[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2294-S2323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2016
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to invoke
cloture on the motion to proceed on H.R. 2028 is withdrawn and the
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2028, which the clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported
from the Committee on Appropriations, with an amendment to strike all
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
The following appropriations shall be expended under the
direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of
the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the
Department of the Army pertaining to river and harbor, flood
and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic
ecosystem restoration, and related efforts.
investigations
For expenses necessary where authorized by law for the
collection and study of basic information pertaining to river
and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related needs;
for surveys and detailed studies, and plans and
specifications of proposed river and harbor, flood and storm
damage reduction, shore protection, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects, and related efforts prior to
construction; for restudy of authorized projects; and for
miscellaneous investigations, and, when authorized by law,
surveys and detailed studies, and plans and specifications of
projects prior to construction, $109,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
construction
For expenses necessary for the construction of river and
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection,
aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects
authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, and plans
and specifications, of such projects (including those
involving participation by States, local governments, or
private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by
law (but such detailed studies, and plans and specifications,
shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to
construction); $1,641,000,000, to remain available until
expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the
Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by
Public Law 104-303; and of which such sums as are necessary
to cover one-half of the costs of construction, replacement,
rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects
shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, except
as otherwise specifically provided for in law.
mississippi river and tributaries
For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects
and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley
below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law,
$330,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of
eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors
shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
operation and maintenance
For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and
care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related
projects authorized by law; providing security for
infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including
administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor
channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public
agency that serve essential navigation needs of general
commerce, where authorized by law; surveying and charting
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters;
clearing and straightening channels; and removing
obstructions to navigation, $2,909,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary
to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and
maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for
inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available from the
special account for the Corps of Engineers established by the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived
from that account for resource protection, research,
interpretation, and maintenance activities related to
resource protection in the areas at which outdoor recreation
is available; and of which such sums as become available from
fees collected under section 217 of Public Law 104-303 shall
be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the
dredged material disposal facilities for which such fees have
been collected: Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount
of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or
activities funded under this heading shall not be allocated
to a field operating activity prior to the beginning of the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for
use by the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency
activities as the Chief of Engineers determines to be
necessary and appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers
shall allocate during the fourth quarter any remaining funds
which have not been used for emergency activities
proportionally in accordance with the amounts provided for
the programs, projects, or activities.
regulatory program
For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
in the United States resulting from work performed as part of
the Nation's early atomic energy program, $101,500,000, to
remain available until expended.
flood control and coastal emergencies
For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and
other natural disasters and support emergency operations,
repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters
as authorized by law, $28,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
expenses
For expenses necessary for the supervision and general
administration of the civil works program in the headquarters
of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division
Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for
Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works
program, $178,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2017, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for
official reception and representation purposes and only
during the current fiscal year: Provided, That no part of
any other appropriation provided in this title shall be
available to fund the civil works activities of the Office of
the Chief of Engineers or the civil works executive direction
and management activities of the division offices: Provided
further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other
activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other
natural disaster.
office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3),
$3,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
(including transfer and rescission of funds)
Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in title I of this
Act, or provided by previous appropriations Acts to the
agencies or entities funded in title I of this Act that
remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2016, shall be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds that:
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by
this Act, unless prior approval is received from the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
(4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity
for a different purpose, unless prior approval is received
from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
(5) augments or reduces existing programs, projects or
activities in excess of the amounts contained in subsections
6 through 10, unless prior approval is received from the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
(6) Investigations.--For a base level over $100,000,
reprogramming of 25 percent of the base amount up to a limit
of $150,000 per project, study or activity is allowed:
Provided, That for a base level less than $100,000, the
reprogramming limit is $25,000: Provided further, That up to
$25,000 may be reprogrammed into any continuing study or
activity that did not receive an appropriation for existing
obligations and concomitant administrative expenses;
(7) Construction.--For a base level over $2,000,000,
reprogramming of 15 percent of the base amount up to a limit
of $3,000,000 per project, study or activity is allowed:
Provided, That for a base level less than $2,000,000, the
reprogramming limit is $300,000: Provided further,
[[Page S2295]]
That up to $3,000,000 may be reprogrammed for settled
contractor claims, changed conditions, or real estate
deficiency judgments: Provided further, That up to $300,000
may be reprogrammed into any continuing study or activity
that did not receive an appropriation for existing
obligations and concomitant administrative expenses;
(8) Operations and maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming
authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to
respond to emergencies: Provided, That the Chief of
Engineers must notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations of these emergency actions as soon thereafter
as practicable: Provided further, That for a base level over
$1,000,000, reprogramming of 15 percent of the base amount a
limit of $5,000,000 per project, study or activity is
allowed: Provided further, That for a base level less than
$1,000,000, the reprogramming limit is $150,000: Provided
further, That $150,000 may be reprogrammed into any
continuing study or activity that did not receive an
appropriation;
(9) Mississippi river and tributaries.--The same
reprogramming guidelines for the Investigations,
Construction, and Operation and Maintenance portions of the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Account as listed above;
and
(10) Formerly utilized sites remedial action program.--
Reprogramming of up to 15 percent of the base of the
receiving project is permitted.
(b) De Minimus Reprogrammings.--In no case should a
reprogramming for less than $50,000 be submitted to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
(c) Continuing Authorities Program.--Subsection (a)(1)
shall not apply to any project or activity funded under the
continuing authorities program.
(d) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Corps of Engineers shall submit a report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to establish
the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer
authorities for the current fiscal year: Provided, That the
report shall include:
(1) A table for each appropriation with a separate column
to display the President's budget request, adjustments made
by Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if
applicable, and the fiscal year enacted level;
(2) A delineation in the table for each appropriation both
by object class and program, project and activity as detailed
in the budget appendix for the respective appropriations; and
(3) An identification of items of special congressional
interest.
Sec. 102. (a) Of the funds made available in prior
appropriations Acts for water resources efforts under the
headings ``Corps of Engineers-Civil, Department of the Army,
Construction'' that remain unobligated as of the date of
enactment of this Act, including amounts specified in law for
particular projects, programs, or activities, $128,000,000 is
rescinded.
(b) None of the funds under subsection (a) may be rescinded
from amounts that the Congress designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as amended.
Sec. 103. The Secretary of the Army may transfer to the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
may accept and expend, up to $4,700,000 of funds provided in
this title under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' to
mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers
projects.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water
Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of
Engineers during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016,
to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any
change to the regulations in effect on October 1, 2012,
pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill material''
or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
project deauthorization
Sec. 105. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute a transfer
agreement with the South Florida Water Management District
for the project identified as the ``Ten Mile Creek Water
Preserve Area Critical Restoration Project'', carried out
under section 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3768).
(b) The transfer agreement under subsection (a) shall
require the South Florida Water Management District to
operate the transferred project as an environmental
restoration project to provide water storage and water
treatment options.
(c) Upon execution of the transfer agreement under
subsection (a), the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area
Critical Restoration Project shall no longer be authorized as
a Federal project.
Sec. 106. Section 5032(a)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1205)
is amended by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20''.
Sec. 107. (a) No funds made available in this Act or any
prior Act shall be available to reallocate water within the
Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) river basin, or any study
thereof, until the Corps of Engineers has executed a
Partnering Agreement with Alabama and Georgia outlining the
participation of each State in a water reallocation study for
the ACT river basin.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall apply to the
use of contributed or other non-Federal funds.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
central utah project completion account
For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $9,874,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be deposited into the
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use
by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission: Provided, That, of the amount provided under
this heading, $1,350,000 shall be available until September
30, 2017, for expenses necessary in carrying out related
responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided
further, That, for fiscal year 2016, of the amount made
available to the Commission under this Act or any other Act,
the Commission may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for
administrative expenses.
Bureau of Reclamation
The following appropriations shall be expended to execute
authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:
water and related resources
(including transfers of funds)
For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, federally recognized Indian
tribes, and others, $988,131,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $22,000 shall be available for transfer to
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $5,899,000 shall be
available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin
Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided,
That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the
overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further,
That, of the total appropriated, the amount for program
activities that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or
the Bureau of Reclamation special fee account established by
16 U.S.C. 6806 shall be derived from that Fund or account:
Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395
are available until expended for the purposes for which the
funds were contributed: Provided further, That funds
advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this
account and are available until expended for the same
purposes as the sums appropriated under this heading:
Provided further, That, of the amounts provided herein, funds
may be used for high-priority projects which shall be carried
out by the Youth Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16
U.S.C. 1706.
central valley project restoration fund
For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $49,528,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of
Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount
of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available under
this heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of
water for in-stream purposes if the water is already
committed to in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or
order.
california bay-delta restoration
(including transfers of funds)
For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply,
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent
with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior,
$37,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities
may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other
participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized
purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be
used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program
management: Provided further, That CALFED implementation
shall be carried out in a balanced manner with clear
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the Program.
policy and administration
For expenses necessary for policy, administration, and
related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2017,
$58,500,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.
administrative provision
Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor
vehicles, which are for replacement only.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in this title
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
(4) restarts or resumes any program, project or activity
for which funds are not provided in this Act, unless prior
approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress;
[[Page S2296]]
(5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits--
(A) 15 percent for any program, project or activity for
which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year; or
(B) $300,000 for any program, project or activity for which
less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year;
(6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities
Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the
Resources Management and Development category to any program,
project, or activity in the other category; or
(7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal
obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than
$5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor
claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated
rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
(b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of
funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and
Rehabilitation category.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer''
means any movement of funds into or out of a program,
project, or activity.
(d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a
quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress detailing all the funds reprogrammed
between programs, projects, activities, or categories of
funding. The first quarterly report shall be submitted not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment
Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
reclamation law.
Sec. 203. Section 9504(e) of the Secure Water Act of 2009
(42 U.S.C. 10364(e)) is amended by striking ``$300,000,000''
and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
Sec. 204. Title I of Public Law 108-361 (the Calfed Bay-
Delta Authorization Act) (118 Stat. 1681), as amended by
section 210 of Public Law 111-85, is amended by striking
``2016'' each place it appears and inserting ``2020''.
Sec. 205. The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 is
amended by--
(1) striking ``Construction'' and inserting ``Except as
provided in section 5B, construction'' in section 3; and
(2) inserting after section 5A (43 U.S.C. 509a) the
following:
``Sec. 5B. Notwithstanding section 3, if the Secretary, in
her judgment, determines that additional project benefits,
including but not limited to additional conservation storage
capacity, are necessary and in the interests of the United
States and the project and are feasible and not inconsistent
with the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to
develop additional project benefits through the construction
of new or supplementary works on a project in conjunction
with the Secretary's activities under section 2 of this Act
and subject to the conditions described in the feasibility
study, provided the costs associated with developing the
additional project benefits are allocated to the authorized
purposes of the project that have a benefit, a cost share
agreement related to the additional project benefits is
reached among State and Federal funding agencies and repaid
consistent with all provisions of Federal Reclamation law
(the Act of June 17, 1902, 43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) and acts
supplemental to and amendatory of that Act.''.
Sec. 206. Section 5 of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act
of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 509) is amended in the first sentence--
(a) by inserting ``and effective October 1, 2015, not to
exceed an additional $1,100,000,000 (October 1, 2003, price
levels),'' after ``(October 1, 2003, price levels),'';
(b) in the proviso--
(1) by striking ``$1,250,000'' and inserting
``$20,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``Congress'' and inserting ``Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``For modification
expenditures between $1,800,000 and $20,000,000 (October 1,
2013, price levels), the Secretary of the Interior shall, at
least 30 days before the date on which the funds are
expended, submit written notice of the expenditures to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the Senate that provides a summary of the project, the
cost of the project, and any alternatives that were
considered.''.
Sec. 207. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall--
(a) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses
(i)(I) and (ii)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law
108-361 (118 Stat. 1684) and submit such studies to the
appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and
the Senate not later than December 31, 2015;
(b) complete the feasibility study described in clause
(i)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and
submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30,
2016;
(c) complete a publicly available draft feasibility study
for the project described in clause (ii)(I) of section
103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and submit such study to
the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than November 30, 2016;
(d) complete the feasibility study described in clause
(ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and
submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30,
2017;
(e) complete the feasibility study described in section
103(f)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 (118 Stat. 1694) and
submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than December 31,
2017; and
(f) provide a progress report on the status of the
feasibility studies referred to in paragraphs (1) through (3)
to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and each 180 days thereafter until
December 31, 2017, as applicable. The report shall include
timelines for study completion, draft environmental impact
statements, final environmental impact statements, and
Records of Decision.
Sec. 208. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
funds provided by this Act for California Bay-Delta
Restoration may be used to deliver water to the Trinity River
above the minimum requirements of the Trinity Record of
Decision or to supplement flows in the Klamath River.
Sec. 209. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
funds made available by this Act for Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund may be used for all authorized activities
necessary to supplement or enhance the instream flow
requirements in the State of California that are mandated
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act.
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(including transfer and rescission of funds)
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and
renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,950,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That, of such
amount, $160,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2017, for program direction: Provided further, That, of the
amount provided under this heading, the Secretary may
transfer up to $45,000,000 to the Defense Production Act Fund
for activities of the Department of Energy pursuant to the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et
seq.).
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and
energy reliability activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $152,306,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That, of such
amount, $27,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2017, for program direction.
Nuclear Energy
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, $950,161,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That, of such amount, $80,000,000 shall
be available until September 30, 2017, for program direction
including official reception and representation expenses not
to exceed $10,000: Provided, That, of such amount,
$24,000,000 shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out
fossil energy research and development activities, under the
authority of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the acquisition of interest,
including defeasible and equitable interests in any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility acquisition
or expansion, and for conducting inquiries, technological
investigations and research concerning the extraction,
processing, use, and disposal of mineral
[[Page S2297]]
substances without objectionable social and environmental
costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), $610,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That, of such amount,
$115,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for
program direction.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
For Department of Energy expenses necessary to carry out
naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities,
$17,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, unobligated
funds remaining from prior years shall be available for all
naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
For Department of Energy expenses necessary for Strategic
Petroleum Reserve facility development and operations and
program management activities pursuant to the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $200,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
For Department of Energy expenses necessary for Northeast
Home Heating Oil Reserve storage, operation, and management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $7,600,000, to remain available
until expended.
Energy Information Administration
For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out
the activities of the Energy Information Administration,
$122,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $244,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out
uranium enrichment facility decontamination and
decommissioning, remedial actions, and other activities of
title II of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and title X,
subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, $614,000,000,
to be derived from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund, to remain available until expended, of
which $32,959,000 shall be available in accordance with title
X, subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Science
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not more than 17 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance and
one bus, $5,143,877,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That, of such amount, $185,000,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2017, for program direction.
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out
the activities authorized by section 5012 of the America
COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69), $291,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That, of such amount,
$28,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for
program direction.
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
Such sums as are derived from amounts received from
borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b) of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 under this heading in prior Acts, shall be
collected in accordance with section 502(7) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided, That, for
necessary administrative expenses to carry out this Loan
Guarantee program, $42,000,000 is appropriated, to remain
available until September 30, 2017: Provided further, That
$25,000,000 of the fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h)
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 shall be credited as
offsetting collections to this account to cover
administrative expenses and shall remain available until
expended, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016
appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more
than $17,000,000: Provided further, That fees collected
under section 1702(h) in excess of the amount appropriated
for administrative expenses shall not be available until
appropriated: Provided further, That the Department of
Energy shall not subordinate any loan obligation to other
financing in violation of section 1702 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 or subordinate any Guaranteed Obligation to any
loan or other debt obligations in violation of section 609.10
of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
For Department of Energy administrative expenses necessary
in carrying out the Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Loan Program, $6,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2017.
Departmental Administration
For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), $248,142,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2017, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
not to exceed $30,000, plus such additional amounts as
necessary to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost
of work for others notwithstanding the provisions of the
Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That
such increases in cost of work are offset by revenue
increases of the same or greater amount: Provided further,
That moneys received by the Department for miscellaneous
revenues estimated to total $117,171,000 in fiscal year 2016
may be retained and used for operating expenses within this
account, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the
general fund estimated at not more than $130,971,000:
Provided further, That, of the total amount made available
under this heading, $31,297,000 is for Energy Policy and
Systems Analysis.
Office of the Inspector General
For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, $46,424,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2017.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $8,882,364,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount, $97,118,000 shall be available until September 30,
2017, for program direction.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,705,912,000, to
remain available until expended.
Naval Reactors
For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval
reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or
otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment,
facilities, and facility expansion, $1,300,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of such amount,
$42,504,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for
program direction.
Federal Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for Federal Salaries and Expenses in
the National Nuclear Security Administration, $375,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2017, including
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$12,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any
real property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of
not to exceed one fire apparatus pumper truck and one armored
vehicle for replacement only, $5,180,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That, of such amount,
$281,951,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for
program direction: Provided further, That the Office of
Environmental Management shall not accept ownership or
responsibility for cleanup of any National Nuclear Security
Administration facilities or sites without funding
specifically designated for that purpose in an Appropriations
Act at the time of transfer.
Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup activities for Department of Energy
contributions for uranium enrichment decontamination and
decommissioning activities, $614,000,000, to be deposited
into the Defense Environmental Cleanup account which shall be
transferred to the ``Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund''.
Other Defense Activities
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense,
other defense activities, and classified activities, in
carrying out the purposes of the Department
[[Page S2298]]
of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.),
including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $764,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That, of such
amount, $249,137,000 shall be available until September 30,
2017, for program direction.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Bonneville Power Administration Fund
Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
the Shoshone Paiute Trout Hatchery, the Spokane Tribal
Hatchery, the Snake River Sockeye Weirs and, in addition, for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $5,000: Provided, That, during fiscal year
2016, no new direct loan obligations may be made.
Operations and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
For expenses necessary for operations and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and for marketing electric
power and energy, including transmission wheeling and
ancillary services, pursuant to section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southeastern power area, $6,900,000, including official
reception and representation expenses in an amount not to
exceed $1,500, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944, up to $6,900,000 collected by the
Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of power and
related services shall be credited to this account as
discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual
expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses
shall be reduced as collections are received during the
fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016
appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$66,500,000 collected by the Southeastern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That, for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).
Operations and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
For expenses necessary for operations and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and for marketing electric
power and energy, for construction and acquisition of
transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities,
and for administrative expenses, including official reception
and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500
in carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944
(16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power
Administration, $47,361,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s),
up to $35,961,000 collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at
not more than $11,400,000: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $63,000,000 collected
by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant to the
Flood Control Act of 1944 to recover purchase power and
wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections, to remain available until expended
for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures: Provided further, That, for purposes of this
appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are
generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred
(excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, $307,714,000,
including official reception and representation expenses in
an amount not to exceed $1,500, to remain available until
expended, of which $302,000,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the
Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a),
up to $214,342,000 collected by the Western Area Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at
not more than $93,372,000, of which $87,658,000 is derived
from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $352,813,000 collected
by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant to the
Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project Act of
1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That, for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
For operations, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$4,490,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255):
Provided, That, notwithstanding the provisions of that Act
and of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $4,262,000 collected by the
Western Area Power Administration from the sale of power and
related services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall be
credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric
facilities of these Dams and associated Western Area Power
Administration activities: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at
not more than $228,000: Provided further, That, for purposes
of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures
that are generally recovered in the same year that they are
incurred: Provided further, That, for fiscal year 2016, the
Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration may
accept up to $460,000 in funds contributed by United States
power customers of the Falcon and Amistad Dams for deposit
into the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund,
and such funds shall be available for the purpose for which
contributed in like manner as if said sums had been
specifically appropriated for such purpose: Provided
further, That any such funds shall be available without
further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation for
use by the Commissioner of the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission for the sole
purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating,
replacing, or upgrading the hydroelectric facilities at these
Dams in accordance with agreements reached between the
Administrator, Commissioner, and the power customers.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, official reception
and representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, and the
hire of passenger motor vehicles, $319,800,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, not to exceed $319,800,000 of
revenues from fees and annual charges, and other services and
collections in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and used
for expenses necessary in this account, and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as
revenues are received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result
in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the general
fund estimated at not more than $0.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(including transfer and rescissions of funds)
Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made
available by this title for the Department of Energy shall be
used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity
or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar
arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for
Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a
program, project, or activity if the program, project, or
activity has not been funded by Congress.
(b)(1) Unless the Secretary of Energy notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress at
least 3 full business days in advance, none of the funds made
available in this title may be used to--
(A) make a grant allocation or discretionary grant award
totaling $1,000,000 or more;
(B) make a discretionary contract award or Other
Transaction Agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more, including
a contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
(C) issue a letter of intent to make an allocation, award,
or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph (A) or
(B); or
(D) announce publicly the intention to make an allocation,
award, or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph
(A) or (B).
