[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 62 (Thursday, April 21, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2357-S2379]
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 Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2028, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative 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.
Pending:
Alexander/Feinstein amendment No. 3801, in the nature of a
substitute.
Alexander amendment No. 3804 (to amendment No. 3801), to
modify provisions relating to Nuclear Regulatory Commission
fees.
Alexander (for Hoeven) amendment No. 3811 (to amendment No.
3801), to prohibit the use of funds relating to a certain
definition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Amendment No. 3811
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand that shortly we are going to
be voting on the Hoeven amendment. The Hoeven amendment would prevent
the clean water rule from going into effect.
In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act in response to what was
happening around this country. We saw rivers literally catch on fire as
a result of polluted waterways. We had Lake Erie, which was considered
dead. The Chesapeake Bay was one of the world's first marine dead
zones. That is nothing to be proud of. The environment and status of
our water was a national disgrace, and through congressional
leadership, we passed the Clean Water Act. We did that because we
understood that the status of upstream water affects the status of
downstream water--that we are all in this together. We understood that
having clean water was a public health issue, from swimming in the
water to the source of our drinking water supplies. One third of our
drinking water supplies come from regulated waters.
We also understood it was important for our economy. The status of
tourism very much depended upon the quality of our water. Literally,
people were concerned about going close to some of our inner harbor
water areas. The Baltimore Inner Harbor is a tourist attraction, as are
the inner harbors of many of our cities. It is important for our
economy for agriculture. Agriculture depends upon clean water. We
understood that when we passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. And we also
understood it was a matter of quality of life for the people in our
country. From those who hike and do bird watching to those who enjoy
fishing and hunting, the status of clean water very much affects the
way we enjoy life.
As Senators from Maryland, Senator Mikulski and I both understand the
importance of clean water for the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is
a national treasure and the largest estuary in our hemisphere. It was
at great risk because of waters coming in from other States into the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, affecting the quality of water of the
Chesapeake Bay.
It was for all those reasons that we passed the 1972 Clean Water Act.
We understood the enforcement of the waters that were regulated under
the 1972 Clean Water Act. It was based upon best science.
Science told us what we needed to do in order to have clean water--
clean water for our environment, clean water for safe drinking water--
and it was well understood until a Supreme Court decision. That
decision in 2006, known as the Rapanos decision, was a 5-to-4 decision
of the Supreme Court, which remanded the case, but it was a 4-to-4
decision on the merits of the case. Since that time, there has been
uncertainty as to what bodies of water can be regulated under the Clean
Water Act. So this was a situation caused by the ambiguity of the
Supreme Court case. It is interesting that the decision on the merits
was 4-to-4, as we are now debating whether we are going to have a full
Supreme Court in order to make decisions that affect the clarity of law
in this country.
The Rapanos decision sent back to the lower courts a decision on how
to decide this. Since that time, there has been uncertainty as to what
bodies are legally regulated under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Remember,
this was 2006. The easiest way to resolve this was for Congress to pass
a law clarifying the Clean Water Act, but Congress has chosen not to do
that. So the Obama administration has done what it should do, using its
power to promulgate a regulation that would provide clarity as to which
bodies of water are regulated. Guess what. They have done that in a way
that is consistent with how the law was enforced prior to the Rapanos
decision--without much complaint before the Rapanos decision. It
basically goes back to best science and tells us logically what needs
to be regulated. That is what this rule would do: Protect our clean
water.
There is a lot of misinformation that has been given about the clean
water rule. Quite frankly, normal farming activities don't require any
permits under the Clean Water Act. If we listen to some of the
arguments against the Clean Water Act, we would have a hard time
comparing that to what, in fact, is in the bill.
The Clean Water Act would reestablish the well-thought regulatory
framework for protecting our clean water so that we don't return to the
days of jeopardizing the Chesapeake Bay or jeopardizing our rivers or
jeopardizing our clean water supplies or our environment.
Tomorrow is Earth Day. Forty-six years ago, our colleague Senator
Gaylord Nelson established Earth Day. What will this Congress's legacy
be? What will we be remembered for in regards to protecting this
planet, protecting our country, and protecting our environment for
future generations? I
[[Page S2358]]
hope we will work together to build on the proud accomplishments of our
predecessors for clean air and clean water. The first thing we can do
is to make sure we reject the Hoeven amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of
the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I am pleased to see Senators
Alexander and Feinstein working to put together a good, bipartisan bill
with no ideological or partisan policy riders.
They remind us of the way that we should be doing business here in
the Senate. This legislation provides increased funding for
infrastructure across the Nation and in my home State of Illinois, and
I was proud to support it in the Appropriations Committee.
The bill provides strong funding for the National Labs through the
Department of Energy, including critical research programs at Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory in
Illinois. These labs are supporting thousands of scientists from across
the country and around the world as they perform pioneering research
and transform technologies for science and industry. Lab facilities in
Illinois perform cutting-edge research and are a bright example of
American innovation.
The Energy and Water Appropriations bill would invest $6 billion in
the Army Corps of Engineers, which will help support important
investments in Illinois infrastructure. Waterways in Illinois,
including the Mississippi River, are critical to commerce around the
country. They provide access for shipped goods, connecting the Great
Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico. The Army Corps also plays an important
role in flood control projects, something we saw firsthand in Illinois
and across the Mississippi valley area after flooding this past winter.
But there is always more work to be done. According to the American
Society of Civil Engineers, America scores a D-minus in investment in
levees and inland waterways, and a D in investment in dams. This bill
is a good start to making the critical investments we need in American
infrastructure.
So I am not sure why, after Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein
pulled together such a strong bipartisan bill, Republicans would want
to try to add a poison pill rider preventing an EPA rule that keeps our
water clean.
Many economists and military leaders tell us that water will be to
the 21st century what oil was to the 20th century. Water is going to be
that indispensable commodity that makes progress possible; an essential
commodity over which wars will be fought. The United States has more
clean water today than any other nation on the planet, and it is
because of the Great Lakes. Why would we knowingly, deliberately, spoil
this precious commodity that is a source of conflict between other
nations?
We can't afford to stop making a real difference in our clean water
supply, and let me tell you why.
The EPA and Army Corps clean water rule provides stronger water
quality standards to protect our Nation's streams, wetlands, and
navigable water. These are all resources that we rely heavily on for
drinking water and recreation. And one in three Americans, or 117
million people, get drinking water from sources that were vulnerable to
pollution before the clean water rule. Now, more than ever, we must
work to ensure our water is safe.
We know what can happen when our water supply isn't protected. The
Flint, MI, water contamination crisis and high lead levels in the water
supply in other communities across the country and in Illinois are
reminders of this. But it is not just lead that we have to worry about.
Pollutants from factories and sewage treatment plants; waste from
confined animal feeding operations; pesticides used on crops; and
mining wastewater all flow into tributaries that eventually flow into
the Great Lakes, the source of clean water for 35 million people.
Attempts to roll back the clean water rule will not only return us to
a patchwork of water protections that make it difficult for businesses,
farmers, and others to know whether waterways are covered by the law.
It will also risk one of our greatest commodities that supports
agriculture, recreation, tourism, and energy production.
To see the impacts of rolling back these protections, we need to look
no further than the Gulf of Mexico, which has one of the largest dead
zones in the world. Let me tell you what a dead zone is: Dead zones are
the result of an overabundance of algae growth, which eventually
decompose and steal oxygen from the water, making it hard for anything
to live. Nutrient runoff from 12 States along the Mississippi River
trickles down into the Gulf of Mexico.
Last year, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico reached 6,474 square
miles, roughly the size of the State of Connecticut. The State of
Illinois was one of the largest contributors to this nutrient overload,
a combination of runoff from our farm fields and point source pollution
such as wastewater plants. We need to reduce this nutrient runoff while
protecting our agriculture economy in Illinois. The clean water rule
does exactly that by exempting agricultural activities from its
provisions.
I urge my colleagues to vote against any ideological poison pill
amendment that would prevent clean water appropriations from moving
forward to protect our children, our communities, and our economy.
Without ideological riders like the clean water rule amendment, the
Energy and Water Appropriations bill is a bipartisan effort that proves
we can make smart investments that make the most sense for our
country--right now and as we plan for our future. The current lead
crisis has shown that we need to get serious about investing in
infrastructure programs and support regulations to ensure that every
American--especially children--has access to safe, clean drinking
water.
Now is the time for Congress to act responsibly to develop a budget
that enables our country to thrive.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Indiana.
Wasteful Spending
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this is No. 40 of ``Waste of the Week.''
For the 40 weeks the Senate has been in session this cycle, I have come
down to the Floor to talk about a waste of taxpayers' dollars through
waste, fraud, and abuse. This week I am going to talk about yet another
Federal program which has, at best, a questionable track record.
I filed an amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill
currently in the Senate, which is related to this program, and
hopefully we will be voting on the amendment I will be offering in a
few moments to address this issue. This amendment, which I offered with
Senators Fischer, Toomey, and Flake, would finally wind down the
Department of Energy's failed Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Loan Program.
Remember the stimulus? Remember how we were throwing all kinds of
taxpayers' money out there? We talked about advanced vehicle programs,
and many of these distributions of funds have been misused or simply
have not come to fruition, and a great deal of money has been wasted.
The ATVM Loan Program continues to sit on billions of dollars of
unused funds that could be put to better use. I am glad there are some
unused funds there because it means that when we look at the history of
this program, perhaps we will have an opportunity to better use those
unused funds or to help return it back to the Treasury so the taxpayer
isn't on the hook for this kind of thing going forward.
Let me explain this program. The Department of Energy's Advanced
Vehicle Technology Manufacturing Loan Program was created in 2007. It
was created to provide very low-interest loans to manufacturers that
make vehicles or components of vehicles that use alternative energy.
I am not here to downplay the use of alternative energy. I think that
is something that is happening throughout our country. Hopefully, it is
on a market basis. To qualify for this loan, there were a couple of
requirements applicants must meet: No. 1, the vehicle or component must
be new or significantly improved from what is currently available in
the U.S. marketplace; No. 2, it has to be manufactured in the United
States. The purpose of the program, partly, was to encourage
manufacturing here--not in China, not somewhere else.
[[Page S2359]]
Last month, nearly 10 years since the program's inception, the
Government Accountability Office took a look at the program's finances
and found that the Department of Energy has billions of unused and
unspent funds. I am glad they do because a lot of things that have
taken place under this program have not proven to be worth their
weight.
I have spoken before on a number of programs, but in 2011, under this
fund--the Alternative Vehicle Fund--the Obama administration approved a
$730 million loan to a company called Severstal Steel Company, a
Russian-owned company with operations in Michigan.
Remember, to qualify for this loan, the alternative fuel vehicle or
vehicle part needs to be manufactured in the United States and--here is
the key--it must be a new product. Technically, Severstal was
manufacturing in the United States, but the Obama administration
certainly walked the line in this case. The U.S. Government was
providing American taxpayer dollars to a Russian company owned by one
of Russia's richest oligarchs, Alexei Mordashov.
The New York Times has reported that Mr. Mordashov has ties to the
Kremlin and to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Apparently, this
Russian looked at this program and said: Hey, here is a way I can get a
low-cost, low-interest loan. All I have to do is operate this plant and
the government will loan me $750 million and I will produce a new part,
a new component of steel that is used in automobile manufacturing.
After working with the Department of Energy's inspector general,
Senator Toomey and I learned that the type of steel made by this
Russian company was identical to the steel already being produced in my
home State of Indiana and Senator Toomey's home State of Pennsylvania.
Obviously, that violated one of the basic criteria in that the product
has to be an alternative that is brand new or significantly improved
and not something that is already being produced in Indiana.
Fortunately, with the help of the inspector general, we were able to
ensure the Obama administration voided the loan. To their credit, when
we brought it to their attention, they said: OK. We have a Russian
oligarch we are giving money to--and that doesn't sound very good. We
are giving money to this multibillionaire in Russia with close ties to
Vladimir Putin. Secondly, we now have learned what they are producing
is already produced in the United States--in my State of Indiana and in
Senator Toomey's State of Pennsylvania. Thus, fortunately, the
administration canceled this loan.
This example calls into question the integrity of this program. The
ATVM Program also has a lackluster success rate. For example, Fisker
Automotive received a $529 million loan to produce a $100,000 plug-in
hybrid sports car. You will not see any of these on the road because
the company went bankrupt after drawing down $193 million of taxpayer
funds.
Another loan recipient, VPG, planned to sell natural gas-powered
vans. It went bankrupt after receiving a $50 million government loan.
Of the five projects funded by this program to date, two of them have
gone bankrupt. I think these examples demonstrate what happens when the
government tries to pick winners and losers instead of letting the free
market determine how we are going to go forward.
The Coats-Fischer-Flake-Toomey amendment that will be offered would
wind down this program and it would make much better use of the unspent
funds from this program.
I want to be clear. This amendment prohibits DOE from reviewing any
new loan applications after the bill's enactment. There are currently
some pending applications. We do not address those pending
applications. I hope serious evaluation will be made relative to
whether they qualify under the criteria that is laid out and we will
not end up with any more Severstals.
Those who argue that this shuts down an alternative energy program is
not valid. Anything that is now being currently evaluated up through
the end of 2020, the next 5 years--will be allowed to go forward and be
evaluated under the program. The amendment doesn't take that away.
CBO scored this amendment as saving at least $300 million over the
next 10 years. I have been down here every week talking about a waste
of the week. I have just identified another waste of taxpayer dollars.
We are not counting that, but we are counting what we can save if this
amendment is adopted. It is $300 million. I think that is a significant
amount it raises our waste, fraud, and abuse level to $162 billion and
change.
I encourage my colleagues to work with us so we can offer this
amendment. Remember, it does not affect anybody who has a proposal
before the Department of Energy under this loan program. If that is
underway, it can be evaluated--hopefully successfully evaluated, and if
it doesn't qualify the criteria, won't be accepted. The amendment does
not free funds for anything that is not currently before the evaluators
of this program.
I trust we can gain the support of my colleagues in saving the
taxpayers some dollars.
With that, 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.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3811
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are going to vote on the Hoeven
amendment shortly. I rise to speak against that amendment, which would
undermine one of our Nation's landmark environmental laws, the Clean
Water Act. It is very difficult for me to understand how we could be at
this point in time attacking a clean water rule--a clean water rule in
light of what has happened in Flint, MI. This is what the water looked
like as it came out of the tap in Flint at the height of the crisis. By
the way, people were told this was safe. Why on Earth would we be going
against the clean water rule at a time when we are fighting against
this kind of problem?
This is what the pipes looked like in Flint: the corrosion, the
obvious problems with lead. This was all getting right into the
drinking water. While we look for ways to help the people of Flint--and
I would love do it on this bill. If we can't do it on this bill, I
would love do it on the WRDA bill. If we can't do it on the WRDA bill,
I will do it on any bill. We need to take care of what happened there,
and we also need to help other communities from the east coast to the
middle of our Nation, to the west coast and help us help our families.
Here we have in the face of Flint an attack on the clean water rule.
Let's see what else we have to say and what else we learned about what
happened in Flint. Pregnant women, kids cautioned over Jackson water.
This is in Mississippi. Jackson, MS, also has a problem with lead. What
is our response to that today? To stop a clean water rule. What are my
Republican friends thinking? It doesn't make sense.
The Associated Press wrote this: ``Elevated lead levels found in
Newark schools' drinking water.''
Here we are talking about elevated levels of lead in Newark. We have
places in California where the kids can't drink the water out of a
water fountain. So what is the response of the Republican Senate? Turn
back a clean water rule. It makes absolutely no sense.
What we have going on, on the Senate floor, is a very heated debate,
as I speak, about how to handle the issue in Flint. Let me tell you
this. The first thing to do in the light of Flint is not to weaken
environmental law, is not to stop a clean water rule. It is completely
ridiculous.
My friends will say: All we are doing is delaying implementation for
a year while the court looks at it. We shouldn't be doing anything that
plays into the hands of those special interests that simply don't want
to clean up the water in our Nation. The clean water standards that are
a target of this amendment are designed to safeguard drinking water for
America's families and businesses.
This dangerous amendment rolls back protections of small streams and
wetlands that provide drinking water to one in three Americans. That is
117 million people put at risk because this U.S. Senate, run by the
Republicans,
[[Page S2360]]
thinks the best thing to do in the light of Flint is to roll back the
Clean Water Act. Come on. Get a life. Read the paper. Look at what
happened to those people. This is the time to provide reliable drinking
water to all Americans and to clean up our waterways. Now is not the
time--and it should not be the time--to attack the Clean Water Act,
which is vital to the health and safety of our families.
