, i would ask that the balance of my statement be inserted if the record in full. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i want to thank senator conrad, senator whitehouse and many others who have been sponsoring this amendment and i yield the floor. another unanimous consent -- i ask unanimous consent that the merkley amendment relative to farm vehicles listed in the previous order be changed from 1653 to number 1814. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask my amendment at the desk and reported by number. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. corker: mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 1785 and 1810 be made pending en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from tennessee mr. cork proposes amendments en bloc numbered 1785 and 1810. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. portman: i call up amendments numbered 1736 and 1742 and ask that they be considered en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report amendments by numbers. the clerk: the senator from

ohio, mr. portman, proposes amendments -- mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i encourage my colleagues to support these amendments. the first gives the states freedom to keep their gas taxes. for decades washington has taken its cut off the top and attached burdensome mandates to the funds before sending them back to the states and it hasn't worked. since 2008 the highway trust fund has been bailed out three times from the general fund to the tune of about $35 billion. and during that time the federal government has required that 10% of all surface transportation funds be spent on enhancements so-called which includes archaeological planning and research, transportation museums, scenic beautification along highways and so on. the government accounting office has found between four and 2008 at today time when our bridges and roads have been in disair re-pair and needed all the help they could get the trust fund

spent $78 billion not related to the support of our nation's network of highways and bridges. with the economy struggling we need to provide states with the ability to move quickly and innovatively implement transportation priorities. instead of a one-size-fits-all solution from washington. ohio's gas taxes shouldn't be wasted by costly federal mandates, regulations and bureaucracies that ohio doesn't think are necessary. rather, states should have the freedom to use the revenue collected from highway users within their own state in the way they see fit to get more money into infrastructure. this amendment will give the states the freedom they need to do that while ensuring states maintain the current system in accordance with current standards. we need to let states get back on track. let me give you an example i heard about over the weekend. this comes from jeff linkas, the clinton county engineer, an example of how the federal government sometimes escalates the costs of projects. there is a stream called todd's

fork crossed by prairie road and starbuck road. the same firm designed both bridges, the bridges are the same length, but there's one major difference: the bridge for prairie road was built using federal money while the bridge for starbuck road was using ohio funds. according to jeff linkas the federally funded bridge cost about 20% more than the state-funded bridge. i hear this all over the state as i'm sure my colleagues do as well. it took more time, so it was more expensive and took more time, was more costly in he both respects. the federal project cost more in a lot of areas including the federal bureaucracy, more environmental studies, more right-of-way expenses, more design and review costs. the stakes have never been higher. the federal government cannot continue wasting our states' gas taxes. since the last authorization

bill in 2005, the outlays have exceeded the revenues from the gas tax every single year. we've got to get back on a fiscally sustainable path, allow states flexibility to maintain roads and bridges and highways. it's an optout, not a mandate. states could choose to opt out or not. the sapped -- the second amendment is a fiscally responsible amendment. it lifts an antiquated mandate that dates back to 1956 and would allow states the freedom to make their own decisions on how to manage their rest areas which the federal government forces states to pay to maintain and improve. the current approach has set up a patchwork of exemptions and special permits that allow some states to commercialize rest areas while prohibiting other states from doing the same. under this states can commercialize the rest areas. at a time when america's core

transportation infrastructure, our highway, roads and bridges need all the help they can get the ohio department of transportation spends an estimated $50 million a year on rest area upkeep in ohio alone. the high cost of improving these rest areas is hand cuffing the states to spend money on roads and bridges. this is a fiscally conservative pro-taxpayer amendment that would help states like ohio recover losses, possibly break even or maybe even add revenue by allowing restaurants, convenience stores or other entities to lease spaces at rest areas. it's a commonsense approach supported by the american association of state highway and transportation officials. and by a lot of private sector as well. this amendment is a way to give core infrastructure projects more funding while enacting a proposal that actually helps the states to be able to make the decision. in ohio alone if you take out 50 million bucks a year for rest areas and calculate over 20

years that's one billion dollars that could go into highway infrastructure. this does not mandate states to commercialize rest areas. or to commercialize in any specific way. it lease it up to the states. it gives the states the flexibility they want to make their own decisions on how to best use those rest areas. i urge my colleagues to join me in lifting to lift this mandate and give the states the freedom to develop their own underused and expensive rest areas. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment number 1779 on behalf of senator alexander and amendments 1589 and 1556 on behalf of senator demint en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report amendments. the clerk: -- the amendments.

the clerk: the senator from indiana mr. coats for mr. alexander proposes amendment number 1779. and for mr. demint proposes en bloc amendments 1589 and 1756. mr. coats: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: i call up my amendment numbered 1517 which is at the desk and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from indiana mr. coats proposes amendment numbered 1517. mr. coats: mr. president, this amendment 1517 is major significance to my home state of

indiana as well as a majority of the states across this country. most people are familiar with the fact when they pull up to the gas pump, they are not only paying for the cost of gas, they are paying the tax on the cost of that gas. the federal tax pumped into the tank is sent into washington and put into a so-called federal gas tax fund trust. the word trust is really somewhat of a misgnomer because like so many trusts we create, it doesn't live up to its name. trust means that it's safeguarded, no one else can touch it, no one else can use it. the trust fund was designed to schect taxes from the sale of gasoline at the federal level and then under a provision return that tax back to the state. bottom line is that the majority of our states in this country are not getting back what they put in. and so this amendment is designed to correct that flaw or at least that current