(2) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 15 days
of the conclusion of each quarter a report detailing each
grant allocation or discretionary grant award totaling less
than $1,000,000 provided during the previous quarter.
(3) The notification required by paragraph (1) and the
report required by paragraph (2) shall include the recipient
of the award, the amount of the award, the fiscal year for
which the funds for the award were appropriated, the account
and program, project, or activity from
[[Page S2299]]
which the funds are being drawn, the title of the award, and
a brief description of the activity for which the award is
made.
(c) The Department of Energy may not, with respect to any
program, project, or activity that uses budget authority made
available in this title under the heading ``Department of
Energy--Energy Programs'', enter into a multiyear contract,
award a multiyear grant, or enter into a multiyear
cooperative agreement unless--
(1) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is funded
for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time
of award; or
(2) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement includes
a clause conditioning the Federal Government's obligation on
the availability of future year budget authority and the
Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress at least 3 days in advance.
(d) Except as provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g),
the amounts made available by this title shall be expended as
authorized by law for the programs, projects, and activities
specified in the ``Bill'' column in the ``Department of
Energy'' table included under the heading ``Title III--
Department of Energy'' in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations accompanying this Act.
(e) The amounts made available by this title may be
reprogrammed for any program, project, or activity, and the
Department shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress at least 30 days prior to the use of
any proposed reprogramming that would cause any program,
project, or activity funding level to increase or decrease by
more than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, during
the time period covered by this Act.
(f) None of the funds provided in this title shall be
available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates, initiates, or eliminates a program, project,
or activity;
(2) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act; or
(3) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
(g)(1) The Secretary of Energy may waive any requirement or
restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds
made available for the Department of Energy if compliance
with such requirement or restriction would pose a substantial
risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national
security.
(2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of any waiver under
paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but not later than 3
days after the date of the activity to which a requirement or
restriction would otherwise have applied. Such notice shall
include an explanation of the substantial risk under
paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver.
Sec. 302. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be available to the
same appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with
funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter
may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as
originally enacted.
Sec. 303. Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or
made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2016 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
Sec. 304. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for the construction of facilities classified
as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830
unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of
Independent Enterprise Assessments to ensure the project is
in compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
Sec. 305. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical
decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any
successive departmental guidance, for construction projects
where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a
separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the
project for that critical decision.
Sec. 306. (a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Affected indian tribe.--The term ``affected Indian
tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
(2) High-level radioactive waste.--The term ``high-level
radioactive waste'' has the meaning given the term in section
2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
(3) Nuclear waste fund.--The term ``Nuclear Waste Fund''
means the Nuclear Waste Fund established under section 302(c)
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(c)).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(5) Spent nuclear fuel.--The term ``spent nuclear fuel''
has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
(b) Pilot Program.--Notwithstanding any provision of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.),
the Secretary is authorized, in the current fiscal year and
subsequent fiscal years, to conduct a pilot program, through
1 or more private sector partners, to license, construct, and
operate 1 or more government or privately owned consolidated
storage facilities to provide interim storage as needed for
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, with
priority for storage given to spent nuclear fuel located on
sites without an operating nuclear reactor.
(c) Requests for Proposals.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue
a request for proposals for cooperative agreements--
(1) to obtain any license necessary from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for the construction of 1 or more
consolidated storage facilities;
(2) to demonstrate the safe transportation of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as applicable; and
(3) to demonstrate the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste, as applicable, at the 1 or
more consolidated storage facilities pending the construction
and operation of deep geologic disposal capacity for the
permanent disposal of the spent nuclear fuel.
(d) Consent-Based Approval.--Prior to siting a consolidated
storage facility pursuant to this section, the Secretary
shall enter into an agreement to host the facility with--
(1) the Governor of the State;
(2) each unit of local government within the jurisdiction
of which the facility is proposed to be located; and
(3) each affected Indian tribe.
(e) Applicability.--In executing this section, the
Secretary shall comply with--
(1) all licensing requirements and regulations of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and
(2) all other applicable laws (including regulations).
(f) Pilot Program Plan.--Not later than 120 days after the
date on which the Secretary issues the request for proposals
under subsection (c), the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a plan to carry out this section that includes--
(1) an estimate of the cost of licensing, constructing, and
operating a consolidated storage facility, including the
transportation costs, on an annual basis, over the expected
lifetime of the facility;
(2) a schedule for--
(A) obtaining any license necessary to construct and
operate a consolidated storage facility from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission;
(B) constructing the facility;
(C) transporting spent fuel to the facility; and
(D) removing the spent fuel and decommissioning the
facility; and
(3) an estimate of the cost of any financial assistance,
compensation, or incentives proposed to be paid to the host
State, Indian tribe, or local government;
(4) an estimate of any future reductions in the damages
expected to be paid by the United States for the delay of the
Department of Energy in accepting spent fuel expected to
result from the pilot program;
(5) recommendations for any additional legislation needed
to authorize and implement the pilot program; and
(6) recommendations for a mechanism to ensure that any
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste stored at
a consolidated storage facility pursuant to this section
shall move to deep geologic disposal capacity, following a
consent-based approval process for that deep geologic
disposal capacity consistent with subsection (d), within a
reasonable time after the issuance of a license to construct
and operate the consolidated storage facility.
(g) Public Participation.--Prior to choosing a site for the
construction of a consolidated storage facility under this
section, the Secretary shall conduct 1 or more public
hearings in the vicinity of each potential site and in at
least 1 other location within the State in which the site is
located to solicit public comments and recommendations.
(h) Use of Nuclear Waste Fund.--The Secretary may make
expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund to carry out this
section, subject to appropriations.
Sec. 307. (a) Notification of Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Drawdown.--None of the funds made available by this Act or
any prior or subsequent Act, or funds made available in the
SPR Petroleum Account, may be used in this fiscal year or
each subsequent fiscal year, to conduct a drawdown (including
a test drawdown) and sale or exchange of petroleum products
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve unless the Secretary of
Energy provides notice, in accordance with subsection (b), of
such exchange, or drawdown (including a test drawdown) to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
(b)(1) Content of notification.--The notification required
under subsection (a) shall include at a minimum--
(A) the justification for the drawdown or exchange,
including--
(i) a specific description of any obligation under
international energy agreements; and
(ii) in the case of a test drawdown, the specific aspects
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be tested;
(B) the provisions of law (including regulations)
authorizing the drawdown or exchange;
(C) the number of barrels of petroleum products proposed to
be withdrawn or exchanged;
(D) the location of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve site or
sites from which the petroleum products are proposed to be
withdrawn;
(E) a good faith estimate of the expected proceeds from the
sale of the petroleum products;
(F) an estimate of the total inventories of petroleum
products in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve after the
anticipated drawdown;
(G) a detailed plan for disposition of the proceeds after
deposit into the SPR Petroleum Account; and
(H) a plan for refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
including whether the acquisition will be of the same or a
different petroleum product.
(2) Timing of notification.--The Secretary shall provide
the notification required under subsection (a)--
(A) in the case of an exchange or a drawdown, as soon as
practicable after the exchange or drawdown has occurred; and
(B) in the case of a test drawdown, not later than 30 days
prior to the test drawdown.
[[Page S2300]]
(c) Post-Sale Notification.--In addition to reporting
requirements under other provisions of law, the Secretary
shall, upon the execution of all contract awards in this
fiscal year and each subsequent fiscal year associated with a
competitive sale of petroleum products, notify the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the actual
value of the proceeds from the sale.
(d)(1) New regional reserves.--The Secretary may not
establish any new regional petroleum product reserve unless
funding for the proposed regional petroleum product reserve
is explicitly requested in advance in an annual budget
submission and approved by the Congress in an appropriations
Act.
(2) The budget request or notification shall include--
(A) the justification for the new reserve;
(B) a cost estimate for the establishment, operation, and
maintenance of the reserve, including funding sources;
(C) a detailed plan for operation of the reserve, including
the conditions upon which the products may be released;
(D) the location of the reserve; and
(E) the estimate of the total inventory of the reserve.
Sec. 308. (a) Unobligated balances available from
appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2010 are hereby
permanently rescinded from the following accounts of the
Department of Energy in the specified amounts:
(1) ``Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy'', $16,677,000.
(2) ``Energy Programs--Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability'', $900,000.
(3) ``Energy Programs--Nuclear Energy'', $1,665,000.
(4) ``Energy Programs--Fossil Energy Research and
Development'', $12,064,000.
(5) ``Energy Programs--Science'', $4,717,000.
(6) ``Power Marketing Administrations--Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration'', $4,832,000.
(b) No amounts may be rescinded by this section from
amounts that were designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Sec. 309. (a) Unobligated balances available from
appropriations are hereby permanently rescinded from the
following accounts of the Department of Energy in the
specified amounts:
(1) ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear
Security Administration--Weapons Activities'', $65,135,000.
(2) ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear
Security Administration--Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'',
$19,324,000.
(3) ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear
Security Administration--Naval Reactors'', $628,000.
(b) No amounts may be rescinded by this section from
amounts that were designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Sec. 310. Of the amounts made available by this Act for
``National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons
Activities'', up to $50,000,000 may be reprogrammed within
such account for Domestic Uranium Enrichment, subject to the
notice requirements in section 301.
technical correction
Sec. 311. (a) Contracts for Storage.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law and subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary is authorized, in this year and
each subsequent fiscal year, to enter into contracts to store
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as
applicable, to which the Secretary holds the title or has a
contract to accept title, at any facility licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for such storage.
(b) Transfer of Title.--Delivery, and acceptance by the
Secretary, of any spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste for storage under this section shall
constitute a transfer of title to the Secretary of such spent
fuel or waste.
(c) Contract Modification.--The Secretary is authorized to
enter into new contracts or modify existing contracts with
any person who generates or holds title to high-level
radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel, of domestic origin
for the acceptance of title, subsequent transportation, and
storage of such high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear
fuel at a facility described under subsection (a).
Sec. 312. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
provisions of 40 U.S.C. 11319 shall not apply to funds
appropriated in this title to Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers sponsored by the Department of Energy.
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965,
notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, and for expenses necessary
for the Federal Co-Chairman and the Alternate on the
Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment of the Federal
share of the administrative expenses of the Commission,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire
of passenger motor vehicles, $105,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $29,150,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2017.
Delta Regional Authority
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Delta Regional Authority and
to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections
382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, $25,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Denali Commission
For expenses necessary for the Denali Commission including
the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment as necessary and other expenses,
$11,000,000, to remain available until expended,
notwithstanding the limitations contained in section 306(g)
of the Denali Commission Act of 1998: Provided, That funds
shall be available for construction projects in an amount not
to exceed 80 percent of total project cost for distressed
communities, as defined by section 307 of the Denali
Commission Act of 1998 (division C, title III, Public Law
105-277), as amended by section 701 of appendix D, title VII,
Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-280), and an amount not
to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.
Northern Border Regional Commission
For expenses necessary for the Northern Border Regional
Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle
V of title 40, United States Code, $7,500,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall
be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding
section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, $990,000,000, including official
representation expenses not to exceed $25,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That, of the amount
appropriated herein, not more than $7,500,000 may be made
available for salaries, travel, and other support costs for
the Office of the Commission, to remain available until
September 30, 2017, of which, notwithstanding section
201(a)(2)(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5841(a)(2)(c)), the use and expenditure shall only be
approved by a majority vote of the Commission: Provided
further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$872,864,000 in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and used
for necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues
received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result in a final
fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at not more than
$117,136,000.
office of inspector general
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $12,136,000, to remain available until September 30,
2017: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees,
inspection services, and other services and collections
estimated at $10,060,000 in fiscal year 2016 shall be
retained and be available until September 30, 2017, for
necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year
2016 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016
appropriation estimated at not more than $2,076,000:
Provided further, That, of the amounts appropriated under
this heading, $958,000 shall be for Inspector General
services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,
which shall not be available from fee revenues.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $3,600,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2017.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Sec. 401. (a) The amounts made available by this title for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be reprogrammed for any
program, project, or activity, and the Commission shall
notify the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress at least 30 days prior to the use of any proposed
reprogramming that would cause any program funding level to
increase or decrease by more than $500,000 or 10 percent,
whichever is less, during the time period covered by this
Act.
(b)(1) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may waive the
notification requirement in (a) if compliance with such
requirement would pose a substantial risk to human health,
the environment, welfare, or national security.
(2) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall notify the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of
any waiver under paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but
not later than 3 days after the date of the activity to which
a requirement or restriction would otherwise have applied.
Such notice shall include an explanation of the substantial
risk under paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver and shall
provide a detailed report to the Committees of such waiver
and changes to funding levels to programs, projects, or
activities.
(c) None of the funds provided for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission shall be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds that increases funds or
personnel for any program, project, or activity for which
funds are denied or restricted by this Act.
(d) The Commission shall provide a monthly report to the
Committees on Appropriations of
[[Page S2301]]
both Houses of Congress, which includes the following for
each program, project, or activity, including any prior year
appropriations--
(1) total budget authority;
(2) total unobligated balances; and
(3) total unliquidated obligations.
Sec. 402. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall comply
with the July 5, 2011, version of Chapter VI of its Internal
Commission Procedures when responding to Congressional
requests for information.
Sec. 403. Public Law 105-277, division A, section 101(g)
(title III, section 329(a), (b)) is amended by inserting, in
subsection (b), after ``State law'' and before the period the
following: ``or for the construction and repair of barge
mooring points and barge landing sites to facilitate pumping
fuel from fuel transport barges into bulk fuel storage
tanks.''.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
Sec. 502. (a) None of the funds made available in title III
of this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government, except
pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided
in this Act or any other appropriations Act for any fiscal
year, transfer authority referenced in the report of the
Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, or any
authority whereby a department, agency, or instrumentality of
the United States Government may provide goods or services to
another department, agency, or instrumentality.
(b) None of the funds made available for any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government
may be transferred to accounts funded in title III of this
Act, except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer
authority provided in this Act or any other appropriations
Act for any fiscal year, transfer authority referenced in the
report of the Committee on Appropriations accompanying this
Act, or any authority whereby a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another department, agency, or
instrumentality.
(c) The head of any relevant department or agency funded in
this Act utilizing any transfer authority shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
semiannual report detailing the transfer authorities, except
for any authority whereby a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another department, agency, or
instrumentality, used in the previous 6 months and in the
year-to-date. This report shall include the amounts
transferred and the purposes for which they were transferred,
and shall not replace or modify existing notification
requirements for each authority.
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, carry out, modify, revise,
or enforce Executive Order 13690 (entitled ``Establishing a
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for
Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input'').
This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Amendment No. 3801
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I call up the substitute amendment No.
3801.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander] proposes an
amendment numbered 3801.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Amendment No. 3804 to Amendment No. 3801
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 3804.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander] proposes an
amendment numbered 3804 to amendment No. 3801.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify provisions relating to Nuclear Regulatory
Commission fees)
Beginning on page 55, line 23, strike ``Provided'' and all
that follows through page 56, line 13, and insert the
following: ``Provided further, That revenues from licensing
fees, inspection services, and other services and collections
estimated at $823,114,000 in fiscal year 2017 shall be
retained and used for necessary salaries and expenses in this
account, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United
States Code, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated under this
heading, not less than $5,000,000 shall be available for
activities related to the development of regulatory
infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor technologies, and
$5,000,000 of that amount shall not be available for fee
revenues, notwithstanding section 6101 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214): Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by
the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 2017 so as
to result in a final fiscal year 2017 appropriation estimated
at not more than $115,886,000.''.
Mr. ALEXANDER. The senior Senator from Louisiana is here to speak,
but I thank Senator Feinstein for her remarks and her leadership.
I would remind our colleagues we are open for business, in terms of
amendments. Fortunately, 77 of the Senators had made requests that we
were able to accommodate in our basic bill. We have talked to maybe a
dozen more since then, and are accommodating amendments whenever we
can.
We would like to begin voting on any other amendments that we need to
vote on this afternoon, if possible, so we can move on through the bill
and hopefully get to the next appropriations bill.
Mr. President, I thank especially the staff of Senator Feinstein--
Doug Clapp, Chris Hanson, Mark Mendenhall, and Samantha Nelson--for the
way they have worked with us, whether we are in the majority or the
minority. I also would like to thank my own staff--Tyler Owens, Adam
DeMella, Meyer Seligman, Jen Armstrong, and Hayley Alexander--for
extraordinarily good work.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Commemorating the 6th Anniversary of the ``Deepwater Horizon''
Explosion and Oilspill
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the sixth
anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oilspill that took
the lives of 11 men and devastated so many gulf coast communities. It
was a horrible event, but I think it is very important and appropriate
that we always recognize the lives lost in that disaster.
The 11 lives lost were Jason Anderson, then 35, of Midfield, TX;
Aaron Dale ``Bubba'' Burkeen, 37, of Philadelphia, MS; Donald Clark,
49, of Newellton, LA; Stephen Ray Curtis, 40, of Georgetown, LA; Gordon
Jones, 28, of Baton Rouge, LA; Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27, of Jonesville, LA;
Karl Dale Kleppinger, Jr., Natchez, MS; Keith Blair Manuel, 56, of
Gonzales, LA; Dewey Revette, 48, of State Line, MS; Shane Roshto, 22,
of Liberty, MS; and Adam Weise, 24, of Yorktown, TX.
The gulf coast is one of the most resilient parts of the country, of
the world, having faced a variety of disasters and yet always bounces
back, always continues to push forward. In Louisiana, offshore oil and
gas development is more than just our State's largest economic driver,
it is a way of life, supporting countless jobs and families across the
region. That is why our top priority must always be maintaining the
highest level of safety standards. In the last 6 years, we have been
working to make sure this kind of human tragedy that we commemorate
today on this sixth anniversary never happens again.
It has been a real uphill battle, but the good news is that we have
had a few solid wins during that time. Louisiana's resilience and
recovery cannot be easily measured in terms of numbers and figures, but
I can say with confidence that each and every Louisianian should be
proud of how far we have come, including in these last 6 years. That is
why as a region it continues to be imperative that we fight misguided
attempts coming out of Washington that would hinder the progress we
have made. From fighting President Obama's misguided drilling
moratorium to working to pass the RESTORE Act, our region has
continually shown our ability to work together to produce the right
positive results, but the battle certainly is ongoing.
The current dramatic downturn in energy production has had ripple
effects across Louisiana and the country, which is why the very last
thing the government should be doing now is imposing new obstructive
rules and regulations. Instead, we should be focusing
[[Page S2302]]
on finding commonsense solutions to improve safety and buoy our
Louisiana-based businesses and preserve thousands of crucial jobs. We
must support policies that create a strong balance between having a
solid regulatory scheme that certainly promotes strong safety standards
while also allowing the energy industry to thrive and prosper.
In the 6 years since the tragic Deepwater Horizon explosion and
spill, Louisiana has done what we do best: recover, rebuild, and
progress. In order to build a broader future for our families,
businesses, and communities, we must also protect the symbiotic
relationship between Federal regulations and the oil and gas industry
and not allow the former to strangle the positive livelihood so many
depend on in that industry.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change Agreement
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on Friday, representatives from more
than 130 countries are going to be gathering at the United Nations in
New York to sign a broad new climate change agreement. This is the same
agreement that countries negotiated in Paris last year.
Back in December, President Obama said that it was a ``strong''
agreement. Hillary Clinton called it a ``historic step forward.'' But
for many Americans, it is actually going to be a giant step backward.
First, I believe this agreement is terrible for our economy. The
Obama administration is using this international agreement to force new
regulations on American energy producers and new restrictions on the
American people. There are new rules on coal producers, and there are
new rules on exports of American crude oil and liquefied natural gas.
This administration has spent years--years--targeting the men and
women who produce American energy, energy in our country. Well,
Democrats and Republicans in Congress rejected the President's radical
ideas. We knew that all of these regulations would cripple America's
energy industries and would throw Americans out of work, many in my
home State of Wyoming. We knew that all of these destructive rules
would cost billions of dollars and produce little or no positive
benefit. The Obama administration went ahead and ignored what the
people wanted, and they wrote these destructive new rules anyway.
All of these regulations have consequences. My home State of Wyoming
has seen thousands of hard-working men and women lose their jobs in the
energy fields. Just over the past few years, people working in oil,
gas, coal, and uranium--just a few weeks ago, two of the largest coal
mines in Wyoming announced that they would let go 15 percent of their
workers. Some 465 families were affected by the job losses.
Despite all of this pain, the Obama administration went out and
promised the rest of the world that it was going to keep pushing for
more restrictions on American energy, on red, white, and blue energy.