I want to mention that I have received opposition to the Hoeven
amendment from numerous sportsmen's groups, including Backcountry
Hunters and Anglers, International Federation of Fly Fishers, National
Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and
Trout Unlimited. These groups understand the important link between
clean water and the outdoor recreation economy. When you go right after
the clean water rule, you are going after the people who enjoy outdoor
recreation, and they are against the Hoeven amendment.
Leading environmental and conservation groups oppose the amendment,
including American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice,
Earthworks, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, League of
Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Prairie Rivers
Network, Sierra Club, and Southern Environmental Law Center. These are
some of the most popular groups in the country.
Does anyone know what the rating of this Republican Congress was in
the last polls I saw? It was 14 percent.
Do you know what the rating of the President was in the last poll I
saw? Over 50.
So what does the Republican Senate do today? They are going after the
President with their 14-percent rating in the polls. I say to my
friends on the other side--and believe me, they are my friends: What
are you doing? How do you expect people to support you when you, after
seeing what happened in Flint, continue to go after landmark
environmental clean water laws like you are doing today?
In addition, public health groups, including the American Public
Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for
America's Health, have opposed similar legislation to block this
important rule, and 200,000 businesses represented by the American
Sustainable Business Council have called on Senators to oppose efforts
to block the clean water rule. These experts understand the importance
of the clean water rule, and they know that our drinking water remains
vulnerable to pollution.
Just last month, EPA released a report showing that nearly half of
U.S. waterways are in poor condition. In fact, one in four waterways
have levels of bacteria that fail to meet human health standards, and
our children go swimming in these very waterways. We have cities across
the United States with sewer systems that discharge raw, untreated
sewage in waterways--again, where our children swim. It is a disgrace.
Despite enormous successes since passage of the Clean Water Act, we
have more work to do. Nothing is more important than protecting the
lives of the American people, whether it is through our military or
through our public health laws. When we weaken the Clean Water Act, as
the Hoeven amendment will do, we put our families and our children at
risk. Why are we here?
Flint has put a spotlight on the need to keep our families safe from
toxins and pollutants in their drinking water. The first thing the
Republicans do in light of Flint is to try to roll back the clean water
rule.
I have to say that one of my deepest regrets--and I have written
about it--is how partisan this place has become over environmental
laws. When I started a long time ago, Republicans were the ones leading
the way on the environment. I remember there was a Republican State
senator named Peter Behr, whom I supported because he understood how
critical it was to protect and defend the environment, not only as a
legacy to our children in terms of the beauty of our planet but also
for the very health and safety of our families.
I have been in office for 40 years. It is hard to believe that it has
been 40 years. I guess time flies when you like your work. The fact is
that no one has ever come up to me and said: Barbara, our water and air
is too pure and way too clean. You need to do something about that. You
need to dirty it up. Repeal the landmark laws, Barbara, that protect
our water.
They don't do that. They come up and say: We are worried about the
fact that we are not sure what contaminants are in our water.
I see my good friend is going to close out the debate, and I promised
him that when he came to the floor, he wouldn't have to listen too
long.
I say again: Please vote against the Hoeven amendment. This is not
smart legislation in light of what we face.
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. HOEVEN. 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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor to the good Senator
from Michigan for a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wanted to make a quick statement about
an amendment that will come up for consideration on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, of course I support my friend from
Michigan, but we need to quickly move to a vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wanted to quickly take a moment to
speak about the vehicle program from two sides. When I authored this
legislation back in 2007, we began to see fuel economy standards
increase in the United States. Part of our focus at that time was to
keep jobs in America and make sure we had low-cost financing available
for companies, such as retool plants, so that smaller, fuel-efficient
vehicles would be made in the United States rather than have those jobs
shipped overseas. We saw that with the initial loan made to Ford Motor
Company. They were able to bring jobs back from Mexico and also focus
on electric vehicles.
As we fast forward to today, we are looking at fuel economy for
trucks and larger vehicles. A loan was recently made to Alcoa. They are
focused on aluminum materials so companies can make lighter weight
trucks in order to meet new fuel economy standards. There are
positives, but there are also areas under this loan program that have
not been successful.
I come to the floor to specifically say that when it is time to
consider the Coats amendment, which will completely eliminate this
program, my colleagues need to know that we are undercutting a
carefully crafted bipartisan compromise with Senator Inhofe, Senator
Portman, and others to move forward on a water infrastructure plan to
deal with lead in water that will not only help 100,000 people in the
city of Flint, but it will also help people in Jackson, MS, Cleveland,
OH, and other States across the country.
Our proposal responsibly phases out this program and uses the funds
for critical water infrastructure needs. We strongly oppose pulling the
rug out from under not only Flint but also Jackson, MS, Cleveland, OH,
and communities across the country that are counting on us to come
together and pass what we have done in a bipartisan way to address
critical water infrastructure needs and deal with the lead poisoning
issues.
I ask colleagues to vote no on the Coats amendment and allow us to
phase out this program in a way so that we will be able to use this
investment in a critical way to address water infrastructure needs
across the country.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am willing to yield to the junior
Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Michigan,
Senator Stabenow. We urge our colleagues
[[Page S2361]]
to vote no on the Coats amendment. This is part of a very carefully
crafted amendment to deal with water infrastructure around the country,
and in particular Flint.
I think this will be a win-win for those folks who may want to see
this program go away. We have a plan to do that while also dealing with
an incredibly important issue not only for our State but that is also
incredibly important to other States across the country.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I thank the Senator for yielding the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 3811
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
support an amendment I offered, amendment No. 3811, that prevents the
EPA and the Corps of Engineers from implementing its waters of the
United States final rule. The language for my amendment is actually
identical to the waters of the United States provision in the
underlying bill. It is already in the bill, H.R. 2028, which we are
considering right now. My amendment will make sure that this waters of
the United States provision stays in the bill and that our bill is
consistent with legislation supported by the House.
It is critical to preserve the prohibition on implementing the waters
of the United States because this rule will greatly expand the scope of
EPA regulations over nearly every water in the United States,
threatening farmers and job creators with permitting requirements and
litigation that will make it more difficult for them to produce our
Nation's food and complete needed construction projects.
Moreover, this regulatory overreach by the Army Corps of Engineers
and the EPA is inconsistent with the law. Let's look at what the courts
are saying. When granting a preliminary injunction against this rule,
the North Dakota Federal District Court stated:
The Rule allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear
any effect on the ``chemical, physical and biological
integrity'' of any navigable-in-fact water.
It went on further to state:
The rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote
and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how
these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to
navigable-in-fact water.
That is the key. EPA has jurisdiction over navigable bodies of water,
not ephemeral water that might be in a ditch today and gone tomorrow.
Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nationwide
stay of the rule, in Cincinnati, citing that EPA and the Corps of
Engineers did not identify ``specific scientific support substantiating
the reasonableness of the bright-line standards they ultimately
chose.''
To get a sense of the size of the Federal power grab we are talking
about here, consider that under the administration's final rule, all
water located within 4,000 feet of any other water or within the 100-
year floodplain is considered a water of the United States as long as
the EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers decides that it has
``significant nexus.'' That is the argument the EPA is making--
``significant nexus.'' They are saying: Well, we can regulate navigable
bodies of water. They just decided, without statutory authority
provided by this Congress or any other authority, that because other
waters run into navigable bodies, they can regulate all water, and they
have issued a regulation to do that.
The waters of the United States is clearly flawed from a legal
perspective, but it is even more important to take a look at how this
rule, if implemented, affects hard-working Americans with excessive
regulations. For those of you who haven't had the opportunity to visit
with a farmer from my State or any farmers across this country, do so.
They will tell you how difficult it is to deal with excess water on
their property, particularly when they face an overbearing regulation
like this one. Those farmers can tell you that just because there is
water in a ditch or field one week doesn't mean that there will be
water there next week. It certainly doesn't make the water worthy of
being treated the same as a river, a lake, or a navigable body of
water. A field with a low spot that has standing water----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask that the Members of this body not
only consider the underlying issue and the impact it will have on
farmers and ranchers. It will also affect everybody's private property
rights. I also ask my colleagues to consider their own prerogative.
Under our Constitution we have legislative, judicial, and executive
branches, and each has its own authority. We have to stand up on this
one when an agency overreaches and takes statutory authority we have
not provided.
I ask that Members join with me in support of this vitally important
amendment.
With that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
locking in the votes, the Senator from California have an opportunity
to speak and then that we move to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to call up the following amendments: Franken amendment No. 3833,
Coats amendment No. 3814, and Murray amendment No. 3813; further, that
following the disposition of the Hoeven amendment No. 3811, the Senate
vote on the Coats amendment No. 3814, with a 60-affirmative-vote
threshold for adoption of the amendment; and that at 1:45 p.m. today,
the Senate vote on the Franken amendment No. 3833; finally, that at
5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 25, the Senate vote on the Murray amendment
No. 3813, with no second-degree amendments in order to any of the
amendments prior to the votes, and that there be 2 minutes equally
divided prior to each vote.
May I say before the Senator from California speaks, I see the
Senators from Michigan are here and the Senator from Indiana. I wish to
thank the three of them for working with Senator Feinstein and me
toward the goal of making sure that Senators who have a germane
amendment have the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote. If we are
able to follow that practice generally, we will be able to have an
appropriations process and the Senate will function well. They all
responded quickly and promptly on issues they feel very strongly about,
and I thank them for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 3811
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words.
The junior Senator from California has been speaking in opposition to
the waters of the United States amendment sponsored by Senator Hoeven.
I just want to put before the body a little bit of the history.
In 2006 the Supreme Court introduced real uncertainty regarding which
wetlands and water bodies were subject to Federal jurisdiction under
the Clean Water Act. Since 2006 the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers have been working on new rules to clarify their jurisdiction
and address the Supreme Court's ruling.
EPA and the Army Corps just finalized the new rule last May. This new
rule helps resolve almost a decade of confusion by clearly stating
which types of water bodies are subject to Federal jurisdiction and
which are not. It will make Federal permitting easier, faster, and less
costly for business and industry. It maintains all previous exemptions
and exclusions for normal farming and ranching practices and
agricultural discharges, such as irrigation return flow and storm water
runoff.
Nevertheless, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a stay
suspending implementation of the rule. I strongly believe we should let
the courts decide whether the executive branch has overreached in its
interpretation of congressional statute, just like the Constitution
calls for.
The President has threatened to veto the entire Energy and Water
appropriations bill if this amendment is included in it. Right now, we
have the best opportunity in 7 years to pass this bill as a stand-alone
piece of legislation and
[[Page S2362]]
get the Senate appropriations process working again.
So I am very hopeful and would strongly recommend that the Senate
defeat the Hoeven amendment.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hoeven
amendment No. 3811.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, 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 Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--42
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Cruz
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in a moment Senator Coats will call
up his amendment, the Coats and Toomey amendment.
I want to thank the Michigan Senators and others for making the
schedule work today. For the information of all Senators, after the
Coats amendment, the next vote will be at 1:45 p.m. on the Franken
amendment. That will be the last vote today.
The next vote will be on the Murray amendment on Monday afternoon.
Senators and their staffs have been very good about getting their
amendments in. We think we have all the amendments. We have asked to
have them by 1 p.m. so we could by consensus finish up on Monday and
Tuesday, giving everybody a chance to have their vote if it is a
germane amendment and to speak on the germane amendments.
My request on behalf of Senator Feinstein and me is that if there are
any amendments still out there, we would like to have them by 1
o'clock.
Amendment No. 3814 to Amendment No. 3801
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 3814, to be offered by the
Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3814.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] proposes an amendment
numbered 3814 to amendment No. 3801.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit the use of funds made available for the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program)
On page 30, line 9, strike the period at the end and insert
the following: ``: Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this heading shall be used to administer,
review, or approve any loan or loan application that was not
submitted as of the date of enactment of this Act: Provided
further, that none of the funds available to the Secretary of
Energy to provide any credit subsidy under subsection (d) of
section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013) as of the date of enactment of this
Act shall be obligated for new loan commitments under that
subsection on or after October 1, 2020.''.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, 205 loans issued by the Department of
Energy under the alternative vehicle program have failed, costing
taxpayers $500 million in losses. DOE currently sits on $4 billion of
unused money. It is time to wind down this program. This will not
affect any proposals that are currently with the Department of Energy
on this program, but it will prevent any new programs going forward.
We can save the taxpayers a lot of money and use this for other
alternatives if we adopt this amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, this is exactly the kind of program our
constituents hate. It is the crony capitalism where taxpayers are
forced to subsidize preferred companies, special interests. How many
hundreds of millions of dollars do taxpayers have to lose?
I understand there is some discussion that maybe on some bill in the
future, this will get phased out as part of another deal, but who knows
if that is ever going to happen. Here is a chance to wipe out some
crony capitalism, some corporate welfare, and a huge loss for
taxpayers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. TOOMEY. Let's adopt this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I would certainly urge all of my
colleagues to oppose the Coats amendment. What this does is eliminate a
program that basically pays for a very carefully crafted agreement on
which we are working to deal with the Flint water issue, as well as
water infrastructure issues all across this country. This is part of
the proposal Senator Stabenow and I have been working on and have been
building support.
We are looking to move to this very shortly to deal with this broad
issue. A vote against this amendment allows us to continue to move
forward with a bipartisan plan, critical for our whole country.
I yield my remaining time to the senior Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, the bottom line is that we have
developed a bipartisan bill that phases out this program in a
responsible way for the businesses that are currently involved and uses
that to pay for water infrastructure needs across the country, not only
in Flint but in Jackson, MI, and Cleveland, OH--across the country.
So we can achieve what the Senators are talking about in a way that
helps us with water infrastructure.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3814.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, 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 Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cruz).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
[[Page S2363]]
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--49
Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Blunt
Cruz
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Arizona.
Tribute to Sandy Ledy
Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Sandy Ledy, a
dedicated Senate staff member who will retire after more than two
decades of public service in my office.
Soon after being elected to the Senate in 1994, Senator John Kyl was
wise enough to offer Sandy--a standout campaign volunteer--a job on his
new staff. Sandy was given two options: She could work as a staffer in
Washington, DC, or she could serve in Arizona and serve as John Kyl's
military case worker. Sandy knew she couldn't pass up an opportunity to
serve those who serve our Nation. It was an easy decision for Sandy and
a fortuitous one for Arizona's military servicemembers, veterans, and
their families.
Sandy's genuine passion for our military service men and women,
combined with her meticulous approach to her work, has made her an
invaluable staffer. Sandy is well-versed in all things military, from
regulations, to benefits, to the service academies. Her vast knowledge
has ensured that Arizona's military service men and women have had
nothing but the best assistance for more than the past two decades.
Her reputation preceded her, and when I was elected as Senator in
2012, I had an easy decision of my own--offering Sandy a job on my
staff. Thankfully, she said yes.
Sandy is probably best known around the State as the point person for
service academy nominations. Her understanding of that process and what
it takes for a student to be an excellent nominee has helped so many
students fulfill their dreams of attending one of our prestigious
service academies. Her focus on preparation and attention to detail has
turned what can be a very daunting task into a seamless production,
resulting in countless nominations and appointments to the service
academies.
While we all marvel at Sandy's meticulousness, it is her compassion
and calm demeanor that make her such an asset. This is never more
evident than when she is working with students and parents in the long
and complicated process of applying to attend one of these service
academies.
Beyond her work on behalf of the military, she is an active and
cherished member of her community in Cave Creek, AZ. She is a member of
her church choir, a regular volunteer at the Cave Creek Museum, and a
longtime swim coach, sometimes judging local meets. But there is no
better testament to Sandy's example as a public servant than her two
children, Amy and Joe. Amy is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy
who herself recently retired after a career in the military. Joe served
in the U.S. Marine Corps. They have made her the proud grandmother of
three, and she is looking forward to spending a well-deserved
retirement looking after those grandkids.
Sandy, thank you for more than 20 years of dedicated public service
in the Senate and, in particular, for the 4 years of stellar service as
a member of my staff. Your knowledge and passion will be greatly
missed. I wish you well in your retirement.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am on the floor with my colleague
Senator Portman to join him in urging the House to take prompt action
on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which passed with such
a stunning bipartisan vote in the Senate.