The other countries getting together in New York on Friday need to be
aware that there are serious doubts about whether this administration
is actually going to be able to actually do that.
This administration has promised huge cuts to America's greenhouse
gas emissions, but the promise has already run into legal problems. The
Supreme Court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to stop
enforcing the so-called Clean Power Plan--stop enforcing it
completely--until the courts can decide if it is even legal. I believe
it is not legal.
Now the Obama administration has promised $3 billion to the United
Nations for its climate change efforts. Well, it turns out that giving
away this money will violate U.S. law. The money the administration
pledged was supposed to go to the Green Climate Fund. This is the money
the United Nations plans to use to coerce--really coerce--developing
countries to go along with the climate change--what I believe is a
sideshow.
President Obama asked for $500 million for this fund in his budget
last year. So what happened when the budget came here to the Senate
where the President had a request? Congress rejected the President's
budget 98 to 1. Talk about bipartisan rejection. That is it. But the
administration went ahead and transferred the money anyway, even though
the money was never authorized by Congress. Now the President wants to
give this Green Climate Fund another $750 million in taxpayer money.
There is a second climate change organization; it is called the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This
organization is the foundation for funding this whole climate change
agreement. The administration has contributed to it in the past. It
wants to send another $13 million next year.
Here is the problem and the legacy the administration faces: As the
administration tries to give away money to these international climate
change groups, it is now prohibited by law. You may ask why. Well, it
is because last month, on March 17, the United Nations officially
recognized the so-called State of Palestine. They said that the State
of Palestine is a full member of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Well, according to a 1994 law passed by
the House, passed by the Senate, and signed into law, the United States
cannot give any money to any affiliated organization of the United
Nations that grants the Palestinians membership as a state. It is
called the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
These climate change groups are clearly affiliated organizations of
the U.N. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change--the
organization that the Palestinian group, this so-called State of
Palestine, just joined as a member state--says on its own Web site that
it is institutionally linked to the United Nations. There is no denying
it. It says that the Green Climate Fund is one of its ``constituted
bodies.'' So there is a direct link. The law of the United States on
this is clear, it is simple, and it is unmistakable.
The pipeline of money the Obama administration is planning to send to
these organizations is shut off. That is what happened in 2011 when the
Palestinian group joined the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, commonly known as UNESCO. That triggered a
similar 1990 law, and the United States has not given any money to
UNESCO ever since.
The Palestinians have been trying to get international organizations
connected to the United Nations to recognize them as a state for a long
time. It is part of their strategy. They think that if they can get the
rest of the world to recognize the ``State of Palestinian,'' then it
strengthens their hand in negotiations with Israel.
That strategy absolutely undercuts U.S. policy that says the
Palestinians and the Israelis should be negotiating these things on
their own without the rest of the world getting involved. That is the
best way for Middle East peace negotiations to go forward, and that is
what both the Palestinians and the Israelis have agreed to in the past.
So U.S. law says that when the Palestinians try to go around that
process, as we just saw with this climate change organization, there
are legal consequences. That is why a group of 28 Senators wrote to
Secretary of State John Kerry earlier this week. We wrote to demand
that he follow the law, obey the law of the land. We wanted to make
sure the rest of the world understands clearly that it is unlawful for
the United States to give another dime to these U.N. climate change
groups.
The Obama administration has skirted the will of Congress in the past
when it sent $500 million of U.S. taxpayer money to these groups. It
will not get away with sending any more money in violation of the law.
The administration needs to understand this fact, and so do the rest of
the countries getting together in New York on Friday.
The American people do not support shutting down our economy, hurting
our economy, to support the administration's promises on greenhouse
gasses. The American people don't support
[[Page S2303]]
the administration spending billions of their hard-earned taxpayer
dollars to support this alarming climate change agreement. What the
American people expect is their President and his administration to
follow and to obey the law.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Working Together in the Senate
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday this Chamber passed a bill to
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, another bipartisan
accomplishment that without a doubt has helped return this Chamber to
operating the way that I think we all believe it should function. After
that, today we were finally able to move forward with an energy bill,
the Energy Policy Modernization Act. We have all been working on that
legislation for some time now, and I am pleased we got it done earlier
today. I give special credit to Chair Murkowski, the bill manager, and
her counterpart Senator Cantwell for their incredible patience and
diligence in dealing with this legislation that had been stuck on this
Senate floor for some time.
Senator Murkowski, in particular, didn't shy away from addressing
some of the most difficult challenges head on. Needless to say, her
tirelessness, her diligence, and hard work finally paid off earlier
today.
This legislation is important to the country because it helps update
our energy policies and helps America produce more energy, use it more
efficiently, and save money in the process. One of the most significant
portions of that legislation was streamlining the approval process for
the liquefied natural gas export. This is really an example of how our
energy future has been transformed so dramatically.
You may recall that years ago there were terminals being built around
the country on the shorelines that were going to be the recipients of
natural gas produced in some other part of the world and then brought
to the United States. But thanks to modern drilling technology and the
use of fracking--I know in some quarters this is a dirty word, but we
have been doing it successfully in the United States for 70 or more
years. Thanks to horizontal drilling in fracking and modern drilling
technologies, America is now producing more natural gas than we have
any use for. It is good for our economy, good for our jobs, and good
for the world, really, for America to be able to export more of its
natural gas--and oil, for that matter. It is something we dealt with at
the end of last year when we lifted the antiquated export ban on crude
oil.
This legislation, like the Federal Aviation Administration
reauthorization bill, is another example of how the Senate is back to
work. When I talk to constituents and folks back home, I say: Well, you
may not have heard--or if you heard it, you may not actually believe
it--but we are actually getting some work done in this Congress under
new leadership. I think it has been beneficial not only to the country,
not just to those directly affected by the legislation we are passing--
things such as the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act to deal
with the opioid prescription drug abuse and heroin issue--not only are
the people directly affected by the legislation benefiting, but the
entire country is, and particularly Members of the Senate. We have
actually been able to debate, discuss, and ultimately vote on
legislation. What a concept.
It was not too long ago--when the Democratic leader was majority
leader--that this Senate was virtually shut down. Even if you were in
the majority party, even if you were a Democrat when Democrats held the
majority in the Senate, basically because of the decision to shut down
the legislative process and to deny anyone an opportunity to offer an
amendment, when it came to election time, many of our Democratic
colleagues didn't have anything to show for their service representing
their constituents in the Senate, even though they were in the majority
party.
Under the new leadership of the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell,
the Senate majority leader is committed to an open process that
benefits all Members of the Senate and all 320 million or so people in
the United States who we represent. Now any Senator, regardless of
whether they are in the majority or minority, can call up and seek
votes on amendments to legislation to help make legislation better. I
think we have learned an invaluable lesson from the mistakes of the
past. Only by working together in a bipartisan way can we try to find
consensus and get things done. The American people deserve that.
Now that we have finished our work on the Energy bill, I hope we can
work together to address other problems facing the country. One of the
most fundamental jobs the Congress has to perform is the appropriations
process because somebody has to pay for the policies to actually make
the policies that we pass work.
This week we have a chance to start that process with the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill. This is another example of great bipartisan
work and commitment, a bill that unanimously passed out of committee.
This legislation will invest in our Nation's waterways and fund
critical infrastructure projects.
Yesterday I spoke about the flooding that has been affecting much of
Texas this week, particularly the Houston area, and that we are
struggling to deal with. This appropriations bill, for example, would
invest in projects to mitigate risks associated with flooding like that
which Texas has been experiencing over this week. It would also invest
in our nuclear arsenal to make sure we are ready to meet existing and
future nuclear threats.
To put it simply, this appropriations bill plays a big role, not only
in terms of our national security but also in terms of our public
safety. That is both at home and abroad.
Last year we got stuck. We tried to move the appropriations bills
through the regular process, but because of a dispute over spending
levels, our Democratic friends basically blocked any ability we had to
move the appropriations bill through the regular order or the regular
process. Unfortunately, at the end of the year, what that left us with
was the need to pass one big Omnibus appropriations bill, something
that nobody said they liked. In fact, on the Senate floor I called it
not an Omnibus appropriations bill but an ominous appropriations bill.
The problem with that is there is very little transparency, and only a
handful of people are really directly involved in crafting a bill that
spends over $1 trillion. That is a terrible way to do business. Now we
are trying to get back to the old-fashioned way--one bill at a time.
I commend Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Feinstein for the
good work they have done so far. This is going to take a little bit of
cooperation and maybe even a little bit of self-restraint, something
that Washington isn't necessarily known for. Even though all 12
appropriations bills were sent out of their respective committees last
year for the first time since 2009, we weren't able to get it done. I
am hoping this year will be different.
So far our colleagues across the aisle have said they believe we
ought to proceed with a markup of different appropriations bills,
voting on them one at a time. This is our first test. Believe me,
people are watching to see how we proceed on this legislation and on
other appropriations bills, including our colleagues in the House of
Representatives.
Stop passing some stopgap funding bill at the brink at the end of a
fiscal year where people are talking about shutdowns. That is not the
way we are supposed to work. We could do better and we could avoid
those pitfalls if we would just do our best, show a little restraint,
and get our work done.
I hope the Energy and Water bill is the first of 12 appropriations
bills that we consider, discuss, and ultimately pass because that is
what the American people deserve.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, while the assistant Republican leader
is on the floor, I wish to say a word
[[Page S2304]]
about this chart that I mentioned earlier.
He mentioned this is the first bill where we are spending $1
trillion. Most of us on both sides of the aisle, I know especially on
the Republican side of the aisle, are concerned about the Federal debt,
which is $19 trillion, and we make great speeches about it. But as we
begin to talk about the $1 trillion we are about to appropriate in 12
bills, I would like to invite my colleagues to look once again at the
bottom line. That is the money we are talking about. This is the $1
trillion that we are working on. It has been flat since 2008. It is
going up at the rate of inflation or a little less, but that is $1
trillion.
We are spending $4 trillion this year. The other $3 trillion is not
what we are working on in these 12 bills; the other $3 trillion is
automatic mandatory spending and interest on the debt. If we add
interest to that red line, it would be even higher. So I may offer an
amendment at some point--maybe not on this bill--to turn the entire
budget over to the Appropriations Committee because we are doing our
job. We have kept spending down. That is not the problem.
I hear that some people may want to say: Well, let's further reduce
the blue line. I invite my friends and colleagues to say--we have
letters from more than 80 Senators requesting support for projects
important in their States, for flood control, nuclear weapons, national
labs, deepening harbors, and for inland waterways. We have included in
our bill requests from all those Senators.
If we cut that blue line by $2 billion, we will need to ask for
requests from those 80 Senators about what they would like to cut--
which flood would they like not to clean up, which lock would they like
to close, and which nuclear operation needs to be slowed down. We need
to be reasonable about this, and we need to be straightforward about
it.
I want to see us deal with that red line. That is where the real
spending problem is. I would like to see us be responsible on the blue
line.
Senator Feinstein and I have cut a $125 million program. We have
control of one big construction project; we are getting control of two
others. We are doing our job.
As we enter into this discussion, I respectfully ask my colleagues:
Let's keep a focus on the two lines. The $1 trillion is the blue line.
It is under control; it is not the problem. If that were the debt, we
wouldn't have a problem. It is that red line that we are not doing
anything about on either side of the aisle.
Senator Corker and I have a bill to reduce the growth of that
spending by $1 trillion. We are the only two cosponsors.
After we do these 12 bills, we can talk about the blue line. But I am
going to make sure during this whole process that, if Senators want to
talk about cutting spending, they focus on where the problem is. It is
the red line--not the blue line--that we are working on, starting with
this bill.
I thank the Senator for his remarks.
Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would just ask the distinguished Senator
from Tennessee, the bill manager--the point he makes is exactly right,
and I think most Americans would be surprised at this blue line and the
fact that this is the money the appropriations process spends each
year, but it is only about 30 percent of what the Federal Government
spends--to his point.
My recollection is that under current projections, that red line is
growing at about 5.3 percent, it seems like, over the next 30 years or
so, while the blue line remains roughly flat. But that is a product of
a lot of things that need to be fixed, such as the fact that for every
$1 put into Medicare, $3 is spent, and the fact that in the not too
distant future, the Social Security trust fund is going to run out of
money because people are getting older, more people are benefiting, and
fewer people are paying into it.
But the Senator is exactly right. We actually have been pretty
disciplined in dealing with discretionary spending because of the
Budget Control Act and sequestration. And many people have decried the
fact that we actually renegotiated the sequester numbers, but one
reason we did that is for national security purposes, that about half a
trillion dollars of the money we spend is for national security.
I know the Senator is aware, as I am, that there is good work being
done at the Budget Committee level to come up with some budget reforms,
but unless we get control of not just the discretionary spending but
the nondiscretionary--the mandatory spending, that red line--we are
going to continue to see the deficits and the debt grow. And when
interest rates go back up to normal levels, we are going to be spending
more money on interest on the debt than we will, perhaps, on national
security.
I told the Senator this was a question and I guess it is more of a
statement, but I just wanted to thank him and Senator Feinstein and the
Committee on Appropriations for getting us back to regular order and
back to work, and I hope we will take up and pass this legislation
without undue delay.
I would also add that this is not an opportunity for people to empty
their out basket on different pieces of legislation they would like.
Because of the rules of the Senate, that would create a lot of
problems. So, again, I guess we would counsel for some of the self-
restraint that was talked about earlier.
I thank the Senators from Tennessee and California for bringing this
important piece of legislation to us. I hope we can get this done
sometime today or tomorrow.
I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his
leadership and for his comments. He is exactly right. Over the next 10
years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that red line is
projected to increase by nearly 80 percent--nearly 80 percent. The blue
line--the one that is reasonably under control--will go up about 23
percent. But the bigger problem is that the blue line, as a share of
the Federal budget, will decrease from 33 percent to 22 percent. That
is the money for national defense in an unsafe world. That is the money
for national laboratories in an economy that needs the job growth that
comes from that research. That is the money that cleans up after the
Missouri River, the Tennessee River, and the Mississippi River flood.
It deepens the harbors in Savannah, Los Angeles, San Diego, Gulf Port,
and all around.
After a big spring flood, I have been to Environmental and Public
Works Committee hearings where we have had 17 U.S. Senators come in and
ask for more money. Well, we have record levels of funding for the Army
Corps of Engineers in this budget for the purpose of locks, dams,
flooding, and environmental cleanup, and it is all within the Budget
Control Act. We set priorities. We reduced projects. We cut some out
that weren't as important. And we have kept that blue line flat. We
have done our job on financial oversight.
There are a number of advantages to having a full 10 or 12 weeks to
deal with appropriations bills.
The first advantage is that it allows Senators, such as the Senator
from Nebraska, who is not a member of the Appropriations Committee, to
have a chance on the floor to offer their amendments if they would like
to. The way our system works, Senators may ask us--and, as I mentioned,
77 did ask us--to include some of their ideas and policies in our bill,
and we did in every case in some way--in some way. Now we are up in the
eighties. Everybody has had a shot at this and will have more of a shot
in the next day or two on the floor. So the whole Senate will be
involved. That is one advantage.
The second advantage is that it will show the American people that we
are doing our job, that we are conducting oversight of the government
agencies, that we have had four hearings, that we have set priorities,
that we have cut out lower priority projects and are getting other
projects under control.
The third advantage is that maybe we can put a spotlight on the
difference between the top line and the bottom line--the red line and
the blue line. The blue line is an example of good government. The red
line is an example of malpractice. By whom? By us. By which party? By
both. By both.
[[Page S2305]]
So let's be specific. If you are a surgeon, you don't cut off the
left arm because your nose is hurting; you work on the left arm. And we
don't need to cut off the blue line if the red line is the problem--if
the red line is the problem.
So as often as I have a chance over the next 2 days, I am going to do
my best to remind our colleagues and the American people that we are
doing our job on the $1 trillion we appropriate, and Senators will have
a chance to help us do our job if they come to the floor with their
suggestions.
We are not doing our job on the red line, which is mandatory
spending, and if we don't do our job, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff has said it is our greatest national security problem.
So maybe it will help over these 12 weeks to have a contrast: the way
we should be doing it, the bottom line; and the way we shouldn't be
doing it, which is that line that is growing out of control.
I welcome the opportunity, and I thank both the majority leader and
the Democratic leader for getting things in order so we can have a
regular appropriations process for the first time.
I remind our colleagues that this is the earliest we have started an
appropriations process since the Budget Control Act became law in 1974.
The Senator from California has suggested that I remind our
colleagues and their staff members that if they have amendments, bring
them to our staff, and we will work with them and see if we can include
them in the bill, or if Senators would like to offer the amendments, we
would like to do that today or tomorrow. There is no need to waste time
here. We have 11 other bills we can get to very quickly and other
important legislation that is awaiting the Senate's action.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to rise to express
my support for the open debate we are going to have on the fiscal year
2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill.
I would certainly like to thank the Senator from California and my
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, and I would like to thank
Senator Alexander for his leadership and work on their collaboration.
As a person who has only been in the Senate for a year and a half and
on the Appropriations Committee for about that amount of time, it has
been fun for me to watch seasoned pros as they weave their way through
the appropriations process. So I thank them for that. But this is what
our constituents sent us here to do: to legislate, to express an
opinion, to amend and debate. And I appreciate my colleagues'
willingness to do that with this piece of legislation.
This is a fiscally responsible, bipartisan bill which unanimously
passed out of the Committee on Appropriations last week.
It is also worth noting--and I have heard it noted already today and
will probably hear it many more times--that we are considering
appropriations bills on the Senate floor at the earliest point since
1974. I look forward to the bill passing with many priorities that are
important to my home State of West Virginia, and I also look forward to
passing the other 11 appropriations bills as we move through this
process.
We can all agree that governing by continuing resolution is not
ideal. The leadership in the Senate, and through the work of the
Appropriations Committee, of which I am a proud member, has put us on a
path to passing bills that will fund our government in a reasoned
manner, in a transparent manner, and in a manner which is an open,
deliberative, fair, and responsible process. Today marks an important
step forward--one of many to come, I hope.
The bill before us has enormous importance to every State and
particularly my State of West Virginia. It includes resources that
ensure safe and stable infrastructure, promotes and stimulates research
in the fossil fuel industry, and provides resources for rural areas
most negatively impacted by the economic downturn and continued assault
against coal-producing areas in Appalachia, where I live.
A few weeks ago, I visited the Bluestone Dam in Hinton, WV. It is an
engineering marvel. It was built in the late 1940s and completed in the
1950s. But we must maintain and modernize to make sure we have the
safest and the most technologically superior dams for the prevention of
flooding. The importance of the Bluestone Dam to its surrounding area--
and really all of West Virginia--cannot be overstated. It is protecting
the neighboring capital city of Charleston, where I live, from massive
and catastrophic flooding.
This bill provides construction funds for the Army Corps of Engineers
for projects such as Bluestone, as well as operation and maintenance
funds for hundreds of locks and dams across the country, including many
in my State besides Bluestone--from Elkins, to Beech Fork Lake, to
Tygart Lake. Disappointingly, the President's budget cut funding for
the Corps of Engineers. I don't know how you can do that. That
irresponsible action is eliminated in this bill. We restore the cut and
fund the Army Corps of Engineers by more than $1 billion above the
President's request.
A smaller but equally important investment in West Virginia is the
Appalachian Regional Commission, known as the ARC. I am pleased the
Senate is again proposing to boost funding for the ARC following the
increase in last year's omnibus bill. While it might not be familiar to
a lot of people, the ARC really spearheads many worthwhile efforts in
the Appalachian region, including actions to help communities impacted
by the downturn of the coal industry through worker training, economic
diversification, and job services.
One way to provide our citizens with greater opportunities is to
provide them with broadband access. West Virginia is not wired for
broadband like a lot of our other States. We need to meet the
acceptable standards set by the FCC. We understand we have mountains
and it is difficult, but if we don't do this, if we don't make this
change, West Virginia will be left further behind. This is an economic,
educational, and health care tool.
The ARC is one of the entities that are helping West Virginia connect
to the Internet, and by doing so, it connects the possibilities for
commerce, education, health care, and other things that all of us--
particularly these young people in front of me--have come to think of
as essential to life as bread and water.
This bill maintains the funding level for fossil fuel energy research
and development at $632 million. Sixty-seven percent of the electricity
generated in the United States is from fossil fuels--coal, natural gas,
and petroleum--and this will not change anytime soon. The Department of
Energy's own Energy Information Administration predicts that coal will
still make up about one-third of U.S. electricity generation for
decades to come.
If the administration itself acknowledges that fossil fuels will be
critical to electricity generation, we must ensure that we are using
these in the cleanest way possible. Therefore, we must continue to make
that investment in research and development for clean coal
technologies, which is a large component of this funding. This funding
is $272 million above the President's request. The President's proposed
cut and those proposed by some of my colleagues--and as we move through
the markup we anticipate proposed cuts to fossil fuel research--in my
view, are shortsighted because they fail to realize the value of the
research being done in places like the National Energy Technology Lab
in Morgantown, WV, known as NETL.