As Senator Portman has pointed out, years of careful preparation went
into the drafting of this bill. There were five separate national
hearings held in Washington with people from all over the country. This
is a very polished and carefully developed piece of legislative work
that has the support not only of the addiction and recovery community
but of the law enforcement community and many others.
Senator Portman has been very diligent about coming to the floor to
press for action from the House of Representatives. My view is that
since the House of Representatives is under Republican control, they
are more likely to be attentive to the urgings of a Republican
Senator--particularly one who has served in the House of
Representatives--than they are to me.
But I want to make sure the record is clear that I fully support
rapid passage of this bill, whether it is something that is close
enough that we can quickly get it through conference or whether it is
our bill, to which they are free to add things as they wish over time,
but can get to the President now--the reason I think it is important
that it get to the President now is we are in the appropriations
process. The appropriators for these accounts need to know what they
are appropriating to. So time is of the essence, not just because of
the lives that are being lost day-to-day and month-to-month out there
but also because our appropriators need to know.
I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Democrats and
Republicans alike, to listen to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.
Let's try to get this done.
With that, I yield to Senator Portman with my thanks and
appreciation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. First, Madam President, I want to thank my colleague
from Rhode Island who just spoke. We did work together for the past few
years in putting together this legislation, and we did it, by the way,
with the House of Representatives. So Senator Whitehouse and I took
good ideas wherever we could find them, in whatever part of the country
it came from, including ideas from the House of Representatives. We
didn't ask who had the idea; we asked whether it was a good idea. We
kept this entirely nonpartisan, not just bipartisan. Therefore, we
built something that makes sense for our communities back home to deal
with this epidemic of prescription drug and heroin addiction and
overdoses.
I appreciate his partnership in this, and I appreciate the fact that
he came to the floor today to talk about the importance of moving ahead
with this legislation. After all, it is very rare around here to get a
94-to-1 vote on anything, and we did it on this bill. After 2\1/2\
weeks on the floor of the Senate talking about this heroin and
prescription drug epidemic, every single Senator here realized this was
a problem in their States, and 94 Senators stood up and agreed this
legislation will help address it.
By the way, since we passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery
Act, or CARA, as it is called, on March 10 in the Senate, 42 days have
passed. That is more than a month. Every day, we lose about 120
Americans--120 Americans--to drug overdoses. That means in these 42
days we have lost over 5,000 fellow American citizens to drug
overdoses. Think about that.
I do urge the House to act and act quickly. These numbers keep
getting higher and higher. This is not getting better. Back in Ohio,
this is getting worse, and I assume the same is true in your State, if
you are a Senator or if you are a Member of the House of
Representatives in your district.
Since 2007, we have looked at these numbers, and drug overdoses have
killed more Ohioans than car accidents. It is now the No. 1 cause of
accidental death in Ohio. It has tripled
[[Page S2364]]
from 1999 to 2010. We are now told, by the way, that 200,000 Ohioans
are addicted to opioids--opioids are prescription drugs--and heroin--
200,000 Ohioans. That is the size of a significant city in any State
represented here in this body or any district on the other side.
In fact, it is the same size as the city of Akron, OH, where I was on
Monday of this week, meeting with their opioid task force. They are
alarmed at what is happening, and they want to be sure we are making
every possible effort we can on the prevention side, the education
side, to get more people into treatment, to get them into longer term
recovery, to provide police officers and other first responders with
Narcan, the miracle drug they need to stop overdoses from turning into
a death. They want our help. They support the CARA legislation. They
need it, and they need it now.
The Cincinnati Enquirer had some really troubling news last week.
They wrote a story about a new poll that is out. It is a group called
Interact for Health. They do an annual Ohio health issues poll. They
found in the poll in 2014 that 2 of every 10 Ohioans knew someone who
was abusing prescription drugs. A year later, it is 3 in 10, so this is
not getting better. This is getting worse. By the way, this is just
prescription drugs. And by the way, of the 3 in 10 who knew somebody
who is abusing prescription drugs, 4 in 10--4 in 10--knew somebody who
had overdosed on those prescription drugs. So these percentages are
increasing across the board--every age group, every education level,
every income level. There is no demographic, no ZIP Code, no State, no
city, and no county that is safe from this epidemic. It is spreading,
and it is spreading everywhere.
This poll is another indication that we have a lot of work to do.
This should be a motivation for us. This should get us to pass this
legislation. And, yes, can we work on additional legislation? Of
course, we can and should. I am encouraged that the House is taking up
new bills and looking at this in different ways. That is good. But we
know here in the Senate and over in the House that this CARA
legislation will help and will help now.
By the way, there are over 120 cosponsors of the CARA legislation in
the House. Not only did we work with them and introduce identical
legislation in the House and the Senate, anticipating this day when we
could pass it in one House, but we wanted to pass it quickly in the
other House and get it to the President for his signature. There are
over 120 cosponsors over there. It is bipartisan.
Think of the impact we could have on the community if we could get
this passed. If we could turn around just one life, it matters, and we
know this can save many lives and make many people begin to look at
this issue differently--that this is a disease. Addiction is a disease
and needs to be treated as such. Removing some of that stigma alone
will bring a lot more people into treatment, and that is part of what
is important about this legislation.
There is another issue that is not prescription drugs, and it is not
heroin, but it is another issue related to it, and that is fentanyl.
Fentanyl is being laced with heroin throughout the country. In
Cleveland, OH, a couple of weeks ago, we lost 12 people--12 people--in
6 days to overdoses. That is one city. This was heroin, but it was
laced with this even more dangerous toxic substance called fentanyl. By
the way, it comes in the mail. The drug dealers are shipping it in the
mail.
Fentanyl is so toxic--10 to 30 to 40 times more toxic than heroin--
that it is dangerous even to open up the mail if you are an inspector,
we are told. We had a hearing on this just this week. We talked to the
Customs and Border Patrol people: Our question was, Why can't we stop
this stuff from coming in? This, unfortunately, is something that is
also increasing. Ohio, they say, is one of the top States in the
country in terms of fentanyl overdoses. But I will tell those who have
not dealt with this fentanyl issue yet that it creates even more issues
because it is so deadly.
After 3 years of work on this CARA legislation, Senator Whitehouse
and I and others, including Senators on both sides of the aisle--we did
hold five forums, as he said, on various aspects of this debate. We
consulted with the experts on treatment and recovery, the experts who
are focused on how to keep kids and other people from making these bad
decisions in the prevention and the education community. We met with
the drug experts from the administration, such as the White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy. We brought in people from all
over the country, including from my home State of Ohio.
This is the third time I have come to the floor. I have come once
every week that we have been in session since we passed it to say to
the House: Let's move on CARA. Let's get it done. It will help
immediately.
The majority leader in the House has said he wants the House to take
on the drug epidemic and pass legislation soon. I believe him. He is a
good man. I appreciate that. But I would ask him again to please work
on the other legislation. It is fine to take them through hearings and
markups, but we cannot delay. We know CARA will work, and it will work
now. It is sitting over there and ready for action. It can be taken to
the floor immediately under suspension and can be passed. We are one
vote away from having this go to the President and having it go to help
in our communities.
The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton,
who is a good friend and a man with a big heart and cares about this
issue, has said he would like the House to move quickly with, as he
said, an ``all hands on deck effort.'' Good for him.
One of his subcommittees, the Health Subcommittee, recently marked up
a dozen bills. This happened yesterday; they marked up 12 bills. Look
at those bills. A number of them are actually a part of CARA already.
They are in CARA. They are smaller bills. None of them is
comprehensive, like CARA.
One reason we have to get CARA passed is this is a problem that has
to be addressed from all angles, from all sectors, and that is why it
has to be comprehensive. But of those 12 bills that were marked up
yesterday, many of them are identical, and others are very similar to
the CARA legislation. So this shouldn't slow us down. In fact, it is
even more an indication that if these are the kinds of bills the House
thinks are the right way to go, let's get CARA passed and then we can
work on the other legislative ideas Members may have.
I respect my colleagues--Chairman Upton, the majority leader over
there, and Chairman Pence, the chairman of the subcommittee and also a
guy who cares a lot about this issue--but let's give CARA a vote. There
are 125 cosponsors. That is the latest number I have as of this
morning, and the number keeps growing. It is bipartisan, it is
bicameral, and it is the right thing to do.
Again, I know there are other ideas out there, and that is fine. We
need to take those up as well. But let's go ahead and get this passed.
Put it under suspension, and take it to the floor. It will pass. We are
one vote away from having this help our communities.
CARA is not just comprehensive; it does the right thing in terms of
focusing on what is evidence based. In other words, we didn't just say
``Let's throw more money at this problem,'' we said ``Let's actually
find out what is working and what is not working.''
I was in Dayton, OH, with a group called Project C.U.R.E. on Friday.
I had the chance to visit with some of the administrators there, some
of the recovery coaches, as they call themselves, many of whom, by the
way, are recovering themselves. They are doing an amazing job. I talked
to many of the patients who were there. They are people who are
recovering addicts. Some have been clean for 2 weeks, some clean for 2
years. But I asked them the same question I ask all over our State:
What works? What doesn't work? How did this happen?
Most of them, by the way, told me the same story you hear time and
again: It started with prescription drugs. In fact, one story was from
a man by the name of Anthony. He dropped out of high school at age 14,
got into drugs, and made some mistakes in his life, which he readily
acknowledges. He ended up in prison. He said he had eight convictions
and was in and out of prison, in and out of the drug world. He decided
to go straight.
[[Page S2365]]
He made a decision. For him, a lot of it was faith based and a lot was
being sure he was going to be able to take care of his family and be a
contributing member of his community, so he gave back.
Anthony had a good job, had gotten married, and was on the right
track. He was on his way to work one day, and he was in a car accident.
For those experts who are listening to this today, you probably know
happened. I don't even have to tell you. When he got in the car
accident, he was injured. They sent him to the hospital. What did they
give him at the hospital? Narcotic pain pills, Percocet, prescription
drugs.
Immediately--immediately--Anthony became addicted again. He is now
struggling, but he is back at the treatment center. He is getting his
life back together again. But in the meantime he has lost his family
because the drugs became everything. He lost his job because the drugs
became everything.
We talk a lot about the overdoses, and they are horrible--120
Americans a day. We don't talk enough about those who aren't overdosing
but who have lost their ability to achieve their own God-given purpose
in life because the drugs are everything. So they have lost their
families--torn apart. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their
ability to be contributing members of our society. And those people who
get into treatment and longer term recovery, as Anthony is doing, can
turn their lives around. There is hope. It can work.
Anthony is back for a second chance. Having talked to him, I believe
he is not just on the right track but he will work through this. This
legislation is needed to help him.
When I do meet with recovering addicts, I ask them to look at the
legislation, look at the summaries, and tell me what they think. What
they tell me is they like it because they are convinced it would help
others to have the access to treatment they have. Probably only 1 out
of 10 of those people who are addicted are getting treatment. That is
the best number I have. Maybe it is a little higher than that in your
State or congressional district, but this is an issue where, if we
provide more resources for treatment and begin to remove that stigma
around treatment and get more people into a system where they can begin
to get their lives back together with treatment, we know that works.
Our legislation supports veterans task forces and veterans courts
because we know this will help with our veterans who are coming back
with PTSD, 20 percent of whom have this addiction. People say it is
self-medicating. They have self-medicated to the point that they are
now addicts. We need to put them not into a prison cell but into a
treatment program. That is what these veterans courts do, and they
surround these veterans with other veterans. They do an awesome job. I
have been to them in Ohio. You have them probably in your State. If you
don't, this legislation will help because it creates more veterans
courts.
We have talked on the floor before about the fact that there has been
a huge increase--a 750 percent increase in the State of Ohio--in babies
born with addiction. That is just in the last 12 years in Ohio. Go to
any neonatal unit in your State or congressional district, and you will
see these babies. They are being lovingly cared for by doctors and
nurses. They are taking these addicted babies you could hold in the
palm of your hand, and they are literally taking them through
withdrawal. They have to because these babies are addicted and showing
the symptoms you might see in an adult of addiction.
We don't know what the long-term consequences are. We are having a
hearing on this tomorrow in Cleveland, OH, at one of our great
hospitals--University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital.
It is one of the best children's hospitals in the country. Their
neonatal unit is doing awesome work. I have been there and seen it. We
are going to talk to the experts about this and how we can do even
better to help these babies. But wouldn't it be great if we didn't have
so many babies born with addiction because mothers, knowing the
consequences, dealt with their addiction problem to avoid it through
prevention and education efforts? Wouldn't it be great if we didn't
have this 750-percent increase in children whose futures are uncertain
because of being born with this addiction?
Again, there is hope. I have been to a women's recovery center in
Cleveland and Columbus and also in Eastern Ohio and Athens, OH, where I
have met with women in long-term recovery with drug addiction. They are
there with their kids. There is hope.
With this legislation, we do have the ability to give people more
hope. Getting rid of that stigma, not judging people, is part of
beating this epidemic, and CARA will do that by treating addiction like
a disease.
There is an opportunity for us to move, and move quickly, to address
this growing crisis we have in our States and our communities; that is,
to pass this CARA legislation. Is it all we should do? No. Of course we
should do more. I know the House of Representatives will have some
great ideas. I know there are some great ideas in this body. The HELP
Committee is working on additional ideas on how to get more medicine
into this area of addiction, science, and treatment. They are working
on ways to ensure that we can provide more help to people. That is
great, and we should continue to work on that.
Meanwhile, we know this legislation will help. We know that if it is
sitting on the desk in the House of Representatives, having passed the
Senate by a 94-to-1 vote, it is not going to help. But we know if it
can get off the desk and onto the floor for a vote, we are one vote
away from getting it to our communities to begin to help, to keep
people from making the wrong decision--but then if they get into a drug
addiction, it can help them to be able to turn their lives around and
to achieve their potential in life, their God-given potential.
That is what this argument is about. It is not about the fact that
the Senate has all the answers. By the way, we wrote this legislation
with the House. They were engaged from the start. We introduced
identical bills and they had 125 cosponsors. All we are saying is,
let's let this one piece of legislation go, let's allow it to begin to
help right away, and then let's continue to work on other ideas.
Again, we have lost nearly 5,000 Americans to drug overdoses since
the Senate passed CARA with a 94-to-1 vote. To begin to reverse this
tide--this trend of addiction, of overdoses--we can and should act now.
It is urgent. There is a crisis. There is no time to waste.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to thank my friend for his
comments about addiction. I agree with the Senator from Ohio, talking
about the victims from Ohio. I can assure him we have victims in
Virginia and all across the country, and we need to get this
legislation to the President's desk so people who are hurt by the
scourge of drugs can get the treatment they need. Again, I thank him
for his leadership.
Nomination of Merrick Garland
Madam President, I rise to again express my disappointment that many
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have continued to
obstruct consideration of an eminently qualified candidate to fill the
vacancy on the Supreme Court.
It has now been 36 days since President Obama nominated Judge Merrick
Garland; that is, 36 days that our highest Court has been relegated to
falling short of its full constitutional obligations. Make no mistake.
The Senate's inaction is already having a tangible impact on the
Court's ability to function effectively. During the current session, we
have seen our eight current Justices end up in a 4-to-4 deadlock in
three separate cases since Justice Scalia's passing--effectively muting
the Court's voice in consequential judicial proceedings.
President Reagan himself said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme
Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that
crucially important body.''
More recently, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it quite
simply, as she always does. She said: ``I think we need somebody there
now to do the job, and let's get on with it.''
Indeed, the Supreme Court has granted only three cases since Justice
Scalia
[[Page S2366]]
died--a number experts say is extraordinarily low and an indication
that the eight sitting Justices are acutely aware of the precarious
position the Court is in with a vacancy.
Many Senators apparently believe that President Obama shouldn't be
able to make appointments under article II because he is in the last
year of his term. The record shows there is nothing in the Constitution
that says the President is only President for 3 of the 4 years of his
or her term. I don't understand that reasoning. Under that reasoning,
any of those same Senators who have made that argument shouldn't be
voting on any bill that comes before this body in the last year of
their Senate term. If we continue with that rationale, the President's
office and the Senate would lead to further dysfunction. Quite
honestly, that logic is beyond the pale.
It is clear as well that the American people expect us to do our job.