NETL has reorganized and restructured its budget to be more
transparent, so we can understand what is actually going on, where the
dollars are being appropriated, and better focus on research and
maximize those funds. I applaud these efforts. Frankly, I think we
should all applaud them. Their work is very important to each and every
one of us.
There are many other provisions in this bill that are very
noteworthy, but I wish to close with this: For West Virginia, this
legislation provides funding and support that will help us in many
ways. I am proud to have supported it in committee and now on the
floor. I will be very excited to see my first appropriations bill
actually come to the Senate floor. Well, we maybe did do one last year,
but this will be the first time Energy and Water has been on the floor.
I look forward to this debate by my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
[[Page S2306]]
FAA and Energy Bills
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I first wish to congratulate my
colleagues for the work they have accomplished this week, work on
reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration. For those in
Colorado, it is important work. For Denver International Airport and
for multiple airports around the State, the aviation industry in
Colorado accounts for tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars
of revenue generated by not only DIA, but whether it is Vail, Durango,
Grand Junction, or any number of airports across the State, we have
benefited from the work this FAA reauthorization has accomplished. I
commend the chairman, Senator Thune, for his work, as well as the
chairman, Senator Murkowski, for the work she has accomplished on the
Energy bill--legislation that will accomplish greater opportunities for
the United States to achieve North American energy security, including
thousands of jobs that can be created by legislation I was able to
secure within the bill on performance contracting--a very great
accomplishment for the Senate. I urge the House and the Senate to come
together quickly in order to find a compromise on the Energy bill and
to get this signed into law.
Cheyenne Mountain Day
Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an event I
participated in last week with General Hyten in Colorado Springs, based
in Cyber Command, to talk about an event that was shared by Governor
Hickenlooper as well from the great State of Colorado.
Since 1966, the U.S. Air Force at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station
in Colorado Springs has been at the forefront of our Nation's capacity
to track foreign threats worldwide, providing an essential component of
North American defense and global security.
Today we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the operational capability
of Cheyenne Mountain, an event General Hyten, Governor Hickenlooper,
and I were able to participate in last week.
Many people across this country probably know Cheyenne Mountain Air
Force Station. They know it through popular culture, they know it
through movies like ``Dr. Strangelove'' or through ``WarGames,'' for
those who aren't quite of the ``Dr. Strangelove'' generation, and
perhaps for newer generations yet, they know Cheyenne Mountain Air
Force Station from ``Stargate.''
Colorado is proud to be at the center of the effort to provide for
the defense of North America through this facility which has far-
reaching consequences and whose multiuse services are critical to
national and global security.
Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station is one of the greatest
engineering marvels of its time, representing an $18 billion facility,
unrivaled anywhere in the world, bored into the front range of the
Rocky Mountains. At this world-class facility, countless space and
ground sensor data collections are assimilated to provide our Nation's
national security leadership apparatus key information to determine
threat assessments and ensure the safety and security of millions of
people around the world.
The 21st Space Wing at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs
provides operational support and infrastructure sustainability, the
721st Mission Support Group provides the dedicated daily sustainment to
more than 13 mission partners performing the national security mission
inside the mountain complex--or the ``mountain fortress,'' as it has
been nicknamed--and over 1,000 U.S. and Canadian military members and
civilians remain vigilant around the clock to defend our great Nation
at this facility.
I am proud the Senate came together last week to approve my
resolution, which designates today, April 20, 2016, as Cheyenne
Mountain Day, to recognize the 50th anniversary of Cheyenne Mountain
achieving full operational capability.
Today we recognize the strategic importance of Cheyenne Mountain and
celebrate the efforts of the 21st Space Wing, the 721st Mission Support
Group, and the men and women who work for the common defense of North
America at Cheyenne Mountain.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Prescription Drug Abuse
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to once again share the
devastating story of the nationwide opiate epidemic that America
currently faces, which is pain pills. It is a crisis I have been
dealing with since my days as Governor of the great State of West
Virginia, and each and every one of us as Senators representing our
great States are dealing with it also.
It is ravaging my State. West Virginia has been hit harder than most
States in our country. The drug overdose deaths have soared by more
than 700 percent since 1999. Just last year, we lost 600 West
Virginians alone to opiate abuse. That is prescription drug abuse.
Let me explain what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a
product that is manufactured legally by pharmaceutical companies, a
product that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration--the
Federal Government--a product that is distributed and prescribed by our
doctors--the most trusted people we have in our lives. It goes on and
on.
Basically, people don't understand and have not understood for the
last two decades the devastating effect that it has. But our State is
not unique. This is happening everywhere, and 51 Americans die every
day. Every day, 51 Americans die. You have to think about that. Every
30 minutes or less, someone is dying because of an overdose from a
prescription drug to which they became addicted. Since 1999, we have
lost almost 200,000 Americans to prescription opioid abuse. We need a
serious culture change in America to get to the root of the problem. We
need to change the approval of all these new, more potent painkillers
coming on the market.
The scope of the problem is this: In the United States of America, we
have less than 5 percent of the world population. Seven billion people
live on this beautiful planet Earth of ours. We have approximately 330
million people. How in the world can we explain how 5 percent of the
population consumes 80 percent of all the addictive opioids produced in
the world? Our country is the most addicted country on Earth. There is
not another one like us. We allow pharmaceuticals to advertise their
products on television. We are the only ones who allow drugs that are
addictive and have the ability to destroy lives to be advertised, and
so naturally people are asking for them. They want to go out and buy
something because the market is so slick. How we approach this is
totally wrong. There needs to be an overhaul of our culture.
My office continues to get flooded with letters. Today I will read a
letter from my State of West Virginia and the Presiding Officer's State
of Georgia. We are encouraging people to continue to share their
experiences. The reason I am encouraging people to share their letters
is because for far too long this has been a silent killer. There is not
a person watching this or a person in this Chamber who doesn't know
somebody in their immediate family or extended family who has been
affected by drug abuse. Most of the time, it is legal prescription drug
abuse. We have an epidemic on our hands.
We talk about Ebola, Zika, and all the other things that are of
concern to us, but not one of those is killing 51 Americans every day,
and people are still silent about it. Well, people are breaking their
silence and sending these letters to me. I will read them every week so
I can put a personal touch on this epidemic we face. I don't want
people to be ashamed. We have all had it happen to us. It could be your
father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, cousins, or children.
We basically have to look at addiction as an illness. For far too
long, we have looked at addiction as a crime. We put people in jail
because they have committed a crime. Most of them are charged with
grand larceny because they had to steal to support their habit and as a
result end up with a felony on their record. When they get out of jail,
they are no better. They are still addicted, and now they have a felony
and
[[Page S2307]]
can't get a job. We have taken them out of the productive part of our
society. Our society is losing a whole generation of productive,
unbelievable, beautiful people.
This is Debbie's story. Debbie is from West Virginia. She said:
My daughter started using drugs off and on around the age
of 13. It really escalated after her second child was born,
her ``husband'' being from Baltimore, MD with access to lots
of different kinds of drugs.
She told me that after the birth of her baby the doctor
prescribed percocet after a vaginal birth. She started off
snorting and then injecting them. Her drug abuse spiraled out
of control to using meth, on to heroin and cocaine, and who
knows what else. Then she started buying Suboxone illegally,
supposedly to get off the other drugs.
Suboxone is supposed to help you get off your addiction, but it is
also an opioid.
When she had her third child, CPS stepped in, but then they
walked away 90 days later. She took off to Baltimore, MD,
putting her two youngest children in danger, leaving her
oldest behind with us. However, we finally got her to bring
the children back to us, but she wasn't willing to stay with
her children. The drugs were more important. We now have
temporary guardianship and she is finally taking steps in
recovery.
I don't understand why these doctors hand out opioid drugs
like it's candy.
I can tell Debbie why they do it. They don't have the training. They
don't understand the effects these drugs are having on people. They are
basically told whatever the manufacturer or salesperson has told them.
If the drug is a 30-day prescription, they give you 30. If it is 60,
they will give you the maximum of 60.
Her letter continues:
I have another daughter that was in a car accident and
broke her leg. She had to have surgery and the doctor
prescribed her 80 percocet all at one time.
Can you believe that?
Already battling one child with addiction I VERY closely
monitored her medication. Not all people are strong willed.
This has to stop. These are dangerous drugs and they lead
to more dangerous drugs! These drugs are killing our
children, pulling our families apart!
Why are doctors prescribing so many at a time?
Why do we have Suboxone, another addictive drug to treat
addiction?
Methadone is another one, methadone clinics. They are the same thing.
Why isn't Suboxone an in care monitored drug so it can't be
sold on the streets?
Why don't we have free treatment centers in every county to
help with addiction so our children aren't dying?
I am going to talk about the treatment centers--or lack of treatment
centers--and what we can and what we should be doing as a country.
My daughter is 24 years old with a lifetime of fighting
addiction. My mom and sister had to bury their sons because
of addiction. I DON'T want to bury my daughter!!!
That was Debbie's story from West Virginia.
This is Winnie's story from Augusta, GA.
My name is Winnie Garrett.
She wanted me to use her full name because she is not ashamed and she
wants to fight this addiction and she needs help.
I have been living in Augusta, GA, for 15 years with my
husband, son, and daughter. My daughter Erin is 21 and a
heroin addict. She started opiates when she was 16. She met a
guy who was shooting pills and heroin, so in September of
2014 she started shooting too.
She had a great job, an apartment, and was a highly
functioning addict. In May she asked if her boyfriend and she
could come and move into our house so they could save money
and get an apartment together.
In July, her boyfriend attempted suicide and was
hospitalized and then sent to rehab. Erin's heroin use
skyrocketed at that time.
In September, we caught Erin and her friends in our house
about to shoot up together, but we intervened. Erin agreed
that she needed help and she started methadone at a methadone
clinic.
So we have methadone and Suboxone.
In October of 2015, one of her ``friends'' that was in our
house back in September overdosed and died at her
grandmother's house. Erin started to abuse opioids again. In
December, she lost her job. By Christmas she had no new job
and no money to pay for methadone. She was going downhill
fast.
On January 2, 2016, she called me and asked me to come and
get her. Her friends had left her alone, she had no phone,
and she was sick. My husband and I found her and told her she
must go to the hospital as we were not prepared to help her
go through withdrawal. We just didn't have the ability or the
knowledge to do it. She fought with us and didn't want to go.
As we drove closer to the hospital and stopped for a light,
she jumped out of our moving vehicle and proceeded to walk
away from us. We had to walk her into the hospital and commit
her.
After the hospital went through her belongings, she was
civilly committed for a minimum of 72 hours. Erin went
through withdrawal and was clean for about 2 weeks but
wouldn't consider going to a rehab place because she wouldn't
want to leave her ``friends.'' She has relapsed, and I have
tried to talk to her, but she is not ready for rehab.
It breaks my heart to see my baby girl now. It has affected
our entire family. Her brother wants nothing to do with her
and her father and I can only pray that God will look after
her and keep her safe from harm.
She is living on the streets and at anyone's house who will
take her in for a day or two. My daughter graduated from Fine
Arts Magnet School and was accepted to Savannah College of
Art and Design. Erin is smart, beautiful and very capable
when she is clean. I don't recognize my little girl on drugs.
Something must be done.
Thank you for listening.
Three or four years ago, these people probably wouldn't have written
these letters to us. They are desperate and need help. They are willing
to put their names to it. They want to put a face on this epidemic.
They really do.
Let me tell you the problem. We do not have--Georgia and West
Virginia--treatment centers. When people are begging for help, there is
no place to send them. We have day courts and drug courts, but there is
really no treatment center. They end up with a felony on their record.
I am not talking about those who have a violent or sexual crime; I am
basically talking about grand larceny. They end up getting a felony. If
we do get them clean, they can't get a job with that felony.
There are some things we have to do. Let me tell you what we can do.
The first thing we can do is address the treatment centers. Think about
this: We have a fee on cigarettes. We know cigarettes are dangerous.
They have proved that cigarettes are addictive and dangerous to your
health, and you pay a tax when you buy cigarettes. Most of those States
use those taxes for their health clinics. We know alcohol is dangerous.
We shouldn't drink alcohol, but we partake in it, and they charge a
tax.
We have no way of funding or supporting the treatment centers. We are
looking at and working on this almost every day. I am going to propose
to my colleagues that one penny per milligram of every opioid produced
by manufacturers be used to go to a treatment fee. It strictly cannot
be used for anything except for treatment centers throughout the United
States of America so we can help the people who need help.
We should also consider how to get people back to having a productive
lifestyle. Let's say they go through an approved treatment center for 1
year and then go into a mentoring program. Not only do they become
clean, but they are mentoring and helping other people become clean.
They don't have a violent or sexual crime against them, but they have a
crime of larceny. Should that person not be considered--basically from
their good standing of finishing a 1-year rehabilitation program, which
they passed with flying colors and are clean and have committed another
year of their lives to giving back and helping other people through
mentoring--to have that felony basically expunged from their record so
they can get back into the workforce? If not, we are losing a whole
generation of quality workers. These are all bright, smart people who
can do something and contribute back to the economy.
I will be coming down here every week, and I will make sure the
people of America know they are not alone. We hear you and we are going
to do something.
I thank the Presiding Officer for listening.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Paris Climate Agreement
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as Secretary of State John Kerry prepares
to
[[Page S2308]]
sign the United States on to the Paris climate agreement on April 22--
that is Earth Day--2 days from now, there are lessons from past
international climate agreements, namely the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, that
we would be remiss to ignore.
Let's keep in mind that the meeting they had was the 21st annual
meeting. This is the big United Nations meeting, when everyone tries to
get 196 countries to come in and have mandatory emissions reductions.
It hasn't worked in 21 years, and it will not work this year either.
The situation they are facing now is kind of embarrassing. Let's just
call the Paris Agreement what it is. It is a political stunt for the
President to do what President Clinton was going to do in the Kyoto
Protocol back in 1997. To recap, in 1997, the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set
forth binding targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emission
reductions for developed countries such as the United States and the
European Union. Meanwhile, developing countries such as China, India,
and Brazil got a free pass. In fact, the Kyoto Protocol exempted 80
percent of the world from greenhouse gas emission reductions. That was
back in 1997.
I could talk extensively about how it was known then that without
developing countries, Kyoto would produce no meaningful impact on
global climate change or reductions. What is most important in advance
of the Paris Agreement signing, which is 2 days from now, is holding
the Obama administration accountable to the lessons learned from the
fallout of Kyoto.
Let's not forget that the Kyoto Protocol--which was a legally binding
treaty, as opposed to the Paris treaty, which is all voluntary--was
signed by the Clinton administration in late 1998 but was never
submitted to the Senate for ratification. This was because the Senate
had already voted, and they knew they weren't going to ratify it.
About that time in 1997, we had the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which
warned that if the United States came back from Kyoto with a signed
product that economically harmed the United States or exempted
developed countries from participating, we would not ratify it. The
resolution passed 95 to 0 in this Chamber. They knew when they came
back that it wasn't going to be signed. With a vote of 95 to 0, not one
Senator would have voted to ratify.
Ultimately, the 36 developed countries were legally bound to the
greenhouse gas targets, and 17 of them failed to meet the greenhouse
gas targets. First of all, they are not even meeting the targets. Some
countries that joined Kyoto, like Iceland, had targets that actually
granted increases in greenhouse gas emissions, while others, like
Russia, had a target of zero that required them to do nothing.
The same thing is true for Russia today with the Paris Agreement.
Russia pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 percent but made
their promise based on emission levels from 1990, not their current
emission levels today. So they could actually increase their emissions
and still comply with the commitment that they made in Paris.
Of course, they were looking at--and I remember from all the other
meetings that Russia is sitting back there with areas such as Siberia,
without any development, and they could use that as land that is not
being developed, where there are no emissions, so it sounded as though
they are really doing something.
I had an occasion many years ago to fly a small Cessna airplane
around the world, emulating the trip of Wiley Post, the aviator from
Oklahoma. He was the one who was flying the airplane when Will Rogers
was killed. I was emulating his flight around the world. I will never
forget going all the way from Moscow to Provideniya, across Siberia.
There is time zone after time zone, and there is nothing down there. It
is bare down there--no houses, no industry, nothing down there. That is
the land Russia has been using to give them the advantage that they
have.
Others, including Japan, the host country for the signing of the
Kyoto Protocol significantly missed its greenhouse gas reduction
targets, and instead they increased. Here is the host country, and they
increased their emissions.
There were warning signs that the countries would fail to meet the
Kyoto targets. For example, in 2005, the year Kyoto went into force, as
then-chairman of the EPW committee, I held hearings on Kyoto where I
questioned the U.S. senior climate change negotiator, Harlan Watson,
about the European Union countries meeting their targets. Watson
testified at the time that only two of the EU countries, the U.K. and
Sweden, were on track to reach their targets. In other words, they all
had targets, but only two countries met them.
Another witness, Dr. Margo Thorning of the American Council for
Capital Formation, told the Committee at the hearing that the European
Union ``policymakers are beginning to worry about the additional steps
required to meet the targets.''
We now know they were right. The EU, one of the staunchest advocates
for the global greenhouse gas emission cuts, barely reached half of the
targets required by Kyoto.
If developed countries like those in the European Union have ignored
legally binding gas emission targets in Kyoto, it is highly unlikely
that they would meet the voluntary reductions that are in the Paris
Agreement. Within the EU, some individual countries, such as Poland,
have already shown fierce opposition to the Paris Agreement due to the
fact that they are relying on coal power to run their country. There
also has been vigorous debate over EU emissions reductions, and so far
further cuts are off the table due to climate leadership fatigue from
Kyoto. Everybody is tired of it.
Some have said Paris is different because developing countries like
China agreed to the greenhouse gas targets. However, as is normally the
case, you have to read a little bit closer. China's climate change
commitment to peak their emissions by 2030 is business as usual. Yes,
they signed on. They are a developing country. But what did they sign?
They agreed to increase their emissions until 2030, and then they will
reconsider.
After making their pledge, the New York Times uncovered that China
dramatically underreported the amount of coal it burns per year,
burning 17 percent more than what China had previously reported during
climate talks. Just last month, a London School of Economics and
Political Science researcher found that it is possible that Chinese
emissions have already peaked. It is no wonder when the country is
bringing online a new coal-powered powerplant every 10 days.
We keep hearing from all of our do-good friends: Just give China a
chance. They are going to follow our leadership. Yes, they are going to
follow our leadership, all right. They are anxious for us to meet our
reductions as we chase our manufacturing base to someplace like China,
which would be the recipient of it.
China is putting online a new coal-fired plant every 10 days. Why
would China bother putting forth such a commitment and why would the
Obama administration promote it as historic? First, it is in the
interest of China to ensure this commitment is ratified because it
makes it more difficult for the United States and the European Union to
get out of economically damaging regulations. Second, it is in the
interest of President Obama to sign this agreement since his own legacy
hinges on its ratification. For the agreement to come into force, 55
countries representing at least 55 percent of emissions are going to
have to sign.
We have seen this before. Think back to Kyoto. Clinton did not have
the support of the Senate, yet Clinton delegated his U.S. Ambassador to
sign it.
That is exactly what is happening today. President Obama doesn't want
to go there because President Obama is fully familiar with the fact
that they can't reach their targets, and besides that, we have the U.S.
Supreme Court stepping in and saying that they can't do it.
The Obama administration should take note that history does repeat
itself. If Secretary Kerry signs the Paris Agreement--which he will--it
will be an act in defiance of the lessons from the past and in defiance
of the best interests of the American people, all while achieving no
meaningful impact on global temperatures.
Just like Kyoto, countries will not comply. Here at home, the
President's
[[Page S2309]]
means to force the United States to achieve a 26- to 28-percent
reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025--primarily through the so-called
Clean Power Plan, which is likely to get struck by the courts--is
extremely limited. Its implementation has already been blocked by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
We have 27 countries that have filed lawsuits against the plan. We
actually had someone from the National Chamber of Commerce and the
Sierra Club come before our committee just a few weeks ago saying:
Look, there is no way in the world that you can have this kind of a
reduction. So it is dead in the water anyway, with 40 percent doing
business as usual. Only 15 percent could have an effect from the power
plan, and then the rest--45 percent--are not even in the middle of it.
Besides that, the Supreme Court has now said that until all the
litigation has cleared up, nothing is going to happen. They intervened
in that as well as the WOTUS regulations--the waters of the United
States. So it is not going to happen. They are going to have their
party there. The President is embarrassed, and he is sending John Kerry
to do his dirty work.