Recent polls show that by a 2-to-1 margin Americans want the Senate to
hold hearings and vote on Judge Garland's nomination. That is why I
remain so perplexed by the logical contortions that many of my
colleagues are undertaking to justify their obstruction and quite
honestly their failure to do their job.
I had the chance to meet with Judge Garland last week. His
qualifications and dedication to public service are beyond reproach. He
has received strong bipartisan support in the past, but what also stood
out to me are his measured view of the role of the judiciary, his
strong record on national security, and commitment to keeping our
country safe.
This past Tuesday marked the 21st anniversary of the bombing of a
Federal building in Oklahoma City. On that tragic day in 1995, 168
people, including 19 children, lost their lives. To this day, the
Oklahoma City bombing remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism
in our Nation's history.
Judge Garland at that time was Principal Associate Deputy Attorney
General. He was the guy who led the criminal investigation and
supervised the prosecution of the bombers. Merrick Garland fought for
justice for the victims and the families in Oklahoma City. Through his
tireless efforts, deep understanding of the law, and attention to
detail, he ensured that the prosecution had an airtight case.
Ultimately, both bombers were successfully convicted.
This is the highest profile instance in which Judge Garland exhibited
his commitment to making and keeping our country safe, but it is far
from the only one. In my meeting with him, it was clear that the safety
and security of our citizens is an issue that quite honestly keeps him
up at night.
What also stands out about my conversation with Judge Garland is his
sense of humility. Our conversation and his judicial record demonstrate
to me that he is a moderate, thoughtful, consensus candidate. As Judge
Garland said in the Rose Garden on the day he was nominated:
People must be confident that a judge's decisions are
determined by the law and only the law. For a judge to be
worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the
Constitution, and to the statutes passed by Congress.
He or she must put aside his personal views or preferences
and follow the law; not make it. Fidelity to the Constitution
and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life,
and is the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be
for the past 18 years.
These are not the words nor the track record of a judicial activist.
In my opinion, this is the kind of judge that Merrick Garland has been:
not a judicial activist but someone who recognizes the important role
and the important balance between the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches.
I am encouraged that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have at least begun to give Judge Garland the courtesy of a meeting,
but meetings alone are not sufficient. The American people deserve the
opportunity to hear Judge Garland's qualifications debated in a public
hearing in the Judiciary Committee, and they deserve an up-or-down vote
on the Senate floor. That is all we ask.
I again urge my colleagues to give Judge Garland the consideration
other nominees have received. At the end of the day, if they choose to
vote against him, that is their right, but the idea that somehow they
are interpreting the Constitution to say that in the last year of a
Presidency a qualified judge should not even receive consideration of a
hearing and a vote is quite honestly beyond the pale.
Too often these debates end up going on and become extraordinarily
complicated. In many ways, what I hear from Virginians--regardless of
whether they want me to support Judge Garland--is a very simple
message: Do your job. In the coming days and weeks, I hope the Senate
will do its job and give Judge Garland the consideration of a hearing
before the Judiciary Committee and then take up this eminently
qualified jurist's nomination on the floor and give him the vote he
deserves.
I yield the floor.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Paris Climate Agreement
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to recognize the importance of
the signing of the Paris Agreement.
Tomorrow marks the 46th anniversary of Earth Day--the first Earth
Day--the Earth Day that occurred when I was in seventh grade. My
seventh grade teacher made a point of making sure all the students were
aware of it. They made sure we had a chance to do a field trip to the
community college to learn about some of the issues related to
stewardship of the planet.
It is a day to appreciate the extraordinary beauty of our blue-green
planet but also to recognize, to remind ourselves of the fact that we
have a huge responsibility to be good stewards of the wonderful planet
we have.
It was Theodore Roosevelt who said that ``our greatest central task
[is] leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it
is for us.'' That is the definition of stewardship, and that is what
Earth Day is all about. This is why it is so fitting that tomorrow, on
Earth Day, America will join other nations in signing the Paris
Agreement.
This international climate accord is a tremendous step forward. It
makes clear the world recognizes that global warming is a very
significant and grave concern facing human civilization on this planet.
It is, indeed, the moral challenge of our generation.
I am proud and inspired by the global community's unprecedented
commitment to avert global warming, to avert a climate crisis. We know
what the stakes are. We don't need computer models to look 50 years
into the future because the impacts are here today. We see it in our
own communities. We see it in our own States. We see it through the
impact of droughts, the impact of wildfires, the impact of heat waves,
the storms, the hurricanes, the tornadoes. We see it through story
after story of this year or this month being the warmest ever recorded
by humans. These events have profound costs that can be measured in
lost lives, lost homes, lost businesses, billions of dollars in
disaster relief.
It is important to understand that global warming's major assault is
on our rural communities, on our farming, our fishing, and our
forestry. You can see it across the world. You can see it across the
country. You can see it just inside my home State of Oregon. We have
had significant droughts greatly impacting our agricultural community
in my State.
We have had a loss of snowpack in the Cascades, a trend over decades
impacting the availability of water for irrigation in farming. We have
seen the impact on fishing, with streams that are warmer and smaller
than they were in the past. We have seen it on our oyster population on
the coast, where now the oysters are having trouble reproducing because
the Pacific Ocean is 30 percent more acidic than it was before we
started burning fossil fuels on this planet. That greater acidity is
affecting the ability of baby oysters to form shells. That should
frighten us all--the ability of shellfish to form shells being
threatened.
It is hard to imagine that we have burned enough fossil fuels to
actually
[[Page S2367]]
impact the acidity of the oceans. But we have, and the problem is
getting worse. We see the impact on our forests. We see it in my home
State of Oregon through the red zone. That is the term given to the
vast swaths of forests that have been killed by pine beetles because
the winters now are not cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. So the
infestations are much more aggressive, much more widespread.
We see the impact on our forests from more vigorous wildfires and a
longer forest fire season--a season that has grown by 60 days over 40
years. That is 2 months. In fact, we have even had forest fires in
Oregon in the month of January. It is a huge loss, a huge impact on the
ecosystem, and a huge impact on the economy.
If you care about rural America and our farming, our fishing, and our
forestry, you must care about carbon pollution and global warming.
Scientists agree that we must keep the warming of our planet under 2
degrees Celsius in order to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate
change--impacts much worse than what we are seeing now. But we have
already warmed the planet by 1 degree. So we are halfway toward that
boundary, which is why an important component of the Paris agreement is
not just the substance of the agreement itself but also a compact that
the international community will revisit every 5 years, because the
measures taken in the Paris agreement are not enough to fend off
catastrophe.
What they do represent is virtually every nation in the world coming
together and saying we understand the challenge to our planet, and we
understand that we must be part of the solution. To have more heads of
state come together in December for the Paris agreement than at any
other time in human history is very impressive. But the commitments
made, even if they are fully fulfilled, don't go far enough. We are
going to have to come back together every 5 years to add to our
understanding and to increase the speed with which we are pivoting from
fossil fuels to renewable fuels.
At those 5-year gatherings, we will strengthen our pledges, we will
work to reduce the emissions even further, and we will review the
changing technologies. There is so much investment going on. There is a
program called Mission Innovation, which is a number of countries
coming together, private companies coming together, and foundations
coming together to develop the best ideas--out-of-the-box ideas--to be
able to take on the challenge of global warming. Those technologies are
going to be a key part of accelerating our ability to tackle this
challenge.
We have to keep working to drive down the cost curve on renewable
energy so that it makes a positive contribution to our economy in every
possible way, lowering the cost of power while at the same time putting
thousands or, in some technologies, millions of individuals to work. We
have to make sure developing countries can afford these options in
solar, wind, and other renewable strategies.
Together, we must invest in paradigm-shifting technology. One of
those might be battery storage, to make better use of solar energy when
the solar energy exceeds current demand, or to capture wind energy when
the wind is blowing strongly and our wind turbines are producing more
than the current demand.
It means we have to do things such as investing in a broader grid to
ship those amps of electricity around the country--those watts of
energy around the country. Here at home, we can't keep up business as
usual. If we need to pivot from fossil fuels to renewables, then we
shouldn't keep subsidizing fossil fuels. We can't keep drilling oil
offshore and opening up drilling in new places like the Arctic. The
Arctic nation should come together and reach a pact not to drill in the
Arctic and to put it off-limits.
As American citizens, you and I own a lot of oil, a lot of coal, and
we must recognize that we need to keep those fossil fuels that we own
in the ground because here is the size of the problem. For us to
succeed in keeping the temperature of our planet below 2 degrees
Celsius above the pre-industrial age, we have to leave 80 percent of
the identified proven fossil fuel reserves in the world in the ground.
If we are going to do that, then it makes no sense at all--for what
you and I own as citizens--to be pulling it out of the ground. It makes
no sense to be doing contracts today--leases--that provide a legal
contract for extraction of our coal, our oil, and our gas, which you
and I own as citizens, three decades, four decades, or five decades
into the future--long after the world has to have pivoted off of fossil
fuels.
It is said that when you are in a hole, stop digging. In this case,
we are in a carbon pollution hole, and we need to stop digging fossil
fuels out of the ground. Instead, we must seize the opportunity to
invest in the infrastructure of the future, to spur a clean energy
revolution, and to build a green economy creating living-wage jobs. It
has been said that we are the first generation to feel the impact of
global warming, and we are the last generation that can do something
about it.
That is a huge responsibility. The signing of this agreement consists
of doing something about it, something major about it, something
important about it, something that all the Nations in the world have
come together to do together to take this on and to recognize our
collective responsibility. It is a breakthrough moment in the fight--
the international fight, the human civilization fight--to take on this
moral, major challenge to our planet.
While this deal is by no means the end of the work we must do, having
the global community come together around a vision of action is a huge
milestone in the path to averting climate catastrophe. This agreement
should only strengthen our Nation's resolve to build a sustainable
future, to protect our beautiful blue-green planet, and to work harder
to fight climate change not just on Earth Day but every day of the
year. In fact, this agreement is very much central to the task that
Theodore Roosevelt put before us: to leave our land a better land for
our descendants than it is for us. Let's get to work.
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. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3833 to Amendment No. 3801
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3833.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota, [Mr. Franken] proposes an
amendment numbered 3833 to amendment No. 3801.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding for the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee
Program)
On page 29, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program
For the cost of loan guarantees provided under section
2602(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3502(c)),
$8,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the cost of those loan guarantees (including the costs
of modifying loans, as applicable) shall be determined in
accordance with section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a): Provided further, That, for
necessary administrative expenses to carry out that program,
$500,000 is appropriated, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That, of the subsidy amounts provided by
section 1425 of the Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10; 125
Stat. 126), for the cost of loan guarantees for renewable
energy or efficient end-use energy technologies under section
1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16513),
$9,000,000 is permanently canceled.
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, Federal programs in Indian Country are
chronically underfunded. I have served on the Indian Affairs Committee
for the past 7 years, and I have been shocked by what I hear almost
every week from tribal leaders about the challenges in Indian Country.
Tribes struggle with crumbling schools, dilapidated roads, lack of
housing, and lack of basic infrastructure. Many of the crises we hear
about in Indian Country come from lack of opportunity, lack of hope.
Indian youth have the highest rate of suicide among all ethnic groups
in the United States. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for
Native youth aged 15 to 24. The Indian suicide rate is 62 percent
higher than it is for
[[Page S2368]]
the general population. Unemployment on Indian reservations averages 19
percent, and on some reservations it is above 50 percent.
Senators Murkowski, Heitkamp, and Udall understand the dire needs of
Indian Country, which is why they have cosponsored my amendment.
Chairman Barrasso also understands the needs of Indian Country, and
that is why he also supports this amendment. They understand that we
have to support economic development for tribes whenever we can.
My amendment sets aside $9 million, which can be leveraged into about
$50 to $85 million worth of loans for energy projects in Indian
Country. Developing tribal energy resources will help tribes bring
power to the most remote parts of Indian Country--improving access to
reliable and resilient energy and providing much needed jobs. That is
why Congress authorized the loan program in the Energy Policy Act of
2005--to help tribes access the capital they need for energy projects.
But this program has never received funding.
My amendment doesn't cost anything. We are simply putting $9 million
of already-appropriated money toward a new use.
I thank Senators Heitkamp, Udall, and Murkowski for cosponsoring my
amendment. I thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Feinstein for
their leadership. Finally, I thank Secretary Moniz, who has been a
champion for this program.
I urge my colleagues to support Franken amendment No. 3833 to bring
jobs to Indian Country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank Senator Franken for the way
he worked with our committee. I will vote for the amendment, and I
recommend that others do as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3833.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, 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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cruz).
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), and the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced---yeas 76, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]
YEAS---76
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS---19
Ayotte
Boozman
Cotton
Ernst
Fischer
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tillis
Vitter
NOT VOTING---5
Blunt
Cruz
Durbin
Murphy
Sanders
The amendment (No. 3833) was agreed to.
vote explanation
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from this
afternoon's vote on Franken amendment No. 3833, which was adopted to
the pending business--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, H.R. 2028.
On rollcall vote No. 59, had I been present, I would have voted to
support the amendment. Senator Franken's amendment will further
strengthen the deployment of clean energy by creating a Tribal Energy
Loan Guarantee Program to fund energy projects in Indian Country. This
amendment will help Indian tribes access much needed financing as they
seek to develop energy projects and create well-paying jobs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as the vice chair of the
Appropriations Committee to express my appreciation to the majority
leader of the Senate, Senator McConnell, and Senator Cochran, the chair
of the Appropriations Committee, for moving the process forward.
We have on the floor today the Energy and Water Committee bill. This
is the first bill of the Appropriations Committee to come to the floor.
It signals that we are ready to do regular order. I so appreciate the
leaderships' commitment to do that, so we don't end up with a big
omnibus bill at the end. Every bill comes, they can be amended, and
everyone can have their day and their say.
It is an excellent kickoff to what I hope will be the ability to move
all 12 bills and some crucial, urgent supplementals. I also compliment
Senators Alexander and Senator Feinstein for the excellent job they
have done on this particular subcommittee. They have followed the
bipartisan agreement. They have a bill that is free of poison pill
riders. When you look at what they have done in terms of energy and
water, it is an excellent bill from the standpoint of national security
and economic development, whether it is the funding for the Army Corps
of Engineers that is so important to those of us who have ports, to
science in terms of our fields of energy. We win Nobel prizes, but we
need to win the markets. It has an excellent approach in terms of tech
transfer.
Maryland benefits from this bill. It provides over $100 million for
the Port of Baltimore. That is going to support the port's nearly
14,000 jobs and a tax base of over $300 million. The Port of Baltimore
has always been the gateway to Ohio and the West. First, supported by
the B&O--Baltimore and Ohio--Railroad and now CSX. Funding in this bill
dredges the port's 50-foot channel, making it ready for megacontainer
ships coming through the expanded Panama Canal and supporting the
port's competitive edge over its East Coast competition. The bill also
funds construction of Poplar Island, where clean dredge material is
rebuilding the natural ecosystem of a former Chesapeake Bay island.
This bill exceeds the target level for the harbor maintenance trust
fund, providing approximately $1.3 billion. Dredging is the primary
activity of the trust fund. This funding is knocking out the nationwide
backlog of dredging projects, supporting the U.S. economy and local
economies.
Across Maryland, this bill makes critical investments, protecting
Assateague Island, a national seaside treasure, for future generations,
protecting Cumberland from flooding, and protecting this area's water
supply at the Jennings Randolph Lake in Garrett County.
This bill also supports a unique public-private partnership between
the U.S. Department of Energy and commercial truck manufacturers.
Together, they are developing the next generation of fuel-efficient
heavy-duty trucks. Total funding is $20 million. Volvo has been a
partner and is competing again for a portion of this funding. Its
Hagerstown, MD plant produces Mack Trucks with 1,600 jobs. Their
talented professionals have been leaders on truck engine research and
development, discovering technologies to reduce oil consumption and
decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
For the Appalachian Regional Commission, this bill provides $75
million for the base program, an increase of $5 million. The commission
meets both physical and human infrastructure needs. This is a hands-
across-the-aisle program that all Appalachia Senators support. There
are 13 States in the commission.
[[Page S2369]]
Maryland has three counties in the commission: Washington, Allegany,
and Garrett.
Maryland's mountain counties receive nearly $5 million annually,
making investments to rebound from lost manufacturing jobs. The
recession was another setback.
Now, through their community colleges, they are retraining and
retooling their residents. The commission's grants, matched with local
and other Federal funding, are making a big difference.