I hope all 196 of the countries send their representatives to New
York because I would love to have them get to know America, travel
around, spend their money, and go down historic Highway 66 that goes
through my State of Oklahoma. They will have a wonderful time while
they are here, but they might as well skip the New York part.
I see my good friend from Indiana, and, with that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Nominations of mark McWatters and Adam Szubin
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, for more than a month, many of my
colleagues and I have come to this floor to talk about our
responsibility as Senators to do our job and consider the President's
Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. That is right. Here in one of
the world's greatest deliberative bodies, where we have debated war and
peace, civil rights, and the right of women to vote, we are now engaged
in a debate about whether the Senate should carry out one of its most
basic constitutional responsibilities.
Even more troubling than the refusal of some Senators to consider the
Supreme Court nominee is that this is one in a series of failures over
the past year. It is not an isolated incident; it is a pattern.
Back home in Indiana, our priorities are clear. We want good jobs and
safe communities. Hoosiers are asking important questions of their
elected officials, such as: What is the Senate doing to strengthen our
economy? What are we doing to keep Americans safe?
Today I want to talk about two additional simple things that the
Senate can do to strengthen our economy and to keep our country
safe. Both have strong bipartisan support already. We just have to do
our job. The first relates to the Export-Import Bank. Last December,
after months of negotiations, and a 5-month lapse, Congress agreed,
with bipartisan support, to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, the
official export credit agency of the United States of America, which
helps American companies, including small businesses from my home State
and from everyone else's, compete in the global economy.
It does not get more common sense than approving an agency whose sole
purpose--sole purpose--is to help create more American jobs at no cost
to taxpayers. In fact, in 2014, the Bank supported $27.5 billion in
U.S. exports and more than 164,000 American jobs and returned over $675
million to the U.S. Treasury.
The Bank creates jobs, reduces the deficit, and spurs economic
growth. It is a win-win-win. Yet, despite bipartisan approval last
December, Senate inaction continues to hamstring the Bank, which keeps
it from fully functioning. You see, in order to approve certain
financing, the Bank needs a minimum of three Senate-approved board
members. Today, we have only two.
That is because board nominee Mark McWatters, a Republican, has been
stuck in the Senate Banking Committee for more than 3 months. At a time
when American companies are struggling to compete in an economy that is
often rigged by other countries manipulating their currency, by
intellectual property theft, and by insurmountable foreign regulatory
barriers, there are a few Members of this body who are intent on
obstructing this important economic tool by refusing to consider Mr.
McWatters' nomination in order to advance an extreme ideological
agenda.
So here we are again, willfully allowing an important tool for
economic growth to sit idle simply because some in the Senate refuse to
do their job. While most Americans find it hard to believe we cannot
agree on something as common sense as supporting the American economy,
perhaps more troubling is the refusal to confirm an official to lead
our Nation's efforts to combat terrorist financing around the world.
Mr. Adam Szubin is the nominee to be Treasury Under Secretary for
Terrorism and Financial Crimes. His job is to identify and to disrupt
the lines of financial support to international terrorist
organizations, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, narcotics
traffickers, and other actors posing a threat to U.S. national security
or foreign policy.
It is a critical job. Just about anyone you ask will tell you that
Adam Szubin is the guy we want doing this job. He has helped shape and
enforce U.S. sanctions against our adversaries for nearly a decade,
under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He is recognized
as a leading expert on terrorism financing and is widely considered one
of our Nation's best tools in taking the financial footing out from
under terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda and countering
adversaries like Iran, North Korean, and, increasingly, Russia.
Today marks 1 year since Mr. Szubin was nominated--an entire year.
For 1 full year, our country has worked to combat terrorist financing
and enforce and expand sanctions against key adversaries without a
confirmed official to lead the charge. At a time when our sanctions
regimes are critical to countering Iran's ballistic missile program,
North Korea's nuclear weapons development, and Russia's renewed
aggression, and at a time when U.S. military personnel are serving in
harm's way in locations around the world, combatting ISIS and Al Qaeda
and their affiliates, the Senate is undermining the ability of one of
our Nation's top counterterrorism officials to do his job.
By failing to act on the nomination of Mr. Szubin, who people on both
sides of the aisle agree is the perfect person for the job, we are
undermining his credibility with the very countries we need on our side
to effect these sanctions and to cut off funding flows to terrorists.
The American people expect us to use every single resource--every
single resource we have--to keep our Nation safe. Yet, when it comes to
putting our strongest team on the field to fight back and to cut off
terrorist financing, some in this body continue to put politics ahead
of our national security.
Why has Mr. Szubin not yet been confirmed as the Under Secretary for
Terrorism and Financial Crimes? Simply put, the Senate refuses to do
its job, to have a vote. I understand it is an election year and there
is much discussion in Washington about what is good political strategy
for the different parties. While the timing may be inconvenient for
some, I will remind my colleagues that every day outside of Washington,
law enforcement officers, among many others, rely on a fully
functioning Supreme Court for the legal guidance that serves as the
basis of our founding promise of liberty and justice for all.
I remind my colleagues that every day across our country, millions of
hard-working men and women go to work to support their families, many
of whom rely on jobs supported by the Export-Import Bank. Every day
across the globe, our service men and women put their lives on the line
to protect our country from terrorists and from foreign nations intent
on doing us harm.
Many of those terrorists and foreign nations are targets of the
crippling sanctions the U.S. Treasury implements and enforces to help
keep Americans safe. Adam Szubin is leading that team. These men and
women who go to work to support their families, the law enforcement
officers who protect our communities, and the service men and
[[Page S2310]]
women who fight for our great country every single day do not stop
doing their job because it is an election year. They do not pass on
confirmations because it is inconvenient timing.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. Most Americans
believe Congress can do something to help move our country forward. At
the very least, we should do no harm. We are falling short of this most
basic standard. But we can change that right now by simply doing our
job, by considering Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court,
by doing our job to support the economy by considering the nomination
of Mark McWatters to sit on the board of the Export-Import Bank, and by
doing our job to support our troops and protect our country by
considering the nomination of Adam Szubin to be Under Secretary of the
Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
This should be the very least that we do. We need to do it now. Let's
follow the example of those who elected us, who roll up their sleeves
every day and go to work. It is time for us to roll up our sleeves and
go to work and do our job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I just wanted to compliment the
Senator from Indiana on the remarks he has just made and thank him very
much.
I also want to urge Members: Please bring amendments to the Energy
and Water appropriations bill to the floor. We hope to finish this
bill. The only way we are going to do it is if Members bring and file
their amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, 1 year ago today, the President nominated
Adam Szubin to serve as Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial
Crimes at the Treasury Department. Mr. Szubin's nomination was pending
in the Banking Committee for more than 11 months before we finally
acted on it.
So far in this Congress--not this session, but the entire Congress--
the Senate has not acted on a single nominee from the Banking
Committee, even those who play critical national security roles like
Mr. Szubin. We have not even acted yet on certain nominees eligible for
expedited consideration by the full Senate. In the past, the Senate
acted on these ``privileged nominees'' as a routine manner.
The hard-working people of Ohio, Arkansas, and Georgia expect the
Senate to do its job. Part of our job is to give the President's
nominees fair, respectful, and timely consideration. Unfortunately, the
unprecedented partisan obstruction we have seen over Judge Merrick
Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court has been a fact of life
longer than that at the Banking Committee.
The Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes is one of the
most important national security posts in our government. Mr. Szubin
serves in an acting capacity in that position. Despite having
bipartisan support, as evidenced by the vote out of committee and as
evidenced by his initial appointment to the executive branch by
President Bush, his nomination has languished for a year--a full year--
because of one thing: Republican obstruction.
Allowing this proven leader to remain unconfirmed weakens his
position and undermines American influence in our efforts to track
terrorists and stop them from raising money on the black market or
elsewhere. The mission of Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence is too important right now for us to have anything less
than our best person in that role with the full backing of this Senate.
Mr. Szubin served Republican and Democratic administrations in senior
positions related to economic sanctions and countering terrorist
financing. His job is focused on leading our country's efforts to
disrupt terrorist financing by ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other groups.
There is absolutely no question that he is qualified. Over the last
decade and a half, Mr. Szubin has distinguished himself as a tough and
aggressive enforcer of our Nation's sanctions laws against Russia,
Iran, and North Korea, against money launderers and terrorists and
narcotraffickers.
Given all the concerns surrounding terrorist financing, you would
think a nomination for this position would be a priority. In the Senate
Banking Committee and in the Senate in 2015 and 2016, that has not been
the case.
I repeat. One year ago he was nominated. One year ago the Senate
Banking Committee got his nomination.
Mr. Szubin's mentor, Bush administration Under Secretary Stuart Levy,
was confirmed by the Senate 3 weeks after his nomination came to the
Banking Committee, when the Democrats were in control of this Senate.
Mr. Szubin's immediate predecessor took the Senate just 2\1/2\ months
to consider.
This is a critical national security post that must be filled
permanently. Szubin heads what is, in effect, Treasury's economic war
room, managing U.S. efforts to combat terrorist financing and fight
financial crimes. He leads the charge to choke off ISIL's funding
sources and prevent it from developing additional capacity to strike
targets around the world.
Cutting off the money supply, including profits from illicit oil
sales, money-laundering extortion, and other crimes by ISIS actors is a
critical part of our strategy to defeat this terrorist organization. He
works to hold Iran to its commitment under the nuclear deal and to lead
a campaign against the full range of Iran's other terrorizing,
destructive, and destabilizing activities, including its support for
Hezbollah and other terror proxies.
He has broad support across the political spectrum. Even groups
opposed to the Iran nuclear deal support his nomination. Banking Chair
Shelby described Szubin as ``eminently qualified.''
The recent Panama Papers scandal shows how some of the richest and
most powerful people may have used shell companies in offshore accounts
to evade taxes, launder money, and dodge sanctions. The leak of these
documents underscores the role that Mr. Szubin and the Office of
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence play in combatting money
laundering and terrorist finance networks. It is yet another reminder
of why Szubin's confirmation is so urgent.
Mr. Szubin is well-regarded around the world for his intellect, his
courage, his experience, his expertise, and his integrity. He deserves
the strong backing of the Senate. Confirming him would demonstrate the
commitment of the United States to disrupt and destroy the global
financial networks of terrorist organizations. Without it, his ability
to operate here and abroad is undermined.
Treasury must have in place an experienced watchdog with the know-how
and with the authority to lead U.S. efforts to track and choke off the
financial lifeblood of terrorist organizations.
The bottom line is Republicans in Congress need to stop holding our
national security apparatus hostage to political demands. We need to
allow Adam Szubin and other national security nominees to be approved.
The Senate needs to do its job.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider Calendar No. 478, the nomination of Adam
J. Szubin to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes;
that the Senate proceed to vote on the nomination without intervening
action or debate; and that following disposition of the nomination, the
Senate resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). Is there objection?
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Reserving the right to object, and I will object.
Until just a few weeks ago, I did not object to Mr. Szubin's
nomination.
I did oppose the nomination in the Banking Committee because he
supports a clearly inconsistent interpretation of the Iran threat
reduction act because it would hinder the implementation of the Iran
nuclear deal. To be fair to Mr. Szubin, he is well respected on both
sides of the aisle, having worked in the former Bush administration. I
suspect this is not his interpretation. This is the interpretation of
the
[[Page S2311]]
community organizer, the failed novelist, and the political operative
who are in charge of implementing these parts of the Iran nuclear deal.
However, I couldn't, in good conscience, support the nomination given
that clearly flawed interpretation.
But just 2 or 3 weeks ago, Secretary Jack Lew gave a speech in which
he all but announced that the U.S. Government would allow Iran access
to the U.S. dollar. This would truly unravel every last sanction we
have against Iran, not just for their nuclear program but for their
campaign of aggression and terror throughout the Middle East.
This is in direct contradiction to what Secretary Lew said and in
direct contradiction to what Mr. Szubin said. In fact, I would note Mr.
Szubin's testimony before the Banking Committee last summer:
Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars
through New York, hold correspondent account relationships
with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing
arrangements with U.S. banks. . . . In short, Iran will
continue to be denied access to the world's principal
financial and commercial market.
Further, in another quote, he said:
. . . nor will Iran be able to access the U.S. banking
sector, even for that momentary transaction to, what we call,
dollarize a foreign payment.
Yet Secretary Lew has all but announced that the U.S. Government will
allow Iran to dollarize their foreign transactions. In fact, Secretary
of State John Kerry just this week is meeting with his Iranian
counterpart to try to figure out more ways we can heap economic
benefits on the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
So until President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Secretary Lew publicly
and conclusively renounce any intent to allow Iran to dollarize a
foreign transaction, I will object to this nomination.
If the Senator from Ohio and 41 other Democrats don't like that, they
should have considered that before they voted for a deal that gave over
$100 billion to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I find it ironic. This is the first time we
have actually heard specific reasons--all seeming fairly recent, mostly
seeming fairly recent about objections to Mr. Szubin. But I also find
it interesting that they talk about sanctions not being fully enforced.
Well, don't you need someone in place who has the imprimatur of a full
appointment to the position, not just nomination and serving as interim
or acting but full appointment with Senate confirmation?
I just stand puzzled by that, but I also understand the partisan
nature of this. I remember my colleague's letter to the country of Iran
that 46 Republican Senators signed saying, for all intents and
purposes: Don't negotiate with President Obama.
This is a lot about President Obama, but I don't care about that.
What I care about is that he is acting in that position, and not
confirming him makes no sense for our country.
A full year has gone by. I intend to continue to press for approval
of Adam Szubin and others before our committee in the weeks ahead.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the conflict over the
Supreme Court vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice Antonin
Scalia. This conflict has two dimensions, one focusing on the nominee
and the second focusing on the confirmation process.
America's Founders established a system of government that preserves
liberty by limiting government and including a defined role for judges.
Three of America's Founders provide principles helping to define that
judicial role. James Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence,
helped draft the Constitution, and was one of the six original Supreme
Court Justices appointed by President George Washington. He explained
our system of government by saying that ``here, the people are the
masters of the government.''
The second principle is from President Washington himself, who said
in a farewell address, on behalf of our system of government, that the
basis of our system of government is that authority to control the
Constitution belongs to the people.
Alexander Hamilton served in the Continental Congress, helped draft
the Constitution, and became the first Secretary of the Treasury. He
wrote 51 of the 85 installments of the Federalist Papers, the single
most important reference for understanding the Constitution. In
Federalist No. 78, he wrote that the judiciary is the weakest and least
dangerous branch because judges exercise judgment but not will.
These three principles outline the proper role for judges in our
system of government. The people are the masters of government. They
alone have the authority to control the Constitution, and judges may
exercise judgment but not will. Our system of government and the
liberty it makes possible requires judges who leave control of the law
in the hands of the people.
The conflict over the appointment of judges is really a conflict over
the power of judges--a conflict over whether this should still be the
proper judicial job description. Those whose political agenda fares
poorly with the American people and their elected representatives want
a very different kind of judge. They want willful judges who will
impose their political agenda by manipulating statutes or the
Constitution.
This is the first dimension of the conflict over filling the Scalia
vacancy. I have spoken and written extensively about how the Senate
owes the President some deference regarding nominees who are qualified
by both legal experience and judicial philosophy. Those considerations
are relevant when the confirmation process takes place.
However, the second dimension in the conflict over filling the Scalia
vacancy focuses on the process, rather than the nominee. When and how
the nomination process should occur is rarely a question at all, but it
is a serious one under the circumstances we face today. Ignoring the
integrity of the process, acting as if the ends always justify the
means, would be a serious dereliction of the Senate's duty.
The President has the constitutional power to nominate judges, but he
cannot appoint them without the advice and consent of the Senate.
However, the Constitution does not tell either the President or the
Senate how to exercise their powers. Deciding when and how to conduct
the confirmation process is as valid an exercise of the Senate's
advice-and-consent power as is taking a final confirmation vote at the
end of that process.
Our late colleague Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York once said that
everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. The
majority leader recently offered a similar axiom when he said that ``no
matter how many times you tell a falsehood, it is still false.'' When
it comes to falsehoods, Democrats and their liberal allies are telling
some real whoppers. For example, the minority leader has said the
Senate's obligation to hold a hearing and a floor vote for President
Obama's nominee is ``in the Constitution.'' He has made that claim in
different forms on the Senate floor more than 40 times.
I understand Democrats want the Senate to confirm the President's
nominee to the Scalia vacancy, but I cannot understand why they would
put all their eggs in this completely fictional basket. As falsehoods
go, this one is especially easy to expose because the Constitution
obviously says no such thing. This is why the Washington Post Fact
Checker called the Democrats' claim that the Constitution requires
Senate consideration a politically convenient fairytale.
One of the reasons the Constitution says nothing about Judiciary
Committee hearings is that the committee was not created until 29 years
after the Constitution was written. In fact, the committee's practice
of nominees regularly appearing in public hearings did not begin until
the 1960s. During the
[[Page S2312]]
110th Congress, Chairman Patrick Leahy denied a hearing to dozens of
President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. If the minority leader is
right that the Constitution requires such a hearing, then Chairman
Leahy was guilty of serially violating the Constitution.
Between 2003 and 2007, Senators Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, and
Richard Durbin voted dozens of times to deny floor votes to Republican
judicial nominees. So did Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, and
John Kerry. If the minority leader is right that the Constitution
requires a floor vote on every nominee, then these Senators were guilty
of deliberately attempting to violate the Constitution over and over
again. So was the minority leader, himself, because he voted 25 times
to deny the very floor votes that today he claims the Constitution
requires.
The Constitution does not require committee hearings, and it does not
require floor votes. The Constitution leaves to the Senate the judgment
about when and how to conduct the confirmation process in each
situation. Republicans have made that judgment by deciding that the
confirmation process for filling the Scalia vacancy should be deferred
until after the Presidential election season is over. We are following
the recommendation of Vice President Joe Biden in 1992, when he chaired
the Judiciary Committee. The circumstances compelling his
recommendation to defer the confirmation process exist in equal or
greater measure today.
Neither Democrats nor their leftwing allies have even attempted to
argue that the 1992 Biden speech and his recommendation do not apply
today. Instead, they have had three different reactions. First, some
have simply dismissed it as not worth taking seriously. For example,
President Obama responded by saying that ``we know Senators say stuff
all the time.'' Others have complained that Republicans are
misconstruing that speech or somehow taking it out of context. Just as
anyone can test the minority leader's claim about the Constitution by
reading the Constitution, however, they can test our discussion of
Chairman Biden's 1992 speech by reading that speech--a rather long one
indeed. The Washington Post read it, and reported this on February 23:
Biden's remarks were especially pointed, voluminous and
relevant to the current situation. Embedded in the roughly
20,000 words he delivered on the Senate floor were rebuttals
to virtually every point Democrats have brought forth . . .
to argue for the consideration of Obama's nominee.
In his 1992 speech, Chairman Biden addressed how the confirmation
process should be conducted in two different scenarios. First, he spoke
about a Supreme Court vacancy in a Presidential election year. This was
his recommendation:
It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the
political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme
Court nomination must be put off until after the election
campaign is over.
That was then-Senator Biden, chairman of the committee.
Second, Chairman Biden separately discussed how the confirmation
process ``might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a
Democrat or a Republican.'' He used the phrase ``the next
administration'' no less than four times. This was his recommendation:
If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or
moderates his selections absent consultation, then his
nominees may enjoy my support. . . . But if he does not, as
is the President's right, then I will oppose his future
nominees as is my right.
Two separate scenarios, two separate recommendations. The first
scenario involved a Supreme Court vacancy in a Presidential year like
1992, and the recommendation involved the entire appointment process.
Those circumstances and that recommendation apply fully today.
The second scenario Chairman Biden addressed involved the next
administration, outside a Presidential election year, and his
recommendation involved his personal support or opposition. Those
circumstances and that recommendation do not apply today.
I understand Chairman Biden's recommendation for deferring the
confirmation process in a Presidential election year is a very
inconvenient truth for his party today. However, the only ones
misconstruing that speech today are those trying to create confusion
where none exists by conflating these two separate scenarios and
recommendations.
The third reaction to Chairman Biden's 1992 speech is to pretend that
he said something he simply did not say. For example, I have heard the
claim that Chairman Biden would have gone forward with the confirmation
process in 1992 if the President consulted the Senate before choosing a
nominee. Let me once again quote the minority leader. It is pretty
clear: ``No matter how many times you tell a falsehood, it is still
false.'' Read the speech. Chairman Biden said no such thing.
I also want to comment on the President's recent remarks at the
University of Chicago on the Scalia vacancy. For example, he said that
``there has not been a circumstance in which a Republican President's
appointee did not get a hearing.'' Of course, the Senate's power of
advice and consent applies across the board. If the Constitution
requires hearings and floor votes for some nominees, it requires them
for all nominees.
Last month, the Congressional Research Service confirmed in a new
memo that during the 102nd Congress, when Democrats controlled the
Senate, 52--52--Republican judicial nominees never even got a hearing.
Vice President Biden chaired the committee and denied those hearings.
In September 1992, the New York Times reported on page 1 that this was
part of a deliberate strategy to keep judicial vacancies open in the
hope that Bill Clinton would be elected.
The President also said there has not been a circumstance when a
Republican President's nominee did not get a floor vote. Obviously,
none of the dozens of nominees denied a hearing ever got a floor vote.
The 52 Republican judicial nominees I just mentioned were not only
denied a hearing, they were never confirmed at all. When the President
served in this body, he voted to deny floor votes to multiple
Republican judicial nominees. In fact, he has the distinction of being
the only President ever to have voted to filibuster a Supreme Court
nominee. The President was a Senator during the 110th Congress, when
Chairman Leahy denied a hearing to dozens of Republican nominees. I
could find no record that then-Senator Obama objected in any way that
these nominees were being denied full consideration.
The President also said that the increasing use of the filibuster to
defeat nominees is unacceptable. Democrats first used the filibuster to
defeat a majority-supported judicial nominee in 2003. They are the ones
who started this. They led nearly two dozens filibusters during the
108th Congress alone, preventing one appeals court nominee after
another from being confirmed. President Obama should know this because,
as I mentioned, he participated in and supported this filibuster
campaign. The President should also know filibusters of judicial
nominees declined by 65 percent after he took office in January 2009.
That did not matter to Democrats who, in November of 2013, abolished
the very filibusters they had used so aggressively.
The President also expressed concern that an increasingly partisan
confirmation process would erode the judiciary's institutional
integrity and that the American people would lose confidence that
courts can fairly decide cases. I submit that the kind of judge a
President advocates has a much bigger impact on the American people's
view of the courts.
When he was a Senator, the President said judges decide cases based
on their personal views, core concerns, and what is in their hearts.
When he ran for President, he told Planned Parenthood that he would
appoint judges who have empathy for certain groups. As President, he
has nominated men and women who share this politicized, activist
approach, believing that judges may make the Constitution conform to
current social practices and evolving cultural norms. I think our
fellow citizens can easily see that relying on personal empathy and
personal concerns is the opposite of impartiality.
Since President Obama took office, the percentage of Americans
disapproving of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job has risen
by more than 20 points, and the percentage saying the Court is too
liberal has
[[Page S2313]]
risen steadily. Three-quarters of Americans now believe Supreme Court
Justices decide cases based on their personal or political views, even
though most Americans think they should not do so. The kind of judge
President Obama and other liberals favor has much more to do with such
trends than how we handle some procedural matters within the United
States Senate.
Finally, I want to respond to the minority leader's recent attack on
the Judiciary Committee and its distinguished chairman, Senator
Grassley. The minority leader recently made the bizarre claim that
Chairman Grassley ``forced his committee members to sign loyalty
oaths.'' I first thought I must have heard wrong. That statement is
completely detached from reality, and, I thought, no Senator would
utter something so strange on the Senate floor, but there it is in the
Congressional Record.
The minority leader may be referring to the letter dated February 23,
signed by the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee affirming
that there will be no hearing for any nominee from President Obama for
the Scalia vacancy. The chairman did not force anyone to sign anything.
It may come as a surprise to the minority leader, but we sincerely and
freely came to the conclusion that the confirmation process should be
deferred.
If the minority leader really wants to characterize Senators acting
together as evidence of a ``loyalty oath,'' then I have another example
for everyone to consider. When Democrats led 20 filibusters of
President George W. Bush's judicial nominees during the 108th Congress,
not a single Democrat voted even once to end debate--not one. Every one
of the 868 total votes for those filibusters was cast by a Democrat, 20
of them by the minority leader himself. Now, that is loyalty.
I have yet to hear an argument from the other side regarding the
Scalia vacancy that is not contradicted by present facts, by their own
past actions or both. The Constitution assigns to this body the
responsibility of advice and consent as an important check on the
President's power to appoint. Advice and consent begins with a judgment
about the best way to exercise that power in each situation. We have
done so in different ways, at different times, under different
circumstances.
Democrats and their leftwing allies are peddling the false claim that
the Constitution requires the Senate to conduct the confirmation
process now for this President's nominee to the Scalia vacancy. Of
course, they are free to claim the Constitution requires today the very
hearings and floor votes they denied to Republican nominees in the
past. They may say those falsehoods as often as they wish, but they are
still false.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Adam Szubin
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise today to remind everybody that
today is the 1-year anniversary of Adam Szubin's nomination to a key
Federal post that works to stop financing for terrorism; yet he still
waits a confirmation vote in the full Senate.
Mr. Szubin, if you have met him--I think almost anyone would agree he
is one of the most qualified people for this job to enforce U.S.
sanctions on terrorism, finance laws against countries such as Syria,
Iran, North Korea, as well as against terrorist organizations,
narcotraffickers, and money launderers. The Senate needs to do its job
by holding a vote on Mr. Szubin's nomination, as well as the
nominations of so many other Federal nominees. We have to stop putting
politics above national security.
Exactly 1 year ago today, Adam Szubin was nominated to serve as the
U.S. Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial
Crimes. For 1 year, Adam Szubin and his family have been waiting for a
vote in the Senate--and his family. I think way too often when we delay
votes, when we string out these nomination processes, we forget that it
is not just the nominee, it is also the families of the nominees who
are waiting for a final decision. Mr. Szubin received a vote in the
Senate Banking Committee in March. Now the Senate needs to do its job
and vote up or down on his confirmation.
I have a particular soft spot for Adam because I am convinced that he
is one of the most intelligent people I have ever had in my office, and
especially in this critical and important job. He has 15 years of
experience countering the financing of terrorism in both Republican and
Democratic administrations. During Mr. Szubin's confirmation in the
Senate Banking Committee last September, Chairman Shelby called Mr.
Szubin eminently qualified.
If we are serious about enforcing sanctions against Iran and
defeating terrorist organizations such as ISIL and Al Qaeda, we have to
stop the financing of terrorism. That means we need Adam Szubin to be
able to do his job at the U.S. Department of Treasury.
In January, I visited the Mideast on an official Senate trip with
seven other Senators. We visited Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and
Austria. The goal was to learn more about the ongoing threats posed by
terrorist groups such as ISIL and the progress we have made to roll
back Iran's nuclear program. We met with allies in the region to learn
more about how to best prepare the United States to face these issues.
This trip was about protecting the safety and well-being of our
country.
During our meetings, the issue that came up over and over again was,
how do we stop the financing of terrorism? We know that financing is
the linchpin of a terrorist organization being able to do everything
they do, threatening our country and threatening the world. For the
United States to ably and effectively do that work, Adam Szubin needs
to be confirmed to the job for which he has been recommended.
Some would say that it doesn't really matter, that Adam Szubin is
still at the Department of the Treasury and we really don't need to do
this. I think we need to look at, No. 1, what it means for the
individuals and their families when we delay these confirmation votes.
I am not saying--and Members on both sides of the aisle will have to
make up their minds on how they are going to vote on that confirmation,
but why is it that we can't even get a vote? Why is it that we can't
even get our job done?
Here is a position which most people in this body would say is
absolutely critical to the security of our country. If Adam Szubin
isn't the right guy for the job, the right person for the job, then
let's find that out--according to the advice and consent of this body--
and nominate somebody else. But why are we holding back on this
critical job against a nominee who I would tell you is eminently
qualified? We should be so lucky as to have someone with his
qualifications, his capability helping protect our country. Yet we ask
him to wait. We ask other nominees to wait. We ask that they sit by the
sidelines with their professional lives in limbo while we have
political discussions here in the Senate.
Is this a political decision? It might be. You know what. Let's take
the vote. Why is this so hard? Why is it so hard to actually put up a
number of nominees, take the vote, make the decision, and move on? I
think that as I and many of my colleagues spend a lot of time talking
to young people, encouraging them to be involved in public service,
encouraging them to be part of a system that really does benefit all
the people of this country. We ask people to go into public service,
and then, when they aspire and work to achieve some of the highest
positions in our country, we say: Not only are we not going to consider
your nomination, we are not going to vote on it even after it comes out
of committee. That is not a formula that speaks well to our recruitment
of the best and brightest to serve the American people.
A year later, Adam Szubin remains in limbo. His family remains in
limbo. His confirmation remains in limbo. Please, let's just vote.
There are plenty of votes probably on the other side to say ``We are
not going to confirm you,'' but it is not right. It is not right. It is
not fair to his family, it is not fair to him, and it is not fair to
the people of this country to not have a confirmed
[[Page S2314]]
person in the position for which Adam Szubin has been nominated.
I hope we can take a look at all of these nominees, break this
logjam, and eventually get folks put in positions that are essential
for American security.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from
California and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-
reported substitute to H.R. 2028 be withdrawn and that amendment No.
3801 remain pending and be considered the committee-reported substitute
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Prescription Opioid Abuse
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about a huge
problem that I am pretty sure is affecting every one of our States. It
is certainly affecting my State in a very serious way, and the abuse of
opioid painkillers often leads to the abuse of heroin, overdoses, and
death. This is wreaking havoc all across Pennsylvania. It is affecting
every geographic part of the State. It is in urban areas, suburban, and
rural areas. It affects every demographic group and every age group.
The scale of the problem is shocking. The increase in the number of
people who are overdosing and becoming addicted is disturbing. I began
hearing about this issue immediately when I became a Senator in 2011,
and frankly this problem is getting worse.
I recently became the chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on
Health, and that has given me an opportunity to delve into this ever
more deeply. We have had a series of hearings across Pennsylvania to
get as much expertise as possible so we can learn about what is causing
this and how we should deal with it. There are three areas that have
come to my attention--three directions--that I think the Federal
Government can pursue to help deal with this very complex and very
widespread problem of opioid addiction. No. 1, we need to improve the
access and quality of treatment for people who are addicted. There is
no question that this is a very difficult disease to treat. There is so
much we don't understand. We don't understand what predisposes someone
to be more likely to develop an addiction. We don't understand the
genetic implications. We know there are some behavioral issues, but we
don't understand as much as we need to know about it. We do know there
are often underlying mental health issues which contribute to this
problem. Whatever these causes are, we need to learn more so we can
treat and prevent them better, and we need to treat the people who
currently find themselves in the very difficult situation of facing
addiction. As I said, that is category No. 1.
There is another thing we can do in the Federal Government. We need
to take steps to reduce the diversion of these powerful prescription
narcotics to the black markets. In fact, prescription opioids are
available on the street for a price. There is a market for them, and
they contribute to the addiction problem we have. They don't get there
because a burglar broke in and stole them from a pharmacy. That is not
the typical way these narcotics get to the street. They get there
because someone prescribed it and a prescription was filled. We need to
look at ways to reduce that phenomenon.
I introduced legislation with Senator Casey, my Pennsylvania
colleague, Senator Portman, Senator Brown, and Senator Kaine. That
legislation is designed to reduce the frequency and occurrence of
prescription opioids finding their way into the black market. Our bill
provides Medicare with a tool that Medicaid and private insurers have
long had, and that tool is called Lock-In. When an insurer--in the case
of our legislation it would be Medicare--discovers that a patient is
doctor shopping, which is systematically going to multiple doctors and
getting multiple prescriptions for opioids, filling them at multiple
pharmacies, and ending up with a commercial scale quantity, our
legislation would allow Medicare to lock that patient into a single
prescriber and single pharmacy. Any person with a legitimate need can
get that need met, but we can put an end to some of these very large
quantities reaching the black market.
The good news is our legislation was offered as an amendment. Senator
Casey and I offered it as an amendment to the CARA legislation a few
weeks ago. It was adopted by the Senate, and of course the underlying
CARA legislation was passed by the Senate. I am hoping the House will
take this up, pass it, and get it to the President, and I am confident
he will sign it. That would be a big step in the right direction.
The third category of action that I think we need to consider are
steps that would reduce overprescribing in the first place. One of the
things I have learned from the many hearings I have had across
Pennsylvania are doctors who have told and described to me a culture
within medicine in recent decades which has put so much emphasis on
eliminating all pain that doctors are tending to prescribe these
opioids in far greater quantities than would have been imagined a
couple of decades ago. That is an important piece.
I have raised questions about whether it is appropriate to use
opioids to treat long-term chronic pain as opposed to short-term acute
pain. That is another area we ought to be raising questions with health
care professionals so they can help us understand so we have an answer.
There is yet another way I think we can address this in the Senate, and
that is an unintended consequence of ObamaCare--a provision in
ObamaCare that I think is encouraging doctors to overprescribe opioids
in the hospital setting. That is what I want to talk about today.
First, a little background on this. ObamaCare created a system that
provides financial rewards to hospitals that perform well on certain
outcomes, such as reducing readmissions and hospital-acquired
infections, for instance. If they do badly in those areas, then they
are penalized and get lower reimbursements. It is a financial set of
incentives to get better outcomes. Those two examples I just mentioned,
readmissions and hospital-acquired infections, are objective,
measurable, quantifiable, and there is little doubt we want to see less
of those things. You can argue that it makes sense to have financial
incentives to deal with that.
ObamaCare also links reimbursement for hospitals to a much more
subjective outcome separate and apart from the ones I just mentioned;
that is, patient satisfaction as defined by the government.
Specifically, the Federal Government mandates that hospitals survey
their patients about their stay at a hospital using a form known as the
Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems, or
HCAHPS. It is known as HCAHPS. That is the survey hospitals are
required by ObamaCare to administer to their patients. Hospitals that
have a higher score on this survey get more money and hospitals that
have lower scores on this survey get less money. There is a roughly
$500 million swing nationally across the country based on these
personal patient satisfaction scores alone.
It is not just that the government is saying these scores are
important, the government is making it financially important to these
hospitals. This raises a question, and the question is, Is the hospital
score on some bureaucrat's test always in the patient's best interest?
It is not clear to me that it always is. There is no doubt that
hospitals, physicians, nurses, and health care providers generally want
to have satisfied patients. We all do. We want to be a satisfied
patient when we go to see a doctor or go to a hospital. It is obviously
a good thing if a patient has as good an experience as possible, but it
is specifically the survey questions on pain management per se that are
raising a lot of red flags and not just with me but with health care
professionals and those who have been studying it. There was a recent
Time magazine article entitled ``How ObamaCare is Fueling America's
Opioid Epidemic.''
[[Page S2315]]
This article is a lengthy investigation into the unintended but as I
said predictable consequences of this ObamaCare-created HCHAP survey
and specifically the questions in the survey that relate to pain
management and the prescription of opioids.
One of the questions from the study is: ``During this hospital stay,
did you need medicine for pain?'' Second question: ``During this
hospital stay, how often was your pain well controlled?'' Finally,
during this hospital stay: ``How often did the hospital staff do
everything they could to help you with your pain?''
These are the questions that patients respond to, and they contribute
to the overall score on the test. The score on the test determines, in
part, the level at which the hospital is reimbursed by Medicare. There
is a very powerful financial incentive for hospitals to make sure that
patients are answering these questions in a way that will get the
desired response from CMS--from Medicare. They are graded on these
questions. So it is a big incentive. When you tie the measurement of
these kinds of questions to reimbursement, you are very likely to get
changes in behavior. In fact, that seems to be what is happening.
I think we need to ask ourselves whether we are striking the
appropriate balance here when 27,000 people are dying from heroin and
prescription painkiller overdoses. Many of the people who are dying
from heroin overdoses began with prescription opioids, and they moved
on to heroin when they discovered that it was cheaper and more
available than the prescription opioid that they got addicted to in the
first place.
So there is increasing evidence now that physicians and hospitals
are, in fact, responding to these financial incentives, and they are
responding by prescribing more opioids.
Dr. Nick Sawyer, a health policy fellow at the UC Davis Department of
Emergency Medicine told Time Magazine:
The government is telling us we need to make sure a
patient's pain is under control. It's hard to make them happy
without a narcotic. This policy is leading to ongoing opioid
abuse.
A survey by the South Carolina Medical Association found that almost
half of over 150 doctors responding reported that they were prescribing
inappropriate narcotic pain medication because of the patient
satisfaction questions. One doctor wrote that drug seekers ``are well
aware of the patient satisfaction scores and how they can use these
threats and complaints to obtain narcotics.''
Here are two examples from a story entitled ``Patient Satisfaction is
Overrated,'' published by the Pennsylvania Academy of Family
Physicians, about Press Ganey, a company that administers patient
satisfaction surveys that often include these HCAHPS questions.
One doctor reported that he had to give Dilaudid--and that is a
powerful prescription opioid--for minor pain because his score on this
test was too low in the previous month.
An emergency room doctor with poor survey scores started offering
hydrocodone goody bags to discharged patients to improve his ratings.
Now, as I said, I have had multiple field hearings across
Pennsylvania to hear firsthand from health care providers, recovering
addicts, law enforcement--people who are dealing with this epidemic in
a variety of ways. One of our witnesses in Pittsburgh last October was
Dr. Jack Kabazie. He is the system director of Allegheny Health
Network's Division of Pain Medicine. He testified: ``Physicians who
have compensation or employment tied to patient satisfaction scores may
feel pressured to prescribe opioids in response to patient pain
complaints.''
Another ER doctor told my office how his hospital administrator
informed him that the ER patient satisfaction scores are in the 50th
percentile--or average--and that he should find a way to get them
higher or ``I'll find someone who can.''
This is a big concern. There is a range of evidence that doctors and
hospitals have been changing their prescribing habits in response to
these pain questions.
Now, let me be clear about one thing. None of us wants to see anyone
needlessly suffer. None of us wants to themselves go through pain that
is unnecessary. None of us want to see a loved one or anybody
experiencing pain if it could be appropriately managed. For the
terminally ill, of course, it makes sense to do everything possible to
make those folks as comfortable as they can be in their final days. But
what I am asking is this: Are we appropriately weighing the risks and
the benefits here?
Sure, there is a benefit to complete and immediate elimination of all
pain that a powerful narcotic can temporarily provide, but we know that
there is also a risk of addiction to that narcotic. That risk is very
significant, and it has increased exponentially. That addiction is
incredibly dangerous because it can spiral out of control and even lead
to heroin abuse, addiction, and death.
Have we gone too far in creating an expectation that the results for
every patient must be zero pain? Or are there some circumstances in
which it is better to treat pain as best we can with nonnarcotics--
other ways or other medicines? There are other treatments, including
physical therapy. There are other ways to diminish pain. It may not be
100 percent effective all the time, but if it is temporary and it has
zero risk of opioid addiction, then maybe we ought to be considering
that a little more frequently.
So this is definitely a complicated issue. There are many factors
contributing to the heroin epidemic, the opioid epidemic. But it is
increasingly looking like one of the contributing factors at some level
is the financial incentives created by this aspect of ObamaCare, this
particular questionnaire that focuses significantly on complete
elimination of pain. I think we need to ask ourselves whether this is
appropriate.
Last week, the group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing
sent a petition signed by more than 60 nonprofit groups and medical
experts--including Pennsylvania's Department of Health Secretary Karen
Murphy--to CMS, calling for the removal of the pain questions from the
HCAHPS survey. Now, that is one approach.
Senator Johnson from Wisconsin has introduced a bipartisan bill that
has a lot of merit. His bill is called the Promoting Responsible Opioid
Prescribing Act. What his bill does is it removes the results of the
pain questions from Medicare's calculations of reimbursement. So the
questions would still be asked, and we would still learn about how
patients feel about the extent to which their pain was managed. But it
wouldn't affect the hospital's reimbursement. I think there is a lot of
merit for that proposal. Again, it is because we are in the midst of a
deadly crisis. It is killing people every day.
The impact of opioid addiction and heroin addiction and overdose on a
family is so devastating. I can only imagine the grief, but I know
people who have been through the grief of losing a child, losing a
loved one to this terrible scourge. That is why I am here on the Senate
floor today. That is why I want to continue to focus on this.
I think there are many things that we need to consider, but one of
them is decoupling the results of these pain questions from the level
of reimbursement, because the evidence is starting to mount that the
financial tie is creating incentives to change behavior.
So I hope we will, as a body, address this issue seriously, because
there is a lot that needs to be done on this.
I appreciate the recognition, and I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the faces and voices of the opioid and
heroin epidemic are all around us. The victims and survivors are
everywhere, in Connecticut and across the country.
Just this past weekend, one of them perished. A young woman, Erikka
Lyn Hughes, was found unconscious in her boyfriend's apartment, later
dying from a heroin overdose. Erikka was only 21 years old. She had her
whole life ahead of her, and her future was destroyed as a result of
this epidemic.
[[Page S2316]]
Her family, bravely and strongly, has chosen to speak out and stand up
in the midst of their shock and grief to say that they hope that
Erikka's story will inspire action to combat this epidemic of overdose
and addiction.