I recently visited Garrett College where I announced two grants. The
first was to establish new allied health programs with a simulation
manikin. This was a grant award for $110,000.
The second grant was to buy Westernport a new water tank. This grant
for $400,000 was matched with $2.4 million in other Federal loans and
grants. It means more capacity for Westernport, new service to nearby
towns of Luke and Bloomington, and a huge cost savings to Luke Mill.
The paper mill has been supplying drinking water to the town of Luke.
This grant is protecting the 880 employees at Luke Mill and 3,000
regional jobs in timber and trucking.
If this is the way it is going to be to move appropriations, I think
it is a good day. It is not only a good bill, but it shows when the
Senate practices the ability to work together to bring legislation to
the floor, to follow regular order, we can get our job done. It can be
open, it can be transparent, and we can have amendments. I so look
forward to this being the tone and the tempo of the rest of the
appropriations season.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
National Park Week
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, this week I encourage Arkansans and all
Americans to take a moment and enjoy your local national parks as we
celebrate National Park Week 2016. This year National Park Week is
particularly important because it also happens to be the 100th
anniversary of the National Park Service, a milestone we will celebrate
all year long.
For those of you who don't know, our National Park System began in
1872 with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park. The
organization charged with managing these parks, the National Park
Service, was established four decades later in 1916. Today we have over
400 national parks and historic sites around the country, all full of
wildlife, beautiful landscapes, and rich culture. These sites are all
cared for by over 20,000 dedicated employees of the National Park
Service, including park rangers who patrol our parks and keep visitors
safe.
Arkansas is home to several national parks and national historic
sites, some of the prettiest and most interesting in the country, in my
opinion. For those of you who have not been to Arkansas, I encourage
you to visit Hot Springs National Park to see our natural springs and
thermal pools.
If you are a history buff, you can visit Arkansas Post, the site of
the only Revolutionary War activity in the State of Arkansas. If you
are into the outdoors, you can float the Buffalo River. The list goes
on. Each of the national parks and historic sites in Arkansas and
around the country has its own unique appeal and holds its own
adventure.
So happy National Park Week and happy 100th birthday to the National
Park Service. I encourage everyone to take advantage of free admission
to all national parks in Arkansas and across the country through this
Sunday, April 24. Have a little fun, learn a little bit about your
great country, and show your support and thanks for the men and women
who serve us in the national parks.
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.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to complete this speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Corporate Inversions
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, over the past couple of years I have spoken
numerous times on corporate inversions, the problems they cause, and
various proposed solutions. I wish to take a few minutes today to
comment on some of the recent developments with regard to this
important issue.
Inversions are a matter of great concern in our country. This is true
among members of both parties, both in and out of government. As the
chairman of the Senate's tax-writing committee, I have to say that for
years now, most major discussions I have had on tax policy and reform
with various private sector stakeholders eventually end up focusing on
inversions.
Virtually everyone acknowledges that inversions are a problem. When a
U.S. company reidentifies itself as a foreign entity and moves its tax
headquarters overseas, it shrinks our tax base. It means lost
investment and growth for our country and a further demonstration of
the failure of the government to create a tax environment in this
country that allows businesses to flourish, create jobs, and, of
course, help grow our economy.
As I said, members of both parties see inversions as a problem, one
that needs fixing. Sadly, the debate surrounding this national issue
has too often become mired in politics and partisanship, which thus far
has prevented Congress from making any real progress. Some in
Washington--in the Capitol and on the other end of Pennsylvania
Avenue--would rather talk about inversions than solve the problem.
When a wave of U.S. companies announce that they are merging with
other entities and moving their headquarters offshore, the strategy
seems to be to publicly attack those companies; accuse them of, among
other things, lacking ``economic patriotism''; and put forward
unworkable policy proposals while labelling anyone opposing those
proposals as somehow being in favor of or at least indifferent to
inversions. Most of the policy ideas that get put forward tend to be
punitive and burdensome, with the goal, not of incentivizing companies
to stay in the United States, but to forcibly prevent them from
leaving.
Over the past year or so of political campaigning, we have heard a
lot of talk about building walls and who will be made to pay for them.
Some are proposing that we build a literal physical wall to keep
certain people from coming into the United States, with a supposedly
clever plan to force other countries to pay for it. Well, at the same
time, most of the proposals we have seen to deal with inversions would
amount to building a virtual wall--a wall forged in regulation and
punitive tax treatment--around the country to keep companies from
leaving and making every business in America and all of their employees
and individual customers pay the cost.
The latest wall-building exercise came earlier this month with
Treasury's temporary anti-inversion regulations and proposed
regulations aimed at earnings stripping. Of course, the
administration's anti-inversion approach is essentially the regulatory
equivalent of a doctor who wastes all of his time and energy treating a
patient's symptoms one by one as they arise without making any effort
to diagnose, let alone treat, the underlying illness.
Inversions are not in and of themselves a disease; they are merely
symptoms of a much broader illness that will continue to infect our
economy so long as we refuse to treat it. I won't keep you in suspense,
Mr. President. That illness is not a lack of proper regulation; it is
an overly burdensome tax system and an environment that is, on the
whole, unfriendly to American businesses.
U.S. companies don't move their tax headquarters offshore because
they like the weather in other countries. If that were the case, I
don't think so many of them would be moving to Ireland or the U.K. No.
American companies invert because they face global competition, and our
system forces them to compete on an uneven playing field with at least
one, if not both arms tied behind their back. For example, we have the
highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and we have a tax
code that effectively pays U.S.
[[Page S2370]]
multinationals to keep their foreign earnings offshore and punishes
them when they decide to bring capital back into the country. It is
these factors--not a lack of appropriate regulation by the government
or a shortage of ``economic patriotism'' on the part of American
businesses--that make foreign countries more attractive destinations
for American companies.
If we want to prevent future inversions, we should spend less time
tinkering around the regulatory edges and engaging in partisan rhetoric
and more time trying to find common ground to actually fix our Tax
Code.
For the record, it isn't just inversions that are the problem. As I
have noted repeatedly, even if the administration and Congress found a
way, through punitive and burdensome means, to block all inversions,
our tax system would still make American companies even more attractive
targets for foreign takeovers, which are every bit as problematic as
inversions, if not more so, and much harder to address through a purely
regulatory approach. Foreign takeovers are already a problem. According
to an Ernst and Young study released last year, the U.S. economy
suffered a net loss of $179 billion--with a ``b''--in business and
assets to foreign buyers in the decade between 2003 and 2013. The same
study also found that a reduced corporate tax rate would have greatly
reduced these losses, possibly eliminating them entirely.
Keep in mind that unlike most inversion transactions, U.S. management
is almost always fired after a foreign takeover. Other employees--local
service providers and suppliers--are often targeted for elimination as
well.
Sadly, many Democrats in Washington, both here in Congress and in the
administration, don't seem to grasp the full nature of this problem.
They talk a great deal about inversions and the need to prevent them.
Because the picture of a big American company moving offshore to escape
taxation is particularly distressing for populist audiences, they tend
to ramp up that talk and couple it with ideas on how to punish
inverters in even-numbered years. Yet they have taken precious little
action to fix the underlying problems that lead companies to want to
invert in the first place.
There was a glimmer of hope with the findings and recommendations of
the Finance Committee's bipartisan International Tax Reform Working
Group. However, as is far too often the case, that glimmer of hope may
very well be overtaken by the politics of the moment.
So instead of acknowledging that our tax system is the cause of the
inversion problem, my friends on the other side have generally opted to
put forward regulations that may very well be effective in curbing
inversions in the short term but will do nothing to improve business
conditions in the United States and could be in the order of causing
companies to sell themselves to foreign buyers, which is what is
happening.
Within days of the release of the Treasury's latest regulations,
Pfizer, a major American drug company, announced it was backing out of
its proposed inversion deal with Allergan. Many observers were quick to
credit the Obama administration for a supposed job well done while
Democratic candidates for President openly celebrated the fact that an
American company chose to subject itself to hundreds of millions of
dollars in losses and penalties in order to avoid even greater losses
as a result of these regulations.
That is the kind of world we are living in--one where there is a
willingness to demonize an iconic American company that employees tens
of thousands of American workers and to cheer when it suffers massive
losses. That is viewed as an affirmative qualification to be the
Democratic nominee for President.
Now, to be fair, I will acknowledge that, in addition to unveiling
the proposed anti-inversion measures, the Obama administration also
laid out a basic framework for corporate tax reform. Of course, this
framework, which closely resembles similar proposals the President has
included in past budgets, is woefully short on details. It is not a
reform proposal with any serious potential for bipartisanship nor one
with a detailed list of specific goals and objectives. It is more or
less just a vaguely worded wish list of tax ideas they would like to
see enacted at some point. The reaction from many sectors of the
business community, including from CEOs who more often than not support
my friends on the other side, proves the point.
We know, basically, that the President's version of international tax
reform consists of a one-time mandatory repatriation of foreign
earnings to be taxed at a rate designed not to maximize any benefit but
to hit a revenue target for increased spending--in other words, so they
can spend more money. This would be coupled with a high minimum tax on
foreign earnings, also designed specifically for increased spending,
not for significantly bringing down the statutory tax rate, which,
after all, is one of the few ways you can really help our American
companies.
Put simply, there is virtually nothing in the President's nebulous
tax reform framework that would discourage companies from moving
offshore. In fact, one could argue--and many have--that the President's
proposed high minimum tax on foreign earnings would actually encourage
more U.S. companies to invert.
For example, this past November, the vice president of global taxes
at Procter & Gamble, another iconic American company, was quoted as
saying: ``If we take a step towards a [minimum] tax at the corporate
level, we're exacerbating the problem; we're actually guaranteeing that
inversions are more attractive.''
On top of these new taxes, there is no real effort in the President's
tax framework to improve the business climate in the United States more
generally. After all these changes, the framework would still leave the
United States with a corporate tax that would be well above the average
in the developed world, leaving us right where we have been. In short,
this framework is par for the course with this administration.
We have heard quite a bit of blame thrown in Congress's direction for
not acting to prevent inversions. What we haven't heard is any serious
effort on the part of the President or anyone in his administration to
engage with Congress on meaningful tax reform. Like I said, the
President and his supporters are far more willing to assign blame for
the problems caused by our tax system than to actually work toward a
solution. This is particularly true in election years, when the motto
seems to be this: Why fix a problem when you can blame it on the other
side?
For my part, I am working to take specific steps to address these
problems. I have been the Republican leader on the Senate Committee on
Finance for about 4\1/2\ years now, and for 4\1/2\ years I have been
calling on my colleagues and imploring officials in the administration
to engage on tax reform. To date, I have seen little in the way of a
meaningful response.
Currently, I am working on a relatively simple but potentially
effective tax reform proposal that I believe will be bipartisan and
many believe would relieve a great deal of the inversion pressure on
American companies and, at the very least, significantly alter the
economic calculation for inversion transactions. Best of all, it would
do so without punishing companies or imposing burdensome mandates. In
short, my proposal would provide more carrots to keep companies from
inverting and fewer sticks to punish companies that try to go in that
direction.
While I am still working with the Joint Committee on Taxation to
finalize the details of this proposal, the basic idea behind my
proposal would be to streamline the taxation of business income and
eliminate instances in which profits and earnings are subject to
multiple layers of taxation at the company and shareholder levels.
I will have more to say on this proposal in the coming weeks. Today,
I am simply trying to counter the narrative that American companies can
and should be forced to remain in the United States by regulation. I am
trying to demonstrate that you cannot fix the inversion problem by
building a virtual wall around the country to keep businesses from
leaving, while at the same time keeping tax rates so high that they
have to leave to be able to compete.
I am trying to show why you can't build that wall expecting some
other
[[Page S2371]]
country to pay for it. Indeed, if an anti-inversion wall goes up
without any real changes to improve the tax and business environment in
the United States, it will be American workers and consumers that will
end up footing the bill.
What we are working on is corporate integration. Right now the work
we have done seems to be getting some positive feedback from the Joint
Taxation Committee, but they are not through with their work yet and so
we are going to wait until they are. They should be through by the end
of May, or at least that is what they have indicated will be their
target. Hopefully, they will have some preliminary results before the
end of May.
But let me say, if we are right on corporate integration, then both
parties should come together to resolve these problems so that we can
compete with any company anywhere in the world.
I can just say, in short, that this program we are devising will
allow the companies themselves to bring down their own tax rates
without worrying about what the wonderful Members of Congress are going
to do. At the same time, by bringing down those rates, they will be
able to help this economy to go forward.
So far this has been revenue positive. All we want for this program
is to be revenue neutral. But I think we can get there, and I hope my
friends on the other side will seriously look at this because this is
something we could do this year to help this country resolve its
problems with regard to corporate inversions. I believe it will work. I
believe it will work. But a lot will depend on the Joint Taxation
Committee, and we will see what they are doing. So far the work they
have done is positive. They have worked on it for a number of months
now. They want to cover every possible ramification, and we are very
appreciative of the work they are doing.
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. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I filed two amendments very important
to my home State of Florida that I want to discuss. The first is an
amendment that would authorize the Central Everglades Planning Project.
The Florida Everglades are a national treasure. We have to work
together to restore these lands.
The State has experienced a wetter-than-average winter. The rains
have elevated the levels of Lake Okeechobee which triggered the Army
Corps of Engineers to discharge billions of gallons of water to the
east through the St. Lucie River and to the west through the
Caloosahatchee River. These discharges have been ongoing for months and
have negatively impacted the delicate ecosystem in the area as well as
the agricultural and tourism industries.
In order to diminish these discharges, we must authorize the Central
Everglades Planning Project. Once complete, this project will allow
water to flow south from Lake Okeechobee to Everglades National Park
and to Florida Bay.
I had hoped this project would be authorized in 2014 by the
administration, but the administration delayed the Army Corps of
Engineers' Chief's report, which is the final step before Congress can
authorize new projects, but this year we have a real chance to get this
done. Thanks to the good work of Chairman Inhofe of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, I expect the Central Everglades Planning
Project to be included in the forthcoming water bill, which is slated
to be marked up in committee next week.
I will not ask for a vote on this amendment today, but I want to draw
attention to this essential Everglades restoration project. I am
hopeful this body can come together to restore our Everglades, but in
the meantime I will continue to push for this vital authorization.
Mr. President, the other amendment I filed today, cosponsored by
Senators Shelby, Nelson, and Sessions, also highlights the importance
of water management. The issue at hand there involves water that is
naturally supposed to flow south, but it has not done so due to the
Army Corps' actions in and around the State of Georgia.
The results of this mismanagement have led to a 2013 Department of
Commerce fishery disaster. It was declared for oysters in the
Apalachicola Bay. During that same year, Senator Nelson and I held a
field hearing in Apalachicola, where we heard from local fishermen
whose livelihoods and family traditions were injured by the collapse of
these fisheries.
While we must continue to explore ways to fish more sustainably, a
large part of the fisheries' collapse was the lack of freshwater flows.
I have long supported the role Governors play in water allocation when
the water in question greatly impacts multiple States. However, absent
such an agreement between Governors, water continues to be withheld,
and the situation has now become dire in my home State of Florida.
The bottom line is, the status quo is only working for one State. I,
along with the senior Senator from Florida and our colleagues from
Alabama, have stood lockstep to bring our respective States to the
table to finalize water allocations that will take into account our
shared goals.
Today we filed an amendment to do just that--to require the Governors
to agree on water allocation before the Army Corps of Engineers can
reallocate waters between the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
Basin and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin. The amendment also
stipulates no funds would be available for reallocation of water within
the States if an agreement between the Governors is not finalized. I
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure.
Eureka Gardens
Mr. President, on a different matter, I want to take this moment to
applaud the residents of Eureka Garden Apartments in Jacksonville, FL,
for coming together as a community during a time of hardship. While
they face dangerous living conditions and bureaucratic indifference to
their concerns, they have remained united and resilient.
The bottom line is, the Federal Government has failed them. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development has for years certified a
living facility that has put hundreds of families at risk. When HUD
inspected the property in question last summer, they passed the
apartment complex, and they passed it with flying colors. Eureka
Gardens received an 85 out of 100, but less than a month later,
residents were complaining at tenants' association meetings and to
their city council members about how bad their living conditions had
become.
When my staff visited the complex, what they witnessed was literally
unbelievable. They saw crumbling stairs and black mold. They saw
exposed electrical wiring that had been covered up by a trash bag. They
smelled the natural gas that would soon hospitalize residents just days
later.