Rampant opioid overdose and abuse and misuse in our country has
reached epidemic proportions, and it shows no signs of slowing. In
Connecticut, I have seen these stories firsthand. This public health
hurricane has swept our State and our Nation, crashing down on the
lives of families and innocent people, much as a natural disaster would
destroy homes or landscapes, leaving a path of pain, heartbreak, and
addiction in its wake.
The numbers in Connecticut are as shocking as they are tragic. Last
year in my State, a record number of people--nearly 700--died from
opioid overdoses. Sadly, this number is abstract, but it reflects a
disheartening trend that has led to a 75-percent increase in
prescription drug overdoses in Connecticut since 2012. I have heard
stories, seen faces, and heard voices firsthand in roundtables that I
conducted around the State of Connecticut--nine in all--involving
public health experts, doctors, specialists, public officials, law
enforcement, and--maybe most movingly and profoundly--recovering
addicts and their families.
I heard from parents who have buried children far too young. I heard
from first responders whose quick action saved lives using Narcan. I
heard from doctors who understand that change is needed to prevent this
disease from spreading further and from families and professionals from
Torrington and Rocky Hill, Willimantic and Wethersfield, Bridgeport and
New London, New Britain and New Haven--across our State--people who
came forward to break the silence and defeat the denial that is one of
our greatest enemies in this fight against opioid addiction and abuse.
This problem knows no boundaries and no distinctions in income, race,
religion, ZIP Code. It afflicts and affects everyone everywhere, and
that is the beginning truth to solve the problem.
I heard heartbreaking stories from a woman who lost both of her sons
to addiction. The sobering conversations I had with her family and
others, while not always easy, were absolutely crucial to my
understanding how widespread and pervasive this problem is. What I
heard from them and what I believe is necessary is a call to action. It
is more than an effort to honor the legacy of Connecticut citizens who
were lost last year--mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, and
brothers--but to teach every one of us to reach those who are still
fighting their own private battle against this disease.
Make no mistake. It is a disease. It is every bit a disease--as much
as any we have discussed on this floor--requiring research and action
and urgent and drastic steps that we can and must provide because it is
demeaning and reducing our Nation's fabric. It goes to the core of
America.
These conversations led me to do a report. I was inspired by the
loved ones and families who have lost the most to do a call to action.
It is called ``Opioid Addiction: A Call to Action,'' and it has 23
specific and definite recommendations. Some require funding, but others
are without fiscal impact. I hope to discuss them at length in a series
of speeches on the floor and not to leave this issue at one talk, one
speech, one remark, but to talk about it continuously, as we all should
be doing in our communities, because, again, denial and silence are the
enemies here.
This report outlines 23 policy proposals focused on curing our
Nation's addiction to opioids. The proposals are all grassroots,
community-based solutions suggested by people who have firsthand
knowledge. They are experts--maybe not in academic training, maybe
without Ph.D.s and qualifications based on formal studies, but they
know this pervasive problem. They have seen it firsthand, and they have
observed the wreckage and destruction that opioid addiction causes.
They cannot bring back the lives of their loved ones, but they are
determined that others will be spared this hurricane's effects.
These proposals, which touch on prescribing practices, adequate
treatment, emergency medical response, law enforcement, and help for
our veterans, have the common goal of ending this crisis. They are a
response to the most pressing issues I heard throughout our
conversations. While none is a panacea, none is a single bullet, all of
them together are the beginning of a long process that must be
undertaken toward curbing this epidemic.
A place to start is with our prescribing practices, which is where
misuse and abuse so often begin. Our Nation makes up 5 percent of the
world's population; we use 80 percent of its opioid painkillers. In
2012, doctors wrote 259 million prescriptions for painkillers, enough
for every American adult to have a bottle of these controlled
substances for themselves.
Many of us have children. My wife Cynthia and I have four. Every one
of them plays sports and every one of them has suffered sports
injuries. Most of them could have availed themselves of these
painkillers. We drew the line and said no. Other parents should be
doing the same, but more importantly, the providers should be
exercising greater discipline and self-restraint because every one of
those bottles, even if prescribed for legitimate injuries such as
broken bones, repaired LCLs, and other kinds of injuries, is
potentially a risk.
Just last week a couple in Connecticut was arrested for selling
painkillers out of their home. For 2 years they collected 1,400
powerful painkillers from their local pharmacy, abusing their own
prescriptions in the process. In the pharmacy that got them arrested,
the couple picked up 300 oxycodone and 140 oxymorphone tablets. This
flagrant abuse of the system should not be possible in our State or any
others.
There are legitimate reasons for painkillers to be prescribed,
especially in chronic pain or end-of-life situations. There is no need
to deprive people of those painkillers when they need them for those
inevitable reasons, but my call to action outlines steps to confront
this issue where it can be addressed so as to minimize the risk of
abuse or misuse or overuse, especially when young people such as our
children are involved.
It would mandate training for medical professionals to reduce opioid
overprescribing. It would call for drug enforcement agency guidelines
for partial fills of these prescription opioids, meaning fewer of these
prescription drugs would make it onto our streets.
Of course, reducing prescriptions can't be the only answer,
particularly when so many who need care go without it. My report also
seeks to improve treatment options, calling for meaningful mental
health parity, implementation of the law requiring it, and much more
vigorous and effective enforcement to ensure that people who need help
actually receive it. This step includes access to medication-assisted
therapy that can prove essential to the recovery process.
We can do more to guarantee that Naloxone, a powerful antidote to
heroin overdose, remains both affordable and successful. This means
holding manufacturers accountable when they begin raising prices to
astronomic levels. The prices have been skyrocketing. Local police and
firefighters are often unable to afford it in their current budgets. It
means also pushing for elimination of copays when it is prescribed at
pharmacies. Insurance ought to cover it. It also means that the Federal
Government must do its part and increase funding for Narcan so that
cash-strapped first responders can actually afford it to save lives.
Our law enforcement officials require both the training and resources
needed to keep our streets safe and our communities healthy and drug-
free. That means funding to establish prescription drug monitoring
programs--effective programs to facilitate training so that police
officers can recognize when suspected criminals are actually people
struggling with addiction and to assist drug take-back programs
throughout our States and Nation that allow the return of unused
prescription drugs.
Finally, in my role as ranking member on the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee, I have encouraged the establishment of more consistent and
safe VA prescribing practices and the creation of an integrated service
model for mental health and pain management.
I am pleased that the Senate raised this issue and addressed it and
passed
[[Page S2317]]
the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act earlier this year, but
that measure is a downpayment. It is only the beginning. I hope policy
levels at all levels of government will draw on the strategies
delineated in this legislation and in my report and elsewhere to combat
the devastating epidemic of addiction and abuse.
Passing new laws is not the only answer. Enforcement and
implementation of existing ones is necessary too. The prime example is
mental health care, where still, years after President Bush signed that
measure in 2008, its implementation is inconsistent and inadequate, and
enforcement of mental health parity remains an aspiration, not an
action. Part of what we need to do is make sure that existing laws are
implemented effectively and fairly and that the investment is made in
commonsense, practical measures like the 23 recommendations I have
outlined in this report--by no means an exclusive way to deal with this
problem.
I have no pride of authorship in these 23 recommendations. I would
yield to wiser and better suggestions, but the point is that action is
necessary. It is necessary now because every day we lose lives. Despite
the best efforts of our first responders and our medical community, we
continue to lose lives and futures, and our families continue the grief
and heartbreak that I saw in my roundtables and that families in
Connecticut feel today.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Puerto Rico
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I want to speak today about the fiscal
crisis that faces Puerto Rico. In addition to some thoughts on what the
island's own leaders need to do, I would like to commend the House
leadership for their efforts to solve this problem with the recent bill
they proposed. We need to take a close look at their proposed
solutions, but they are right to tackle this problem head-on, and I
look forward to offering more ideas as the debate reaches the Senate.
Whenever I speak about Puerto Rico, I like to start by reminding
people of a very basic fact: The people of Puerto Rico are American
citizens and right now they are living in dire economic conditions.
More than 3.5 million of our fellow Americans on the island are facing
tremendous economic hardship, in large part because of irresponsible
leadership from the government in San Juan.
As we all know, Puerto Rico has a debt crisis of enormous
proportions, and it has thrown off the stability of its economy from
top to bottom. While some have suggested that Washington can deliver a
silver-bullet solution to help Puerto Rico out of its debt, the reality
is that nothing Washington does will be effective unless Puerto Rico's
leaders turn away from decades of failed policies.
The debt crisis goes hand in hand with a deeper problem: Puerto
Rico's economy is not growing, and if the economy in Puerto Rico does
not start growing, they will never generate the revenue necessary to
pay their debt or the billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities they
currently have on their books; in other words, the promised payments
they have made to future generations that are completely unrealistic.
Why is their economy not growing? The primary reason is decades of
left-leaning policies that have made it too expensive to do business.
Tax revenue is too high. Government regulations are stifling. The
island is unattractive to investors. Their leadership has simply been
irresponsible. This year alone, even with all the fiscal problems they
are having, they barely reduced their budget from last year. In that
sense, the problem in Puerto Rico is not unlike the problem we have
here in Washington, DC. Puerto Rico's government is spending more than
it takes in, and any time you spend more than you take in, you are
going to have debt. No restructuring is going to solve that unless you
restructure the way you spend money. Bankruptcy protection alone is not
going to solve it either. Without reforms, if we grant bankruptcy
protection by itself, Puerto Rico will simply be bankrupt again not far
down the road.
As a result of all of these problems, there is a massive exodus of
professionals and others from Puerto Rico. They are leaving and heading
to Florida and other places in the mainland United States. If we don't
solve the problem on the island, we are going to continue seeing
thousands of Puerto Ricans leave, which is going to further cripple the
island's economy and reduce its revenue.
The leadership in San Juan has to show its willingness to get their
fiscal house in order. They need to accept that their decades of
liberal policies have not succeeded and must now be traded in for pro-
growth policies. If they keep refusing to do this, our options in
Washington will be more limited and we won't have support.
To help Puerto Rico, first and foremost, we need to do the same
things that are necessary to help the rest of the United States. We
need pro-growth and pro-family tax reform at the Federal level. We also
need to repeal and replace ObamaCare so we can end the disproportionate
damage the Obama administration has inflicted on the island by raiding
its Medicare Advantage funding and reducing reimbursement payments for
Medicare, which have left patients with fewer health options and higher
costs.
Puerto Rican consumers need to be treated the same as other American
consumers on the mainland.
It may be that the best path forward for Puerto Rico would be at some
point to include a limited opportunity to restructure its debt, but
that will require a serious discussion first to ensure that the
solution is responsible and fair to creditors as well. Any mechanism
for debt restructuring must be a last resort. It must come after Puerto
Rican leaders have shown seriousness, initiative, and courage in
tackling the problem, and it cannot be seen as the silver bullet that
leaves the creation of conditions for economic growth by the wayside.
Otherwise, protection will only amount to a cosmetic solution that does
nothing to deal with the underlying disease.
In closing, the problem must be addressed for the sake of the people
of Puerto Rico. While there is a significant amount of responsibility
on the shoulders of the government on the island, we cannot ignore that
crisis here either. We, too, have a responsibility to our follow
Americans who live on the island of Puerto Rico to tackle this issue
with the same urgency and the same attention we would if this fiscal
crisis were confronting one of our 50 States.
I hope we will take up this calling and act. I again congratulate the
leadership in the House for trying to do something. We hope they will
continue that work to arrive at something that can pass there. But I
think it is important for us to take up the cause here as well.
For over a century, Puerto Ricans have contributed to our economy,
enriched our culture, and nobly sacrificed in our wars. Puerto Ricans
are Americans. They deserve better than indifferent leadership in
Washington and atrocious Big Government mismanagement in San Juan.
Puerto Rico's leaders must answer the challenge, but by taking some of
the steps outlined here, leaders in Washington can and must do their
part as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Military Readiness
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last week a story appeared on FOX News
that captured a glimpse of the real damage being done to our military
by years of senseless budget cuts known to many of us here as
sequestration. I don't think there are 100 Americans who know what the
word ``sequestration'' means. What it means is senseless budget cuts
that have emasculated our military and dramatically harmed our ability
to defend this Nation. This poses a risk to the lives of the men and
women who are serving our Nation in uniform.
In a story entitled ``Budget cuts leaving Marine Corps aircraft
grounded,'' senior marine officers warn FOX News that the ``[Marine]
Corps' aviation service is being stretched to the breaking point.''
I quote from the story:
[[Page S2318]]
Today, the vast majority of Marine Corps aircraft can't
fly. . . . Out of 276 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters in the
Marine Corps inventory, only about 30 percent are ready to
fly. Similarly only 42 of 147 heavy-lift CH-53E Super
Stallion helicopters are airworthy.
In short, Marine Corps aviation is in a crisis and being left
grounded. What is the cause of this crisis? According to dozens of
marines interviewed by FOX News:
The reason behind the grounding of these aircraft includes
the toll of the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the fight
against ISIS, and budget cuts--
For example, sequestration--
precluding the purchase of the parts needed to fix an aging
fleet.
The report goes on to say:
U.S. military spending declined from $691 billion to $560
billion in 2015.
So, as the world has become more dangerous, as conflict has
spread throughout the world, the cuts have taken place in an
unscheduled, unplanned, and unorchestrated operation.
The cuts came just as the planes are returning from 15
years of war, suffering from overuse and extreme wear and
tear. . . . Lack of funds has forced the Marines to go
outside the normal supply chain to procure desperately needed
parts. Cannibalization, or taking parts from one multi-
million dollar aircraft to get other multi-million dollar
aircraft airborne, has become the norm.
One marine likened the difficult job of maintaining this aircraft to
``taking a 1995 Cadillac and trying to make it a Ferrari.''
This job is only more difficult because 30,000 marines have been cut
from the force as a result of sequestration and its misguided budget
cuts. As Maj. Michael Malone put it:
We don't have enough Marines to do the added work
efficiently. We're making it a lot harder on the young
Marines who are fixing our aircraft.
Lt. Col. Matthew Brown added that this burden ``is coming on the
backs of our young Marines. . . . They are the ones who are working 20
to 21 hours a day to get them ready to go on deployment.''
The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert Neller said, ``we
don't have enough airplanes that we could call `ready basic aircraft,'
'' and that aviation readiness is his No. 1 concern. It is no wonder,
because this readiness crisis is literally putting the lives of our
marines at risk.
Lt. Col. Harry Thomas commands a squadron of Marine Corps F/A-18s. He
told FOX News that last year he deployed to the Pacific with 10 jets,
but only 7 made it. His own jet caught on fire in Guam. Lieutenant
Colonel Thomas was able to land the aircraft safely, but the incident
nearly cost taxpayers $29 million and Lieutenant Colonel Thomas his
life. Now his squadron is getting ready to deploy in 3 months, but only
2 of his 14 Hornets can fly.
The aircraft shortage also means training is suffering and our pilots
could be losing their edge. As the FOX News report details:
Ten years ago, Marine pilots averaged between 25 and 30
hours in the air each month. Today, in Lieutenant Colonel
Thomas's squadron, the average flight time per pilot over the
last month was just over 4 hours.''
I assure my colleagues, you cannot maintain readiness and capability
in a modern-day fighter aircraft flying 4 hours a month. It can't be
done.
Super Stallion helicopters have flown thousands of marines into
combat over the past three decades, but these aging aircraft, filled
with a tangled web of hundreds of wires and fuel lines, present a
daunting challenge for young marines assigned to inspect each and every
one. As the FOX News report explained, ``One failure can be
catastrophic, as happened in 2014 when [a Navy version of the aircraft]
crashed off the coast of Virginia after a fire engulfed the aircraft
due to faulty fuel lines.''
The bottom line is this: Years of budget cuts have left us with a
Marine Corps that is too small and has too few aircraft. The aircraft
it does have are too old and can barely fly and only by cannibalizing
parts from other aircraft. Young marines are being asked to muddle
through this crisis with shrinking resources, knowing that if they
fail, their comrades flying and riding in those aircraft could pay a
fatal price.
The crisis in Marine Corps aviation would be shocking if it were not
such a tragically common story throughout each of our military
services. Arbitrary budget cuts and sequestration have shrunk the Army
by nearly 100,000 soldiers since 2012, bringing the Army to a size that
Army Chief of Staff GEN Mark Milley testified has put the Army at
``high military risk.''
These budget-driven reductions were decided before Russia's invasion
of Ukraine and the rise of ISIL. As the force has shrunk, readiness has
suffered. Just one-third of Army brigade combat teams are ready to
deploy and operate decisively. Indeed, just 2--just 2--of the Army's 60
brigade combat teams are at the highest level of combat readiness.
To buy readiness today, as lackluster as it is, the Army is being
forced to mortgage its future readiness and capability by reducing end
strength and delaying modernization needed to meet future threats.
The result of budget cuts, forced reductions, and declining readiness
is clear: In an unforeseen contingency, General Milley testified this
month before the Armed Services Committee that the Army ``risks not
having ready forces available to provide flexible options to our
national leadership . . . and most importantly, [risks] incurring
significantly increased U.S. casualties.
I repeat: ``significantly increased U.S. casualties.''
Likewise, by any measure, the Navy's fleet of 272 ships is too small
to address critical security challenges. Even with recent shipbuilding
increases, the Navy will not achieve its requirement of 308 ships until
2021. There is no plan to meet the bipartisan National Defense Panel's
unanimous recommendation for a fleet of 325 to 346 ships.
A shrinking fleet operating at high tempo has forced difficult
tradeoffs. For example, the last five carrier strike group deployments
have exceeded 8 months. Keeping sailors at sea for 8 months is damaging
to morale and will sooner or later affect retention. It takes a toll on
sailors, ships, and aircraft.
Unable to continue years of deferred maintenance, the Navy is no
longer able to provide constant carrier presence in the Middle East or
the Western Pacific.
The Air Force is the oldest and the smallest in its history. The
combination of decades of relentless operational tempo and misguided
reductions in defense spending in recent years has depleted readiness.
Today, less than 50 percent of the Air Force's combat squadrons are
ready for full-spectrum operations--well below the Air Force's stated
requirement of 80 percent. The Air Force does not anticipate a return
to full-spectrum readiness for another decade. In other words, after
flying in uncontested skies over the Middle East for more than a
quarter of a century, our Air Force is not ready for a high-end fight
against a near-peer adversary.
The truth is this: The ongoing war in Afghanistan, the rise of ISIL,
Russia's aggression in Europe, and China's assertiveness in the Pacific
have all increased the demands imposed upon our servicemembers and
their families. But at the same time, the requirements of our military
have continued to grow.
For 5 years--5 years now--the Budget Control Act of 2011 has imposed
caps on defense spending. Despite periodic relief from those caps,
including the Bipartisan Budget Act passed last year, every one of our
military services--the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and, yes, the
Marine Corps--remains undersized, unready, and underfunded to meet
current and future threats.
Unfortunately, the President's defense budget request for the coming
year does little to nothing to address this problem. Instead, it
continues down the dangerous path of budgeting based not on what our
military needs but on what arbitrary defense spending constraints
allow. In order to strictly adhere to the defense spending floor in
last year's Bipartisan Budget Act, the Department of Defense cut $17
billion from what it said it needed last year.
Does anybody believe the situation in the world has improved to the
point where you can reduce by $17 billion from what we paid last year,
what we spent last year? Those are billions of dollars of cuts for
things our military needs right now: Army helicopters, Air Force
fighters, Navy ships, Marine Corps fighting vehicles, and critical
training and maintenance across the services.
[[Page S2319]]
The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey,
described last year's budget as ``the lower ragged edge of manageable
risk in our ability to execute the defense strategy.''
One year later, the President of the United States has sent us a
budget request that is less in real dollars than last year and $17
billion less than what our military needed and planned for. The
military service's unfunded requirements totaled nearly $23 billion for
the coming fiscal year alone. Meanwhile, sequestration threatens to
return in 2018, taking away another $100 billion from our military
through 2021.
I don't know what lies beneath ``the lower ragged edge of manageable
risk,'' but this is what I fear it means; that our military is becoming
less and less able to deter conflict. If, God forbid, deterrence does
fail somewhere and we end up in conflict, our Nation will deploy young
Americans into battle without sufficient training or equipment to fight
a war that will take longer, be larger, cost more, and ultimately claim
more young American lives than it would otherwise would have.
If that comes to pass, who will be responsible, who is responsible
for the military's readiness crisis? Who is to blame for the increasing
risk to the lives of the men and women who volunteer to serve and
defend our Nation? The answer is clear: We are--the White House,
Congress, Democrats, and Republicans, every politician who designed,
agreed to or went along with the Budget Control Act and the mindless
mechanism of sequestration, and every politician who in the past 5
years has failed to realize our mistake or, perhaps having realized it,
failed to do anything and everything possible to fix it.
What is worse is the two-faced hypocrisy of it all: Democrats who
will say they favor more funding for our military but only if they get
dollar-for-dollar increases for their pet domestic programs first and
Republicans who say they favor a strong defense, but when it comes time
to do the hard work of funding it, are nowhere to be found.
For 5 years, we have been playing politics with funding that our
military servicemembers need and deserve. For 5 years, we have been
playing a rigged game, where the politicians win and our military
loses.
This must all end before it is too late. We cannot continue to avert
our eyes and ignore the grave impact budget cuts are having on our
military. The warning signs are clear: a marine aircraft that can't
fly, pilots who can't train, and young marines trying to hold it all
together by stealing parts from one aging airplane to give to another.
The potential consequences are clear. Our Nation could soon find
itself in a position where it must either abandon an important national
interest or send young Americans into a conflict for which they are not
prepared.
This is the reality our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are
facing. It is our urgent and solemn task to confront it. This Congress
can begin to chart a better course, one that is worthy of the service
and sacrifice of those who volunteer to put themselves in harm's way on
our behalf.
I am committed to doing everything I can as chairman of the Armed
Services Committee to accomplish this task, and I will work with any of
my colleagues to find a solution. Despite the odds, I am ever hopeful
we can live up to our highest constitutional duty and moral
responsibility to provide for the common defense.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator from
Arizona for his comments.
One of the advantages of having a full appropriations process is it
puts the spotlight on the money we spend. I am asking to put this chart
where the Senator from Arizona can see it.
We will be debating 12 appropriations bills hopefully in the next few
weeks. This is the first one. It is $37.5 billion. A little more than
half of it is defense spending--our weapons, plutonium enrichment, and
necessary things for our country--but all of the spending we are
talking about in these 12 bills adds up to $1 trillion.
The Federal spending for this year is $4 trillion. The money the
distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, was talking about is
our defense money. It is down here on this blue line. It is in the
trillion dollars. It is nearly half of that. As we look back since
2008, this blue line has stayed level. Over the next 10 years it is
projected to rise at about the level of the rate of inflation.
At the same time, this line, which is the $3 trillion line--mandatory
spending, entitlements, all that--is going up. After about 10 years,
the end result will be that this will go from about 32 percent of our
total spending to about 22 percent. What is that going to do to our
defense spending?
We have strong speeches made sometimes about let's get the spending
under control, but on both sides of the aisle there is not a lot of
courage shown when it comes to this red line because this is Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security, entitlements, and other benefits. It is
squeezing out not only our national defense but our cancer research and
the other things we need to do as a country.
It is important over these next few weeks that we use this as an
occasion on both sides of the aisle to recognize what we are doing with
money. No one can say this is part of the budget problem. In fact, we
have just heard an eloquent speech from the Senator from Arizona, who
said we have not spent enough to defend ourselves in an unsafe world.
Nobody is doing anything about this.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.
Mr. McCAIN. Is the interest on the national debt included in that red
line?
Mr. ALEXANDER. The answer to the Senator from Arizona is, no, it is
not. In fact, if it were, this line would be higher. So it is this line
plus the interest on the debt.
Mr. McCAIN. Obviously, it makes it much more compelling. Obviously,
that all would be moved one way or another. Obviously, it is going to
go up, but a return to inflation would dramatically increase that red
line, would it not?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, it would.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
I have heard there might be an effort to commit our bill back to the
committee in order to reduce spending to a lower level. If we do that,
someone needs to say which division needs to lose troops, which country
do we not want to defend, which airplane do we not want to fly, and
which pilot do we not want to train.
We are talking about real decisions, and we are talking about not
setting priorities. I don't think most of the American people know that
when we talk about the Federal debt, it is not national defense that is
driving up the Federal debt. It is in the blue line. It is our
unwillingness on both sides of the aisle to confront this.
One statistic that I was reminded of by my colleague the Senator from
Tennessee is an American family today--think of an average age couple,
50 years of age, would pay about $140,000 into Medicare. They will get
back about $430,000 in Medicare. We can understand how people who pay
into Medicare would want to get their Medicare back, but we can also
understand how that is not a sustainable program, and I think all of us
as Americans can see that.
One of the things I hope we do over the next several weeks is talk
honestly about that problem. We are not solving that problem in this
debate. We are talking about this $1 trillion. What are we going to do
about the other $3 trillion that adds to our $19 trillion debt? Thank
you.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, my amendment is pretty straightforward.
[[Page S2320]]
It eliminates duplicative and wasteful spending. It eliminates $200
million from the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional
Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern Border Regional
Commission.
These entities have a mission to provide ``strategic investments''
for economic development, broadband deployment, infrastructure
improvements, and housing. You name it; there is funding for it. That
is laudable, but there are already several Federal, State, and local
programs that fund these types of projects.
What is worse is that a quick look at some of the grants awarded from
these entities show questionable choices: Should $100,000 be awarded to
the Lake Placid Ski Club to build ski jumps? Should $125,000 be awarded
for a Chinese medicine herb growers consortium? Should $250,000 be
awarded to a tribe in Maine to build a maple processing facility--after
it was awarded about $100,000 from USDA to launch maple syrup ventures?
This is through the Federal Government. I don't believe so.
I ask us to support my amendment and stop such duplicative and
wasteful spending.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand that it is likely that we
will shortly be considering Ernst amendment No. 3803, eliminating
funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional
Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern Border Regional
Commission. I want to talk about the Appalachian Regional Commission. I
know a little bit about this.
The western part of my State, known as Mountain Maryland, is a
beautiful part of Maryland. I visit there frequently. There are not a
lot of people, and it is certainly a hearty life. It is not easy. It is
not easy to attract business to the western rural part of Maryland.
These people work hard, and they are preserving a way of life in an
economy that is critically important to the State of Maryland.
The Appalachian Regional Commission is absolutely essential for the
economic growth of western Maryland. The Appalachian region is a region
of a proud history, and we have given them a future. The Ernst
amendment would take away one of the most important tools towards their
future.
Let me just mention a few things about the Appalachian Regional
Commission and the projects they fund on an annual basis.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous
consent request so we can call the amendments up?
Mr. CARDIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
Amendments Nos. 3802 and 3803 to Amendment No. 3801
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
Senator Feinstein and myself, that the following amendments be called
up and reported by number: 3802, Schatz; and 3803, Ernst; further, that
at 4:55 p.m. on Wednesday, April 20--today--the Senate vote in relation
to the amendments in the order listed and that no second degree
amendments be in order to either of the amendments prior to the votes,
and that there be 2 minutes, equally divided, prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for others,
proposes amendments numbered 3802 and 3803 to amendment No.
3801.
The amendments are as follows:
Amendment No. 3802
(Purpose: To modify funding for certain projects of the Department of
Energy)
On page 28, line 16, strike ``$292,669,000'' and insert
``$325,000,000''.
On page 46, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
(4) ``Energy Program--Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program'', $9,500,000.
(5) ``Energy Program--Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy'', $20,600,000.
(6) ``Energy Program--Nuclear Energy'', $231,000.
(7) ``Energy Program--Strategic Petroleum Reserve'',
$150,000.
(8) ``Energy Program--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves'', $150,000.
(9) ``Energy Program--Science'', $1,700,000.
amendment no. 3803
(Purpose: To eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission,
the Delta Regional Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern
Border Regional Commission)
On page 53, strike lines 3 through 12.
Beginning on page 53, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 55, line 8.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for
allowing me to interrupt his comments.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am glad to see we have the ability to
vote on a couple of amendments. I am glad I was able to accommodate and
yield the floor. If I might, let me continue.
Amendment No. 3803
Now that the Ernst amendment is going to be voted on in a few
moments, I urge my colleagues to reject that amendment. The Appalachian
Regional Commission approves funding for more than 400 projects
annually throughout this 13-State region.
As I was saying, the western part of our State--in order for them to
be able to have a viable economy, to have a valuable future, they need
help on economic opportunities. They need help in improving health
care.
The Appalachian Regional Commission has helped the communities of
Western Maryland improve health care. The ARC funding was used for the
Garrett County Hospital telehealth initiative to enhance community
health care.
Just by happenstance, the CEO of Garrett County Hospital was in my
office yesterday. That is a hospital located in Oakland, MD. For those
who are not familiar with where Oakland, MD, is, it is on the border
with West Virginia. It is not too far from Pennsylvania in the western
part of Maryland.
People who use the Garrett County Hospital come from West Virginia
and they come from Maryland. It provides hospital service in a rural
area that otherwise would not be there. But for the type of help they
get through the Appalachian Regional Commission, it is difficult to see
how they could perform the quality access to affordable health care
that is absolutely essential for the economic growth of Mountain
Maryland, for the Appalachian region.
Appalachian Regional Commission funding was used for phase III of the
last-mile wireless broadband network so that they could have high-speed
broadband access in the western part of Maryland. I know the Presiding
Officer and my colleagues know that if you don't have broadband, it is
difficult to see how you can attract industry. The Appalachian Regional
Commission has been critically important in making sure we can
effectively provide high-speed access to the western part of our State.
ARC grants have also been used to assess the impacts of energy
production and consumption on our economy and the environment. ARC
funding was used for the ``Garrett County Marcellus Shale Impact
Study,'' which assessed the impact of hydraulic fracturing on the
economy and environment of Western Maryland.
ARC has been essential for the development in the Appalachian region.
It has worked, and it is continuing to work. I urge my colleagues to
make sure this tool continues for the benefit of the people in the
Appalachian region--a commitment that we made.
Lastly, let me remind my colleagues of what my friends who are
actively engaged in the Appalachian Regional Commission in all of the
13 States tell me. Since 1978, this program--every dollar that has been
invested by the Appalachian Regional Commission has leveraged an
average of $6.40 from the private sector. It leverages private sector
investment in the Appalachian region, which is critically important to
the economic growth of the Appalachian region. Otherwise, this is a
tough area.
If we are committed to economic growth in this country, I would urge
[[Page S2321]]
my colleagues to reject the Ernst amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the comments of the
distinguished Senator from the State of Maryland. I must say that when
I first came to the Senate, I looked at these perhaps with not as full
an understanding of them as I have now. But I think the committee
supports it, the bill supports it, and the Appropriations Committee
supports it. I certainly agree with the Senator and support him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment for 3
minutes, if I might.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I appreciate that.
First of all, I don't think the Senate is going to adopt the Ernst
amendment because we authorized--reauthorized this important ARC
program just last year on a bipartisan basis in both the House and the
Senate.
I want to make this point: This is discretionary spending that is
largely under control. This is discretionary spending. It is 2008
projected out to 2026. As you can see, it hardly keeps up with
inflation. We have a spending problem in this country, but it is
mandatory programs--the red line--not this discretionary line from
which comes the Appalachian Regional Commission. I want to make that
point. This amendment is targeted at the wrong type of spending.
What do we get out of ARC? My friend from Maryland is exactly right.
We leverage private dollars for investments to create jobs. We build
infrastructure that creates jobs and supports jobs. We have revolving
loan programs that have created 50,000 jobs since 1977 and retained
51,000 jobs.
Let's attack spending. Let's get together and talk about Bowles-
Simpson and do what we need to do about the problem that has given us
this $19 trillion debt. But for heaven's sake, we have a program that
was reauthorized almost unanimously last year that helps people get a
job and persuades private industry to contribute to that effort at a 6-
or 7-to-1 ratio. We want to keep that type of investment to create jobs
for our families.
I will be voting against the Ernst amendment and urge my colleagues
to do so.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Amendment No. 3802
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I wish to call up my amendment No. 3802.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. SCHATZ. I wish to thank the chair and the vice chair of the
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for their great work, and
especially their staff, who were instrumental in finding offsets to
increase funding for a great, successful, bipartisan program, ARPA-E,
which funds research at the cutting edge of clean energy.
This amendment takes unspent money from prior years' appropriations
for expired programs. This is an important point. CBO has confirmed
that this amendment does not score. This amendment does not score. This
amendment uses unspent balances to increase funding for ARPA-E.
I again thank the chair and the vice chair for helping us to find
some resources for this very successful program and for cosponsoring
this amendment. I ask all of my colleagues for their support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Schatz. I
support and cosponsored the Schatz amendment. He has identified a
priority that Senator Feinstein and I already made a priority. It is
one of the two parts of the Department of Energy that got any increase
in the nondefense area--the Office of Science and this one.
He has worked with us in committee. He has worked with us on the
floor. He found an offset so that it is paid for. We are reducing other
spending to increase this spending. This is called setting priorities
in discretionary spending, which is under control. It is not the part
of the budget that creates Federal debt.
We should do more of this energy research, but we should do it by
reducing other spending. I would suggest that reducing subsidies to
wind power, oil, and gas would be a good way to start.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Schatz amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I heard what our chairman said. I
thoroughly support him.
I commend the Senator from Hawaii for seeing this and proposing this
amendment. We recommend that it be adopted.
Can we call the vote?
We yield back any time.
Mr. ALEXANDER. We yield back any time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3802.
Mr. SCHATZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper),
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), and the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 26, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]
YEAS--70
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--26
Barrasso
Burr
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Grassley
Heller
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
NOT VOTING--4
Carper
Casey
Cruz
Sanders
The amendment (No. 3802) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to make an announcement on
behalf of Senator Feinstein and myself. This is important. This is
scheduling.
Senator Feinstein and I wish to thank all of the Senators on both
sides--Senator McConnell, Senator Reid--for creating an environment in
which we could get so much done. We have more than 80 Senators who have
policy that is already a part of this bill. That has happened over the
last few weeks. Several amendments have been adopted and accepted. We
are voting on two this afternoon.
Tomorrow, we expect to have two votes in the morning and one vote
after lunch.
We have a request of Senators. This doesn't always work, but we would
like to get an agreement to have all of our amendments in by 1 o'clock
tomorrow. If we can do that, we can finish the bill early next week. So
if Members can ask their staff and legislative counsel to do that, we
would like to do that by consensus as much as possible. That is the
old-fashioned way of doing a bill. I would like to set a good example
for the other 11 bills that are coming.
So that is the schedule as we look forward. Senator Ernst has the
remaining amendment, and there will be no further votes after her vote.
[[Page S2322]]
Amendment No. 3803
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3803, offered by
the Senator from Iowa, Mrs. Ernst.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, my amendment is straightforward. I am
asking for support on amendment No. 3803.
I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3803.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
The Senator has 1 minute to debate the amendment.
Mrs. ERNST. Thank you, Mr. President.
The amendment is pretty straightforward. What we are doing is
eliminating duplicative programs. Many programs exist out there already
which will provide for housing needs, for infrastructure needs, many
other needs. What we are doing is stating that we shouldn't be
providing separate funds for very specific regions and duplicating
processes that are found in the Federal Government.
Just a few examples: $100,000 awarded to Lake Placid Ski Club to
build ski jumps, $125,000 awarded for Chinese Medicine Herb Growers
Consortium, and $250,000 awarded to a tribe in Maine to build a maple-
processing facility after it received $100,000 from the USDA to launch
Maple Syrup Ventures.
I don't believe this is activity the Federal Government should be
engaged in. Again, these are duplicative programs. There are many other
programs available out there. So I am asking for the support of my
colleagues on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would certainly oppose this amendment.
The regional commission is a joint Federal-State economic development
effort that includes some of the most economically distressed counties
of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and northern New York. For decades,
these people have faced tough economic circumstances. These programs
have helped.
More importantly, every Federal dollar invested leverages, on
average, 2.6 dollars in matching funds in return. New jobs are created.
Thousands of jobs are retained. That is how we should be investing our
Federal dollars.
We invest in other countries around the world, and we ought to be
investing them in our own country and support programs like the
Northern Border Regional Commission and not eliminate them.
I hope Senators will oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, as the manager of the bill, I was going
to take that time. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes and to allow
Senator Ernst 2 more minutes to make her point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
The issue is spending. This is discretionary spending. This is an
opportunity, as we consider these 12 bills, to consider where the
spending problem is. This is discretionary spending. It includes
defense, it includes cancer research, it includes roads, it includes
locks and dams, and it includes the Appalachian Regional Commission,
the Denali Commission, and other commissions that would be defunded by
this amendment.
This is not our spending problem. That is $1 trillion we are spending
through these 12 bills. We are spending $3 trillion more through
mandatory spending and interest on top of that.
We have not been very brave on the Republican side of the aisle or
the Democratic side of the aisle on the real spending problem. We have
done pretty well on this.
I have said to some of my colleagues that maybe the Senate should
turn over to the Appropriations Committee the real spending problem and
see if we can make the red spending line like the blue spending line
because that is what we have done.
So we have set a priority for projects like sewer improvement in
Alabama and planning and development in Mississippi, automotive
workforce in Georgia, rural dental in Kentucky. These are all
priorities within spending that are under control.
This is not under control. We can't fix that in these 12 weeks, but I
hope we pay attention to this difference and sooner or later have the
courage to deal with it.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, again, this is $200 million. I would beg
to differ that this is not a lot of spending, and $200 million is a lot
of money for folks back in Iowa.
Iowa does not have one of these funds. Many other States don't have
these same types of funds. This is just an additional way for certain
regions to tap into Federal dollars. So there are many programs. As I
stated earlier. I have heard folks say this is about jobs. We have
workforce investment programs that everyone across the Nation can dive
into to provide opportunity for everyone. Everyone needs opportunity,
so everyone should be able to tap into these Federal dollars.
Mr. President, $200 million is a lot of Federal spending.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Casper),
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), and the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders), are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 25, nays 71, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]
YEAS--25
Barrasso
Coats
Cornyn
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
McCain
Moran
Risch
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Thune
Toomey
NAYS--71
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cotton
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Isakson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Tillis
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Carper
Casey
Cruz
Sanders
The amendment (No. 3803) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Amendment No. 3811 to Amendment No. 3801
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendment be called up and reported by number: Hoeven No.
3811; further, that at 11:45 a.m. on Thursday, April 21, the Senate
vote on that amendment and that it be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote
threshold for adoption; and further, that no second-degree amendments
be in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for Mr. Hoeven,
proposes an amendment numbered 3811 to amendment No. 3801.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page S2323]]
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds relating to a certain
definition)
At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:
Sec. 5___. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water
Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of
Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or
enforce any change to the regulations and guidance in effect
on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definition of waters
under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including the provisions of the
rules dated November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating
to such jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated
January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, relating to such
jurisdiction.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senators for their cooperation
today. As I indicated earlier, Senator Feinstein and I have been in
touch with every Senate office over the last few weeks, asking for
advice, policy, and amendments. Senators have been terrific in getting
that to us. For example, there is Senator Schatz' amendment. He offered
and withdrew it in committee. We worked with him and were able to adopt
it once it came to the floor. That is typical of what has happened.
I would judge that about 83 or 84 Senators have contributed policy to
this bill. There are really not many more amendments that will be
offered. But we will have this one amendment, at least, tomorrow
morning at 11:45. Then, the last vote will be at about 2:00 p.m.,
tomorrow after lunch. There may be other votes before that.
I would ask, as I did earlier, that Senators and their staffs get any
other amendments that we do not know about to us by 1 o'clock tomorrow.
Then, perhaps we can come to an agreement about how to proceed from
there to the end of the bill, maybe even without the necessity of
cloture.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I wanted to reassure the Senate and thank
Chairman Alexander for making sure that this legislation has $285
million in it for advanced computing. It also includes the Kirk
language to ensure that the United States is home to the No. 1
supercomputer in the world.
Today, China has the fastest computer in the world. It is called the
Tianhe-2. It is clocked at 33.8 petaflops per second. Computers in the
U.S. National Labs should soon topple China. It is a priority issue
that I share with Chairman Alexander.
The Titan computer, which is now at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee, is ranked at No. 2 in the world. At Argonne National
Laboratory in Illinois, we are working on a computer to be upgraded
which will soon be No. 1 in the world. It will clock in at 180
petaflops per second. That is 18 times faster than the current computer
that is at Argonne called Mira and three times faster than China's top
computer today.
With that, supercomputing is essential for American competitiveness
in the future. I think it is essential that we pass this legislation to
make sure that we are all No. 1 in supercomputing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for
his advocacy of keeping America No. 1 in the world in supercomputers
and exascale computing. He has a special knowledge of that because of
his intimate knowledge of Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. I
know something about it because of the work at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Tennessee.
The Obama administration has consistently funded exascale and
supercomputing, and we have consistently supported that recommendation
of funding. We have been able to do that for the last 4 or 5 years,
Senator Feinstein and I. There has been no more vigorous advocate to
cause our country to be No. 1 in supercomputing than Senator Kirk of
Illinois. I thank him for his leadership and his contributions to this
bill.
____________________