That was and that is unacceptable. My office, along with Mayor Curry
of the city of Jacksonville and the city council and the tenants
association, pushed for months to have improvements and repairs done to
this complex. In February, HUD finally had a date by which all repairs
must be completed.
When they came back to reinspect Eureka Gardens, it passed the
inspection, and they eventually renewed their contract with the
property's owner, but the residents continued to say what they have
been saying all along--HUD's inspections weren't working.
Just recently, HUD revealed that Eureka Gardens passed with a score
of 62. The passing score is a 60. However, a senior HUD official
admitted that HUD officials do not believe the property would currently
pass another inspection. So HUD has just admitted it has certified a
failing facility. Something is clearly wrong with the HUD inspection
process and Floridians are being hurt because of it.
I would like to read part of an article from the Florida Times-Union,
which was published on Monday that quotes one of the residents at
Eureka Gardens.
Dwan Wilson, who said she has had to go to the hospital at
least six times with asthma issues since the mold
remediation, cried as she spoke about her apartments'
problems.
[[Page S2372]]
``We thank you all for what you're trying to do,'' Wilson
said. ``We thank you all for pushing. But we're telling you
they aren't doing anything.''
How many more years must the residents of Eureka Gardens suffer under
this mismanagement? How many more children have to be put at risk due
to lead poisoning and gas leaks? How many more facilities will HUD
continue to rubberstamp approval of only to further sell slumlike
conditions for the most vulnerable tenants? How many taxpayer dollars
will be wasted by this agency on failing projects such as this?
These are the questions HUD must answer. In the meantime, the
residents of Eureka Gardens are forced to deal with the consequences of
HUD's failures. I will continue to look for solutions to make sure what
has happened at Eureka Gardens isn't repeated elsewhere. Americans
deserve better from their government.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter I wrote to the Secretary of HUD, and it is dated April 18.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2016.
Hon. Secretary Julian Castro,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington,
DC.
Dear Secretary Castro: For over five months, my office has
been involved in the investigation of shocking health and
safety conditions at Eureka Garden Apartments (Eureka Garden)
in Jacksonville, Florida. It is appalling that American
taxpayer dollars have been wastefully spent over the years to
fund a facility that has repeatedly put hundreds of people
and their families at risk. I am writing to highlight these
many problems and to ask for the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct a thorough review of
its inspection process.
As you may know, following reports of code violations at
the Westside complex, my Jacksonville staff toured Eureka
Garden in early October 2015. They witnessed crumbling stairs
disguised with duct-tape and covered with apparent black
mold, faulty electric wiring covered with a garbage bag, and
a distinguishable natural gas odor being sucked from an
outdoor piping system into residents' air-conditioning, among
other obvious health and safety issues. HUD confirmed these
conditions in an inspection of the property in October 2015,
in which physical deficiencies were found in at least 340 of
the 400 units. According to HUD's own criteria, almost 50 of
those deficiencies represented ``Exigent Health and Safety
concerns,'' including mold, water damage, exposed wires,
carbon monoxide hazards and leaking gas pipes.
Despite these findings, just three months earlier in July
2015, HUD gave Eureka Garden Apartments an 85 out of 100
score in its Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) inspection.
Although many of the problems were witnessed during the
summer inspection, HUD representatives defended the passing
score to my staff in a meeting last October, saying they did
not contribute to the assessment of the property as they are
not relevant criteria under HUD's inspection process. Had it
not been for the residents calling attention to their dire
situation, the facility would not have been reviewed again
for another two years.
Your Department recently notified my office that the most
recent inspection of Eureka Garden gave the complex a REAC
score of 62 out 100, despite the many repairs that have been
completed since the last REAC inspection. This discrepancy
indicates something is clearly wrong with the REAC scores.
Your Department visited Eureka Garden again on March 17th and
18th and witnessed what my staff and the city of Jacksonville
has seen all along--Eureka Garden remains in poor condition.
After visiting Eureka Garden most recently, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing wrote in a letter
that ``HUD officials do not believe the property would
currently pass another REAC inspection.'' However, HUD's
protocol has placed enough confidence in the previous
inspection that it has renewed GMF's $6 million contract for
Eureka Garden. In doing so, HUD has knowingly certified a
substandard facility because of a faulty inspection process.
Your Department is ultimately responsible as the steward of
the taxpayer funding that supports this property. Therefore,
to address these concerns, I respectfully request a timely
response to the following questions:
With conditions at Eureka Garden going unidentified for so
long, what does HUD plan to do about reforming its inspection
process to identify problems earlier and to ensure passing
grades are not given to failing properties?
Will HUD explore a broader reform of inspection that
expands the role of and resources available for state and
local partners to regularly check the status of HUD-certified
facilities to ensure greater accountability?
Does the Department plan a re-inspection of the complex?
During this difficult time, I am proud of the Eureka Garden
community for standing up and coming together on behalf of
their vulnerable neighbors. This community has demonstrated
great strength by collectively voicing their concerns and
showing resiliency in the face of bureaucratic indifference
and property mismanagement. It is time they are given the
respect and quality of life they so deserve after waiting far
too long for critical improvements to be made at Eureka
Garden.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and continued
work on this issue. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Marco Rubio,
U.S. Senator.
Calling for the Release of Raif Badawi and Waleed Abulkhair
Mr. President, one last item I want to discuss today, and I think it
is appropriate, given where the President finds himself at this moment
in Saudi Arabia. It is regarding a letter I sent earlier this week,
along with Senators Durbin, Risch, Leahy, and Johnson to President
Obama asking him to raise human rights issues during his meetings in
Saudi Arabia--in particular, the case of Raif Badawi and his lawyer
Waleed Abulkhair. Raif Badawi is a Saudi blogger. He was arrested in
2012 on the charge of insulting Islam and indicted on several charges,
including apostasy. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000
lashes.
In January of 2015, Raif received his first set of 50 lashes in
public. This resulted in an international outcry. Raif's subsequent
lashes have been postponed. They have been postponed on health grounds.
They have been postponed because just the first 50 lashes were so
brutal, there were doubts whether he would survive 50 more, but he
continues to serve his sentence in prison.
Last week I met with Raif's wife to discuss his case. Raif and his
lawyer should be immediately and unconditionally released. While I
deeply value and think it is a very important alliance between the
United States and Saudi Arabia, this alliance cannot allow our country
to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. I hope we will take up this
cause.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record our letter,
dated April 19, 2016, that we wrote to the President.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, April 19, 2016.
Hon. Barack Obama,
The President, The White House
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: As you prepare for your upcoming trip
to Saudi Arabia, we are writing to express concern regarding
the Government of Saudi Arabia's continued treatment of human
rights advocates, particularly the documented prosecutions of
non-violent activists who are engaging in freedom of
expression. Intolerance for freedom of speech and the
imposition of travel bans and lengthy prison terms for
peaceful dissidents harm Saudi Arabia's reputation
internationally and stifle Saudi innovation and creativity.
We are concerned that unless you make these issues a priority
during your trip, human rights abuses will continue to occur
with impunity and the full potential of the U.S.-Saudi
relationship will continue to be impeded.
Specifically, we request you raise the case of blogger Raif
Badawi, who was sentenced to 10 years in jail and 1,000
lashes for launching a website that suggested a peaceful
discussion about religion. Mr. Badawi endured a first round
of 50 lashes in January of 2015 but the remainder of his
lashes has been postponed due to his health condition. During
his unjust imprisonment, Mr. Badawi has been a recipient of
prestigious international awards such as the Sakharov Prize
for Freedom of Thought. We are also concerned for the case of
Mr. Badawi's lawyer, prominent human rights activist Waleed
Abu al-Khair, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Additionally, we are concerned about the 2014 travel ban
placed on Mr. Badawi's sister Samar Badawi, for her activism
defending human rights. In 2012, Ms. Badawi received the U.S.
State Department's International Women of Courage Award. In
recent months, Ms. Badawi has been called in for questioning
by security forces on several occasions and is subject to
ongoing harassment.
In your meeting with King Salman, we urge you to advocate
for the immediate and unconditional release of Raif Badawi
and Waleed Abu al-Khair. Additionally, we urge you to request
that Ms. Badawi's travel ban be lifted and ensure that she is
not harassed further for her work. This is an important time
for Saudi Arabia to play a leadership role in the region and
the world by setting an example of religious tolerance and
civility.
We value the United States and Saudi Arabia close
partnership and support efforts to
[[Page S2373]]
find common approaches to addressing such critical issues as
combating terrorism. However, true partners need to be able
to have a frank dialogue about disagreements and areas of
concern in our relationship. It is thus essential that the
United States does not turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's
human rights abuses.
Sincerely,
Marco Rubio.
James E. Risch.
Ron Johnson.
Richard J. Durbin.
Patrick Leahy.
Mr. RUBIO. 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. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Energy Policy Modernization Bill
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the bipartisan
Energy Policy Modernization Act, which passed the Senate yesterday with
my strong support. This bill will help improve the energy efficiency of
our buildings and appliances, saving Michiganders money on their
heating and electric bills by incentivizing weatherization and other
activities. Many of these cutting-edge building efficiency
technologies, such as insulation and window sealing, are designed and
developed in my great State of Michigan.
The bill also included a number of conservation provisions that will
not only protect our environment, but they will boost our economy by
supporting the $646 billion outdoor recreation industry. Permanent
authorizations of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
reauthorization of the North American Wetland Conservation Act are just
two examples that will protect wildlife habitat and improve access to
public lands for all kinds of outdoor recreation.
Mr. President, I would also like to take a moment to focus on a
bipartisan provision that I authored with my colleagues Senator
Stabenow and Senator Alexander, the Vehicle Innovation Act. This
legislation will provide the tools that researchers, engineers,
manufacturers, and others need to create the next generation of cars
and trucks built in Michigan and in States all across our country.
Southeast Michigan is home to more engineers per capita than anywhere
else in the country. We must ensure that our automakers, part
suppliers, and other advanced manufacturers have the right tools to
develop and incorporate new vehicle innovations that will improve
safety, innovation, and vehicle performance in the cars and trucks of
the future.
Exciting innovations are already underway. Cars and trucks are being
made with high-strength, light-weight materials that can improve fuel
economy without compromising safety. Improved combustion technologies
can increase the efficiency of traditional engines while decreasing
emissions. Researchers are making batteries more affordable and
recyclable while enhancing battery range and performance, making
hybrids and electric vehicles even more competitive.
The Department of Energy's Vehicle Technologies Program is leading
this effort, working with a wide range of partners, manufacturers,
material suppliers, universities, energy suppliers, and our National
Laboratories. The Department of Energy's vehicle technology activities
are authorized by a patchwork of different laws, and these authorities
were last renewed almost a decade ago. A lot has changed in that time.
Vehicles today are wired with cutting-edge electronics and sensors.
While my favorite part of Detroit cars and trucks remains horsepower
and torque, advances in onboard computers and new technologies are
making our cars safer, more efficient, and more competitive globally.
The Peters-Alexander-Stabenow Vehicle Innovation Act provides for a
steady increase in funding for critical DOE programs through the year
2020. This will create more certainty for companies and entrepreneurs
engaged in public-private partnerships and ensure that critical
research and development can keep up as technologies continue to
emerge.
Our bill also establishes a clean authorization for DOE's advanced
vehicle technology activities. This will improve collaboration with
light-duty automobile and medium- and heavy-duty commercial truck
engineers, manufacturers, and suppliers to conduct cutting-edge
technology-neutral research that will improve fuel economy and minimize
fossil fuel use.
With over 256 million vehicles on our roads, it takes decades of
sustained effort to turn over our fleet. It is absolutely critical that
we continue developing these advanced technologies here in the United
States in order to achieve major fuel savings in the future and become
truly energy independent.
The Vehicle Innovation Act has support from major manufacturers,
labor, and environmental groups. This is something that just makes
sense. I appreciate the support of Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and
all my colleagues who supported including this legislation in the
bipartisan energy package. While I was pleased to see this commonsense
measure included, I continue to be frustrated and disappointed that
this body has held up an up-or-down vote on a bipartisan package
authored by Senator Stabenow and me to help the people of Flint, MI.
Flint is still in crisis mode as families still do not have safe,
reliable water flowing from their taps. Senator Stabenow and I will
continue pursuing all paths to fight for the assistance that the people
of Flint deserve. We will not give up. We remain fully committed to
delivering to Flint families the assistance they need to be able to use
their tap water for bathing, cooking, and drinking without the fear
that it may harm them or their children.
I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are
willing and able to join us in our efforts to help Flint. I urge them
to continue working with us to pass this package through the Senate as
soon as possible. The people of Flint cannot wait any longer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Judiciary Committee Investigations
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to take this time to respond to
Senator Reid's juvenile attacks on my Judiciary Committee's
investigations and to Senator Reid's frequent crying about my previous
State Department holds.
Over the past several months, Senator Reid has been obsessed with
mentioning holds on nominees--holds which I no longer have. Holds are
often necessary to force the executive branch to comply with
congressional investigations. If you want proof of that, just ask the
Obama administration. In a Federal court filing during the Fast and
Furious litigation, the Obama administration argued that the court
should not even consider that particular case. The Justice Department's
brief said courts should not enforce subpoenas at all. Instead, the
Justice Department reasoned that Congress should use other powers to
get documents.
Here is exactly what the government brief said: ``Among other powers,
Congress can withhold funds from the Executive Branch, override vetoes,
decline to enact legislation, refuse to act on nominations, and
adjourn.'' Later in the brief, the Obama administration specifically
suggested that Congress can ``tie up nominations'' in order to get
documents.
If the administration can say that, why would Senator Reid think that
is a wrong act for Congress to take? It is this simple: If the minority
leader doesn't like Senators using holds to get documents from
agencies, perhaps Senator Reid should talk to his friends in the Obama
administration who suggested that in the first place.
In addition, Senator Reid shows his hypocrisy since Members on his
own side have held up Obama nominees, and Senator Reid never said a
peep about Democrats exercising their rights. Further, Senator Reid's
attempts to politicize the Judiciary Committee's oversight work are
very uninformed and result in misguided statements, and Senator Reid's
accusation that taxpayer money is being wasted by engaging in oversight
of the executive branch rings hollow.
Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server and private email
arrangements effectively walled off her official communications from
the normal Freedom
[[Page S2374]]
of Information Act and other Federal recordkeeping requirements. So to
Senator Reid, I say: The Freedom of Information Act is squarely within
the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and subject to oversight.
The former Secretary's use of a secret, private server to conduct all
of her official business led to an avalanche of Freedom of Information
Act litigation. It also caused inaccurate responses to Freedom of
Information Act requests. For example, in December 2012, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of
Information Act request for records of Secretary Clinton's email
addresses. The Department responded by stating: ``No records responsive
to your request were located.'' That response is very misleading, at
best. Senior Department officials knew about Secretary Clinton's use of
private email for official correspondence since they were sending
emails to her nongovernment email address. They would have known
instantly of records responsive to that request that the Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted. Yet those senior
officials apparently failed to communicate with the State Department's
Freedom of Information Act office. Even then, if State's FOIA office
were to search Secretary Clinton's government email account, they would
find nothing since she operated a private account not subject to
freedom of information.
Separate from her email address, Secretary Clinton's nongovernment
server was a secret to high-level officials at the State Department who
were responsible for information technology and security.
These officials had no idea the Secretary was operating a separate
unofficial system. She did not get their approval to do so, so how
would they know?
The Judiciary Committee has interviewed the Chief Information
Officer, the former Chief Information Officer, the former Deputy Chief
Information Officer, and the Director of Diplomatic Security at the
State Department. The Chief Information Officers oversaw the work of
the information technology staffer who Secretary Clinton secretly paid
to maintain her nonpublic server, yet all of these people knew nothing
about that nonpublic server. That staffer didn't ask permission to have
outside employment. While working at the State Department, he didn't
disclose his outside income on his financial disclosure forms. Now,
think about that. Officials whose job it is to know were kept in the
dark about this ``home brew'' email server. If a government agency
hopes to be transparent with the American people--and that is the point
behind the Freedom of Information Act legislation--it must first be
transparent with itself.
Now we know that highly classified material was transmitted to and
stored on Secretary Clinton's secret server. What is important about
that is this is an issue of national security.
State Department diplomatic security personnel have informed the
Judiciary Committee that they were unaware of Secretary Clinton's using
a nongovernment server for official business. So how, then, could they
possibly secure it from security threats?
Now, the FBI is investigating this matter as well as several other
investigations. We keep hearing that the FBI's inquiry is just a
security review and not a criminal inquiry. So let me tackle that.
However, one witness asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination rather than answer questions about his work on Secretary
Clinton's secret server. And he is relying on the Fifth Amendment to
withhold his personal emails as well. Recently, the Department of
Justice granted him immunity. So, quite naturally, we are searching for
other ways to get information before deciding whether it might be
appropriate to seek an immunity order for his testimony.
Now, to Senator Reid: These are legitimate oversight inquiries for
the Judiciary Committee.
Further, Secretary Clinton did not turn over all of her official
emails. Emails between GEN David Petraeus and Secretary Clinton, which
Secretary Clinton failed to provide to the State Department, were later
turned over to the Defense Department. Secretary Clinton also failed to
turn over emails with Sydney Blumenthal, whom Secretary Clinton views
as an off-the-books intelligence resource, while Secretary of State.
If Secretary Clinton had used a government email address for official
emails, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
So how many more official emails were not turned over but should have
been? The Judiciary Committee cannot ignore these important issues
simply because the former Secretary decided to run for President. And
to be perfectly clear, I started this investigation before Secretary
Clinton announced her candidacy.
Senator Reid suggested that the committee's work on these issues is a
waste of money. Senator Reid, that is nonsense. Congressional oversight
is not a waste of money; it is a constitutional responsibility. The
minority leader fails to understand that Congress is obligated to
oversee that the executive branch of government faithfully executes the
laws and faithfully spends the money the way Congress intended. Without
such constitutional oversight, Congress will not know if there are
failures in the executive branch's duty to faithfully execute the laws
that we pass.
But do my colleagues know what is a real waste of money? This
administration fought tooth and nail in the courts against Congress for
more than 4 years. Why? Just to avoid disclosing documents in the Fast
and Furious scandal that they eventually turned over. That is a waste
of money--a 4-year waste of money.
The Obama administration has fought against the press and watchdog
organizations for years in the Freedom of Information Act litigation
over former Secretary Clinton's email records.
Senator Reid, that is a waste of money.
It is shocking that the Obama Justice Department devotes so much
taxpayer resources to avoiding the very transparency that President
Obama promised on January 21, 2009--1 day into office. This
administration was going to be the most transparent in the history of
the entire country, and it has turned out to be the most stonewalling.
None of that would be necessary if the administration would just comply
with congressional subpoenas and the Freedom of Information Act. That
is the way to save money.
By the way, I would like to ask how much taxpayers' money does
Senator Reid spend having his staff write daily speeches trying to
undermine the work of the Judiciary Committee.
Senator Reid also fails to understand that we are not only focused on
Secretary Clinton. The committee is conducting dozens of investigations
on a broad range of issues under the jurisdiction of the committee.
Some of the executive branch agencies have complained about the
amount of oversight work the committee does on other matters. To
justify my statements for this part of my remarks, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record two letters. The first is from
the Department of Homeland Security, and the second is from the
Department of Justice.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2015.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grassley: Since I became Secretary of
Homeland Secretary almost two years ago, I have worked to
make the Department more responsive to congressional
correspondence, directives, request for reports, briefings
and hearings, and other requests for documents and
information. Given that some 108 committees and subcommittees
of Congress (depending on how you count) assert oversight
jurisdiction over this Department, this is a full-time, time
consuming task. We have also participated in about 100
hearings and over 2000 non-hearing engagements with
Congressional members and staff since the beginning of the
114th Congress. Members on both sides of the aisle have
acknowledged our increased responsiveness.
So far in 2015, I have received 46 letters from you alone--
almost one per week. I know because I read them all. Many of
these letters request reams of information, data, and
documents that take hundreds of hours and dozens of staff to
compile. We work diligently to respond to your letters
promptly, but there is a huge cost to this.
[[Page S2375]]
Senator, I ask for your help in focusing and prioritizing
these oversight letters. I want to continue to be responsive
to your requests, and I want to do so as quickly as possible.
At the same time, I must ensure that my staff remains focused
on all our other priorities.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss with you.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, September 18, 2015.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letters to the
Attorney General, dated June 12, 2015, July 10, 2015, August
13, 2015, September 14, 2015, and September 15, 2015,
regarding the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
The Department of Justice (the Department) has provided
responses in our letters of August 14, 2015, August 25, 2015,
and September 11, 2015. As noted in those letters and
discussed with your staff, we continue to collect and review
information, including the information noted in your letters,
so we may provide a complete and thorough response to all of
your inquiries as expeditiously as possible. We will continue
to keep an open line of communication with your staff as we
work toward additional responses to your questions. The
Department takes these issues seriously, and we thank you for
bringing them to our attention.
As you know, this year the Department has received from
your office almost 100 letters containing more than 825
questions and document requests, including the five letters
received to date on this matter. While we have made and will
continue to make all reasonable efforts to meet your stated
deadlines, our ability to respond in a timely manner to your
inquiries is impacted by the significant volume of letters we
receive.
We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate
to contact this office if we may provide additional
assistance regarding this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Kadzik,
Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, both of the letters note the many dozen
letters and hundreds of requests that I have sent, and both essentially
complain about the volume of our investigation and requests for
information.
The Judiciary Committee is hard at work doing the people's business,
and the committee is doing much more than just oversight. The committee
has reported 16 executive nominees and 37 judicial nominees. It has
processed 27 bipartisan bills out of committee, and every bill that has
come out of committee is a bipartisan bill. Eighteen of those bills
were passed out of the Senate over to the House, eight of which have
been signed into law by the President.
Just last week, the committee unanimously adopted bipartisan
legislation to finally protect FBI whistleblowers who report wrongdoing
to their supervisors and provide for independent review of FBI
whistleblower cases for the first time.
So reviewing that record, it seems to me we can ask Senator Reid to
justify his claim that this committee is partisan.
The committee concluded an investigation into the abuse and misuse of
paid administrative leave. The committee took the results and worked
hard with Members on both sides of the aisle to actually fix that
problem.
In February, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
approved the bipartisan, commonsense reforms in the Administrative
Leave Act of 2016. Similarly, the committee has worked with Democrats
and Republicans alike to overturn an Office of Legal Counsel opinion
that allows the agencies across government to stonewall their
inspectors general.
Now let me tell my colleagues how Senator Reid is involved in
stonewalling that effort. We came up with a legislative solution called
the IG Empowerment Act and attempted to pass it in December by a live
unanimous consent request. But Senator Reid objected to the bill even
though it is supported by seven Members of his own caucus and supported
by the New York Times editorial board and a host of civil liberties and
good-government groups. Even the largest circulating daily newspaper in
the home State of Senator Reid urged him to work with us on a
compromise. But rather than engaging us in a productive and civil
manner, Senator Reid publicly slandered the bill as a legislative
overreach. He claimed that he was concerned about a provision that
allowed inspectors general to issue testimonial subpoenas to fight
waste, fraud, and abuse.
In fact, Senator Reid voted--Senator Reid actually voted--to give the
exact same authority to the Office of Special Counsel in 1989. That
1989 bill passed the Senate unanimously and is now law.
Senator Reid, was that legislative overreach when you did it?
Like that bill, the IG Empowerment Act has near unanimous support and
is designed to root out wrongdoing from government, while ensuring
proper safeguards of the use of subpoenas. So there is no reason to
object to this bill on policy grounds. Yet Senator Reid stands in the
way of getting that done.
The Judiciary Committee will continue its work. I say that to just
one Senator: Senator Reid. And during the course of my oversight work,
I will use every tool at my disposal to obtain answers for the American
people.
So, Senator Reid, I will keep faith with my oath of office and ``we
the people.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Oklahoma City Bombing Anniversary and Nomination of Merrick Garland
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, 21 years ago this week, the families of
168 people--19 of those 168 people children--received some of the worst
news of their lives. That news was that a beloved member of each of
their families had been killed in the bombing of the Federal building
in Oklahoma City.
We all watched the news that day, that night, the next day, and that
week and beyond, as we took in the devastation caused by that blast.
That horrible crime was carried out by a radical, anti-government
extremist. It remains the deadliest act of homegrown terrorism in our
Nation's history.
For the families who lost a loved one that day in 1995, there is no
way to fill the void left by a life taken too soon, but I know that our
government's pursuit of justice for the lives lost that day serve as a
small source of comfort for the people who were left in mourning.
At the time of that heinous crime, Judge Merrick Garland, President
Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, was the
Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of
Justice. He immediately flew to Oklahoma City to lead the criminal
investigation and supervise the prosecution of the bombers. In fact, he
insisted on being sent. He didn't just volunteer. He didn't just say:
Well, OK, I will go. He told his supervisors they had to let him go. He
was the highest ranking Justice Department official on the ground in
Oklahoma City following the bombing. He helped oversee every aspect of
the investigation and the subsequent trial. His colleagues at the time
have attested to Judge Garland's commitment to following the letter of
the law in every aspect of that investigation. He refused to take any
shortcuts that could somehow compromise the integrity of the case that
he and his team were building. Through their tireless efforts, his
tireless leadership, his deep understanding of the law, and scrupulous
attention to detail, Judge Garland ensured the prosecution had an
airtight case.
Ultimately, both bombers were convicted, giving the families of the
168 victims not their sons, their daughters, their children, their moms
or dads back again, but at least providing a small measure of
vindication for the losses they had incurred.
Judge Garland's work was so appreciated by the families and friends
of those victims 21 years ago that last year, on the 20th anniversary
of the bombing, the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum awarded
Judge Garland its annual Reflections of Hope distinction--not the year
after the bombing but 20 years after the bombing.
Judge Garland has established an unparalleled reputation as a
brilliant, dedicated prosecutor and jurist. He has received strong
bipartisan support in the legal community, including from Alberto
Gonzales, the former U.S. Attorney General and White House Counsel in
the administration of President George W. Bush. So today it is not just
discouraging that most of my Republican colleagues are refusing to
consider Judge Garland's nomination to serve on our highest Court;
personally, I believe it is outrageous.
[[Page S2376]]
I served for 8 years as Governor of Delaware, a State that is
renowned for its own courts--supreme court, court of chancery, superior
court--courts that play a national role, not just on a State level. As
Governor of my State for 8 years, I nominated men and women to serve on
those courts. In every one of those nominations there were hearings
held, whether they were Democrat or Republican. I think during that
period of time I nominated an equal number of Democrats and Republicans
to the judiciary. That is the constitution of our State, and, frankly,
that is a great example because in Delaware we have one of the highest
regarded judiciaries.
My obligation as Governor was to nominate outstanding candidates for
these judgeships as they became vacant. The role of the State Senate in
Delaware was to consider them. They never waited a year and left a seat
vacant for a year awaiting the end of my time as Governor or any other
Governor's time. That would never happen. We wouldn't waste 10 months.
State senators in our State wouldn't wait 10 weeks. They did their
jobs. They did their jobs.
We are not doing ours, and we need to. The fact that we haven't is
outrageous. When we elect Presidents to this country, we elect them for
4 years, and if they are reelected, then it is for another 4 years.
They are not Presidents for 3 years and 11 months; they are not elected
to a term of 3 years and 10 months. We elect them to a term of 4 years.
They need to be on the job for 4 years.
Our President is doing what he is supposed to do, and that is sending
us the names of exceptional people who serve in incredibly important
positions like the Supreme Court. He has done his job.
I very much want to do mine, and I want to be joined by Democrats and
Republicans in doing our jobs. Every Member of this body has taken at
least one oath to uphold the Constitution--some of us, many times over.
At 17 years old, not much older than the young interns who are
sitting here in the Chamber, I took my first oath as a midshipman. I
was a freshman at the Ohio State Navy ROTC, where I was privileged to
go on a Navy scholarship. Four years later, I took another oath and
raised my right hand as an ensign in the Navy. I took an oath to defend
the Constitution and the country and headed to Pensacola, FL, to become
a naval flight officer right in the middle of the Vietnam war. I ended
up serving three tours over there during that conflict.
As a Congressman, I took an oath to defend the country and
Constitution. As Governor, I also took a similar oath to defend our
country's Constitution--at least to defend our State's constitution.
Then, as a U.S. Senator I have taken an oath any number of times.
I am regarded by my colleagues as one of the least partisan people
here, but I think the refusal of the majority to even consider this
nomination is more than an abdication of our responsibility. I believe
it is an example of playing politics with the very Constitution we have
sworn to uphold.
For those who don't know, Delaware is known as the First State. We
are known as the First State because on December 7, 1787, before any
other State had ratified the Constitution, we did. I joke with people
that for 1 week Delaware was the entire United States of America. We
opened things up and let in Maryland; we let in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey and eventually Louisiana--even Iowa. I think for the most part
it has turned out pretty well, but the idea of playing politics with
the Constitution that we have sworn to uphold is deeply troubling to
me. I hope that is not what is going on here, but I fear that it is.
The right and just way to proceed is to begin consideration of Judge
Garland's nomination, not next month and not some other year, but now--
first in committee and then on the Senate floor.
We have something we call the Delaware way. We are focused on the
three C's--communicate, compromise, and collaborate. That is a good
example for 49 other States, and I think it is a good example right
here. After all, we have been sent by the people to this hallowed
place, this Senate Chamber, to put democracy into action, to protect
liberty and to protect justice for all.
Nearly 50 years ago, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a
conservative--I believe he was from California and was appointed or
nominated by Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican. Former Chief Justice
Warren Burger said, ``A sense of confidence in the courts is essential
to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people.''
He went on to say that ``inefficiency and delay will drain even a
just judgment of its value.'' I think the shorthand version of that is
justice delayed is justice denied. Justice delayed is justice denied.
By dragging our feet and trying to get into a new Congress, maybe with
a new President--certainly, with a new President--that is delaying
justice, I believe.
In the face of the prospect of any number of potentially 4-to-4
divided verdicts in the Supreme Court with only eight members, we
cannot just stand aside and let that happen.
Justice Burger was right when he said those words all those years
ago, and he is right today.
Mr. President, I think it is time to stop this delay. It is time for
us to serve the people. It is time for us to deliver justice.
It is time for us to give this President's nominee the consideration
demanded of us by the Constitution, which we are sworn to uphold.
Mr. President, I see no colleague seeking recognition, and with that
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.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Prince
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to
speak of the loss of the one of Minnesota's own, and that is Prince.
Like all Minnesotans, today we were shocked and saddened. I grew up
with Prince's music, starting with ``Little Red Corvette'' in the
seventies and eighties. We won't forget ``Purple Rain'' in Minnesota.
We were so proud of that movie, and everyone would point at every spot
in the movie they knew from growing up.
He was a superstar, composer, amazing performer, and a music
innovator with a fierce belief in the independence of his art. He lived
his art. He believed his words were his own, his name was his own, and
he wasn't going to let anyone own him. There was absolutely nobody like
him, and there never will be.
Prince sold more than 100 million records worldwide. He released 39
studio albums. He had five No. 1 Billboard hits and 40 in the top 100.
He won seven Grammys, an Oscar, and a Golden Globe. He was inducted
into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2004, the first year he was
eligible.
But even with all that success, even with all that fame, Minnesota
never lost that sense that he was a beloved son--our neighbor, the
superstar next door. I was always so proud to say: ``Prince--you know
he's from Minnesota.'' He was born there, and he still lives there.
The fact that Prince was a proud native of my State came through in
all of his music. He pioneered the Minneapolis sound--that mixture of
funk, rock, and pop that emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s and
influenced music for decades to come. Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, Janet
Jackson, Bruno Mars, Mark Ronson, Justin Timberlake, The Weeknd,
Beyonce--these are just some of the many artists who were influenced by
that sound.
But that sound didn't just influence artists, it influenced everyone
who heard it. Prince's music touched our hearts, opened our minds, and
made us want to dance. That is his legacy, and that is what we will
always remember.
Prince made ``Purple Rain'' a household name. Like most Minnesotans,
I remember the first time I listened to that album. It was, as his band
was then called, a revolution. It changed music forever and is
considered among the best in music history.
Two of the songs on that album--``When Doves Cry,'' which is
especially notable because he plays all of the instruments in the song,
and ``Let's Go Crazy''--rose to the top of the charts.
[[Page S2377]]
``Let's Go Crazy'' includes a lesson important to remember on days like
today. There is a world waiting for us after this life, Prince sang,
``a world of never ending happiness, where you can always see the sun,
day or night.'' I know that today all of us hope Prince is standing in
that Sun.
Prince sang that song at First Avenue--the venue in downtown
Minneapolis--when he introduced his band to the city in 1983. There,
too, Prince shot some of the scenes for his classic ``Purple Rain''
film. Today the club is a landmark and a must-play venue for some of
the best artists. I personally stood in Prince's dressing room
surrounded by pictures of him. The building is covered in stars with
the names of artists who have performed there, and there will always be
one star that will shine the brightest, and that is the man who made it
the landmark it is--Prince.
Minnesota loves Prince, and Prince loved Minnesota. He was born in
Minneapolis. He went to Central High School, where he played piano and
guitar for a band called Grand Central. He recorded his early demo
tapes with Chris Moon and at Sound 80 Studios in Minneapolis.
Throughout his life, he called Minnesota home. He wrote a song about
the Minnesota Vikings--he was always a big fan--appropriately titled
``Purple and Gold.''
At the end of last year when the Minnesota Lynx--our women's
basketball team--won the WNBA championship, he held a concert at his
recording studio, Paisley Park, for local fans, who got to enjoy his
music well into the night. Just a few days ago, he hosted a dance party
there and made a brief appearance. In some way, it was his last gift to
our State. But his best and lasting gift? His music, his innovation,
his energy.
When accepting BET's Lifetime Achievement Award, Prince said:
The future's in your hands now. And the world really is
yours.
Well, that world is a whole lot cooler because Prince was in it, and
it is a whole lot sadder today now that he is gone.
My heart goes out to his friends and family and to all who mourn his
loss today. We will miss the artist Prince.
I yield the floor.
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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Paris Climate Agreement
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am on the floor I guess just a few
moments ahead of the ranking member of our Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, my friend Ben Cardin, who is on his way but has authorized
me to proceed with a few remarks on the topic that he and I, and
perhaps others, would like to address, which is tomorrow's signing in
New York of the Paris climate agreement.
Over 160 nations around the world are going to be participating in
signing that agreement that will move many of them immediately into
their program of compliance and signify for others a statement of
intention to join. I think it is the largest international agreement,
in terms of the number of countries involved, ever, certainly the
biggest one I can think of. So it is very significant in that respect.
One other thing about Paris that I think was also very significant is
what took place in America's corporate sector in support of a strong
Paris Agreement. The President and groups like Ceres, with particular
leadership from companies like Unilever, got together and created a
remarkable American corporate coalition with more than 150 companies,
including ones like Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, Ford and GM,
Nike, and VF industries, General Mills, Cargill, Apple, Google--a
terrific coalition; kind of the who's who of corporate America. They
got together to urge the countries of the world to be bold in Paris, to
have it be a strong agreement, and to show their support for an
international program to address climate change, which I think is
terrific.
The distinguished junior Senator from Louisiana is presiding, and I
can't think off the top of my head what Louisiana-based companies are
part of that coalition, but certainly companies that are based in
virtually every State we represent in the Senate--major companies:
Walmart, for instance, out of Arkansas; Coca-Cola, out of Georgia; VF
industries, out of North Carolina; some of our biggest electric
utilities; the bulk of the property casualty insurance and reinsurance
industry. It is very significant that America's corporate community
came so strongly together. I hope very much that is a message that not
only resonated in Paris but that will resonate in Congress as well
because I would bet that every single one of us have a significant home
State corporation that has signed that pledge, and some of us will have
many significant home State corporations that will have signed that
pledge.
So when you have gotten to the point where the leadership of
America's corporate community has signed on to the fact that something
needs to be done and that America ought to lead--that is our role in
the world--that will begin more and more to have an effect in this body
to counter some of the nonsense and mischief that a very small slice in
the fossil fuel industry has been propagating at the expense of the
broader American corporate community, which, by and large, has been
pretty outstanding on this.
Let me also mention one other thing that has happened just this
afternoon, which I am very encouraged by; that is, an amendment that
has been filed by 10 Senators--bipartisan, 5 and 5. It is the Graham-
Whitehouse amendment. The cosponsors on the Republican side are
Senators Graham, Kirk, Ayotte, Collins, and Portman. On the Democratic
side, they are Whitehouse, Merkley, Schatz, Markey, and Brown.
The amendment reads: Climate change is real, and human activity
contributes to climate change. Climate change is already affecting the
American people and poses an increasing risk to our health, security,
economy, and infrastructure. Over 180 nations, including China, India,
and Brazil, have made commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
that contribute to climate change, creating opportunities for American
workers and innovative private industry benefits from global clean
energy markets. Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that the
United States should be a world leader in addressing climate change;
that Congress is best positioned to address policies that leave a
prosperous economy and healthy environment for future generations; that
Congress has a responsibility to take actions that reduce emissions and
combat climate change; and, finally, that Congress should support
research and development to bolster clean energy technology.
In that latter regard, let me note the Mission Innovation Initiative
that has come out of Secretary Moniz's Department of Energy and out of
a significant group of major investors around the world. The deal
basically is that countries involved will try to double our clean
energy R&D, and in return these major investors from around the world,
led by Bill Gates, will set up a significant fund that will take the
emerging technologies that early R&D can discover and bring them
through the various early investment stages of what investors and
startup folks call the valleys of death on the way to becoming a
sustainable company so those technologies can be brought forward on an
accelerated basis.
So when you look at Paris, you not only see this enormous array of
nations coming together in a common cause, you see right behind it
virtually the entirety of the leadership of America's corporate sector
coming right in with it and saying: This is what we want. This is what
we encourage. We want it to be strong. You have the biggest investors
in the world, most of them coming together and saying: We are going to
have your back with investment into new types of clean energy funding.
And then you have the governments of the world not only signing up
for--not all of them but the ones participating in Mission Innovation--
signing up, in addition to the treaty, for this commitment to increase
R&D and press innovation in this space forward.
So for all those reasons and more, tomorrow is a good news day for
our country. It is a good news day for
[[Page S2378]]
progress and innovation, it is a good news day for the enormous array
of American corporate leaders who have supported and cheered on this
particular occasion, and I think it is an occasion for pride on the
part of the United States of America that the signing will be taking
place in the United States in New York, that Secretary Kerry will be
attending, that the Chinese leader will be attending, and that people
from all around the world will be there not only recognizing the need
to do this but recognizing America's leadership in getting us to this
place.
I will close with a personal note of appreciation for a gentleman
named Todd Stern. Todd was the climate negotiator for the Department of
State for many years, and some of those were rather bleak years in
which the United States was not showing leadership. So Todd had to hang
in there and endure that frustration and keep his candle of faith
burning until the day came when we finally began to kick in at last.
His role was very important in getting us prepared for and through the
Paris Agreement. He is retiring and has served his country well. So I
will close with a word of good will for that particular public servant
who has done right by his duty and done right by his country.
With that, I yield the floor, and with any luck, we can await the
arrival of Senator Cardin in due course.
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. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Prince
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks today regarding
climate change, I wish to say a few words about a Minnesota icon who
passed away today.
Prince was a phenomenal artist who was beloved by people all over the
world, but as Minnesotans, we are particularly proud to call him one of
our own.
Prince got his start in a Minneapolis jazz band and went on to share
his talent throughout Minnesota and all over the globe. His artistry,
his innovation, and his unparalleled presence inspired and will
continue to inspire millions of people. In Minneapolis, he put one of
our most cherished venues, First Avenue, on the map. Up until just a
few days ago, he was still performing, having held a concert in
Atlanta. He is truly going to be missed.
Someone once said: A brain isn't a mind, and a mind isn't a soul, and
that is why we need the artists.
I think the outpouring of appreciation we are seeing today for Prince
has to do with that unique role artists play, and it speaks to the
importance of the arts and to human beings.
Paris Climate Agreement
Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in celebrating the
official signing of the Paris climate agreement.
Tomorrow, more than 160 countries will send representatives to New
York to sign onto this historic agreement. This gathering is set to
become the most well-attended signing event in the history of the
United Nations--highlighting the importance of this issue for people
around the entire world. I think it is very fitting that this event is
taking place on Earth Day.
This agreement has been nearly 25 years in the making. International
climate efforts date back to 1992, when governments met in Rio with the
objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. Nations have
met every year since then to further this goal. While some meetings
have been more successful than others, most have been met with
disappointment and lack of action. After all, climate change is a
complex issue, and achieving consensus for any international issue is
no small fete, which is why this agreement is truly, truly impressive.
Last December, I traveled to Paris with nine of my colleagues. We met
with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, with U.S. Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz, and with our then top climate change negotiator
Todd Stern. I would like to congratulate all of them for their stellar
work. I would also like to thank Todd Stern for his service at the
State Department and his dedication to combating climate change. Mr.
Stern played a critical role in achieving a successful resolution in
Paris, and I have no doubt that his successor, Dr. Jonathan Pershing,
will effectively continue his work.
Climate change is an existential threat to our planet and to future
generations. My colleagues have been on the floor of the Senate today
to talk about the impacts of climate change on their States and the
need to address it. So I wish to take a minute to talk about how it is
going to impact Minnesota.
Minnesota is one of the top producing agricultural States in the
country, where one out of five jobs is tied to agriculture. Climate
change will have significant impact on our food system, both through
warmer temperatures and more intense droughts. A recent study estimates
that global crop production could decrease by more than 40 percent by
the end of the century. That is why I joined Dave MacLennan, the CEO of
Cargill--the largest privately owned company in the country--in penning
an op-ed in the Minneapolis StarTribune to highlight this threat,
especially considering that the global population will reach 9 billion
by midcentury. As the CEO of a company focused on agriculture, David is
concerned about what climate change is going to do to our food supply.
Climate change will also impact our waters. Minnesota is the Land of
10,000 Lakes. Actually, it is about 14,000 lakes, including Lake
Superior, which contains about 10 percent of the world's fresh surface
water. Lake Superior has about 10 percent of the fresh surface water on
Earth. Lake Superior is warming by 2 degrees per decade. We are seeing
more evaporation and lower water levels in the lake. Plus, rising
temperatures allow for more favorable conditions for invasive species
and hazardous algal blooms. Warmer temperatures could also have severe
consequences to fish like walleye and trout, which are so important to
Minnesota fisheries and to our ecosystems.
Let's not forget the threat of climate change to our forests. Like
our lakes, warmer temperatures elevate the threat of invasive species--
invasive species such as the emerald ash borer and gypsy moth, which
are rapidly changing the composition of our forests. In other parts of
the country, we are seeing longer wildfire seasons--wildfires that are
burning hotter, more intense, and bigger. The Forest Service is
spending more and more fighting these fires--now more than half of its
entire budget.
So we can see that climate change poses a very serious threat to
Minnesota, our country, and the world.
The Paris Agreement that we will sign tomorrow marks an important
step forward to address this threat. But, of course, our job is not
done. We have to remain vigilant and build upon the success of the
agreement. Internationally, we have to hold other nations accountable,
ensure that they commit to stronger emission reduction targets over
time, and make sure that those reductions are transparent and
verifiable. Domestically, we have to build on the success of our cities
and States--like Minnesota--that have been working hard for a long time
now to become more energy efficient and reduce emissions.
I have two grandchildren, and I am expecting a third later this year.
God willing, they will live through this century and into the next. I
want them to know that when we had the opportunity to put the Earth on
a safer path, we seized the moment.
Let's recognize the historic nature of this year's Earth Day, and
let's celebrate this climate agreement because it is an important
milestone. Let's build on it to make the planet a safer and more
habitable place for our grandchildren, their children, and their
grandchildren.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Minnesota,
Senator Franken, for his comments concerning an important day tomorrow.
It is important for many reasons. We have worked a long time to get the
global community engaged on climate change.
As Senator Franken pointed out, tomorrow is Earth Day. It will be the
[[Page S2379]]
46th anniversary of Earth Day, which was started by our former
colleague Senator Gaylord Nelson. He did that because he recognized it
is important for this country to recognize our global responsibilities
to our environment and to our future.
There is no greater challenge that we face than climate change
because climate change has been caused, in part, by our own activities
here on Earth, by the emission of greenhouse gases. We have a
responsibility to reverse the current trends. We can do that.
Tomorrow in New York City, many leaders will come to sign the COP21
agreement that was negotiated in Paris earlier this year by 16 nations
representing 98 percent of the global greenhouse emissions. This is a
historic moment.
I want to reflect for a moment about the U.S. leadership that has
brought us to this moment in which we now have an agreement among so
many countries of the world. We have been trying to do this now for a
long time. We have not been successful. At last, the global community
has come together with meaningful commitments that will put us on the
right path, and the U.S. leadership made this possible.
I want to congratulate President Obama for his leadership on this. I
was with Secretary Moniz in Paris. Ten members of the U.S. Senate went
to Paris during the COP21 negotiations. We were there less than 48
hours, but I think we were able to broadcast the united support for
U.S. leadership for a global commitment.
Secretary of Energy Moniz took us to the exhibit where we saw
firsthand U.S. technology that will help us meet the challenges of
climate change--how we can produce energy more efficiently and how we
can use energy more efficiently. It was U.S. technology, and that
technology will be used around the world.
I mention that because U.S. global leadership is critically important
to help save our planet from the adverse impacts of climate change,
yes, but it also will help our economy. It will help our economy,
obviously, in dealing with the effects of climate change but also in
U.S. technology being used around the world, creating jobs here in the
United States.
This is an urgent issue. If I might, let me first quote from Pope
Francis. He said:
The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a
concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a
sustainable and integral development, for we know that things
can change. . . . I urgently appeal, for a new dialogue about
how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a
conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental
challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and
affect us all. . . . Climate change is a global problem with
grave implications: environmental, social, economic,
political, and for the distribution of goods. It represents
one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.
I couldn't agree with him more. This is a global challenge with
global, grave consequences if we don't get it right.
I see that in my own State of Maryland's Smith Island, which is
disappearing into the Chesapeake Bay. I see it in the Chesapeake Bay
with the loss of sea grasses because of warmer water temperatures. Sea
grasses are critically important to the survival of the Maryland blue
crab. I see it in our coastal safety, as we see more and more storms
with more consequences.
Recently I traveled to the southern part of Africa, and I had a
chance to see from a helicopter the impact of climate change. In the
southern part of Africa, they have only two seasons: the rainy season
and the dry season. They are now at about one season: the dry season.
We were there during the rainy season, and by helicopter we flew over
land that should have been part of a pond. Instead, it was dry, no
water. We saw the carcasses of animals that couldn't survive because of
the drought.
Climate change is real and is affecting our planet. There are
vulnerable nations--from the Marshall Islands to Bangladesh and so many
others--whose very existence is at risk because of climate change.
This is an urgent issue that requires an urgent response. But here we
can make a difference. We can make a difference through conserving and
using less energy and producing our energy in a more environmentally
friendly way in a carbon-free environment.
I am joined by Congressman Delaney and many Members of both the House
and Senate in saying that the United States should make a commitment to
produce at least 50 percent of our electricity through a carbon-free
source by the year 2030. We can do that.
Here is the good news. It will not only be good for our environment,
it will be good for our economy and good for our national security.
Renewable energy sources can be produced here in America. You don't
have to depend on the fossil fuels from countries who disagree with our
way of life. For the sake of our national security, for the sake of our
national economy, there are more jobs in clean energy than there are in
fossil fuel industry.
For all those reasons--for our economy, for our security, and for our
environment--U.S. leadership in dealing with these solutions can help
America's security. Yes, U.S. leadership is absolutely vital. We saw
that in COP21. Without U.S. leadership, it could not be done.
Here is where I really call upon our colleagues. I have said this
many times on the floor of the Senate. It is a great honor to serve in
the Senate; it is a great honor to represent the people of Maryland.
Every Congress has tried to add to its record to protect the future
generations as it relates to our environment.
The protection of our environment has never been a partisan issue. I
would urge our colleagues to find ways that we can work together to
build the legacy of this Congress to further protect our environment
for future generations. We should be part of the solution.
Tomorrow is Earth Day. Let's make a difference. With what we see
happening in New York and by our actions, let us protect future
generations.
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. SASSE. 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. SASSE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Alexander, I ask
unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following first-
degree amendments: Merkley amendment No. 3812, Reid amendment No. 3805,
and Flake amendment No. 3820; further, that at 11 a.m., on Tuesday,
April 26, the Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed and
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes, and that
there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________