[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2427-S2434]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11
a.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their
designees.
Mr. REID. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Zika Virus
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, by now we have all seen reports of the
neurological damage that is done by the Zika virus. We have seen the
damage it can do to newborn infants. It has been clinically linked to
serious birth defects in pregnant women who contract it.
Since the start of the outbreak, nearly 900 Americans in 41 States,
Washington, DC, and 3 U.S. territories--including over 80 pregnant
women--have already contracted Zika. In my State of Illinois, 13 people
have already tested positive, including at least two pregnant women.
But because we have the best scientists and researchers in the world
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we know more today
about the virus and prevention measures than we did when most of us
first heard the word ``Zika'' a few months ago.
We know that mosquitoes spread the disease. We know that the arrival
of warm weather signals the start of mosquito season, but America is
currently unprepared to deal with an outbreak of this dangerous virus.
We must improve vector control. We must expand access to family
planning, education, and contraception. We must accelerate efforts to
develop a vaccine as quickly as humanly possible.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention desperately needs
funding to deal with this crisis, and they need it now before the
summer months, when mosquitoes spread north across the United States.
Congress has failed to even consider President Obama's emergency Zika
funding request. What on Earth is Congress waiting for?
Last week Senate Democrats sent a letter to Senate Republican
leadership calling for immediate action to pass the Zika supplemental
request. I hope this call for action will be heard by all of my
Republican colleagues, but I especially hope that it resonates with my
colleagues from the Southern States. These are the States that are the
most likely to be hit first and hardest by the Zika mosquito virus:
Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, and the list
goes on.
In the absence of congressional action--immediate congressional
action--the administration has been forced to divert funding and
resources away from other important public health efforts in order to
respond to Zika.
This morning's Washington Post headline in a few words tells the
story: ``Zika crisis costs states funds for emergency preparedness.''
What does that mean? The President asked for this supplemental request
weeks ago. The refusal of the Republican-led Congress to respond to the
President's request for emergency public health funds to fight Zika
means that we are cutting back on public health preparedness in States
all across the Nation. Frankly, we are endangering people whom we
represent because the Republican majority in Congress refuses to give
the President his supplemental request to deal with the Zika virus. For
instance, the administration just had to divert $2 million in public
health emergency preparedness grants away from Illinois in order to
fight Zika in Southern States.
Well, let me tell you, I want to help people everywhere, including
those in Southern States who are likely to be hit first, but not at the
expense of the public health of the people I represent.
There is an answer. President Obama suggests it--an emergency public
health supplemental for the Zika virus.
The Republican majority in Congress has refused to act. Both the
Illinois Department of Public Health and the Chicago Department of
Public Health received grants to prepare for and to respond to all
kinds of public outbreaks, such as Ebola, Zika, and Elizabethkingia,
which I will talk about in a moment. These cuts, which are being
proposed in order to have the administration have enough resources to
respond, are unacceptable and unexplainable.
They come at a time when Illinois, my State, is in the middle of the
longest budget crisis in our State's history. This current Governor has
been unable to reach an agreement on a budget for almost 11 months,
making it difficult for Illinois families and State agencies in
ordinary circumstances.
But because congressional Republican leaders have failed to pass a
Zika emergency public health supplemental requested by President Obama,
the administration has had to divert money away from States such as
Illinois to respond to the threat of the Zika virus in other States. Is
this any way to govern a great Nation?
Illinois should not have to lose precious funding to deal with public
health threats because Republican congressional leaders--from Southern
states, I might add--have refused to pass the necessary additional
funding to deal with Zika, a virus that will likely impact their States
first and hardest.
We have to do both. We should pass the Zika supplemental so Illinois
and other States can keep the funding they need to deal with current
public health threats and receive additional funding to deal with Zika.
Let me talk about why diverting $2 million from my State of Illinois
to Southern States for Zika is a challenge.
Last week the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed 10 cases of a bacterial
infection known as Elizabethkingia. It has resulted in six deaths in my
State. This bacterial outbreak is separate from an outbreak in
Wisconsin that resulted in over 60 cases of this infection. So in the
middle of this outbreak, Illinois is losing 8 percent in core funding
for public health contingencies because of the failure of Republican
leaders in Congress to pass President Obama's emergency public health
supplemental appropriation.
[[Page S2428]]
This means that the Illinois State Department of health is not going
to be as prepared as it should be to conduct the needed epidemiology,
laboratory testing, and outbreak control. And four of our health
experts say there will be major cuts that hurt our ability to respond
to public health crises. What happens tomorrow if there is another
outbreak?
Last year our State dealt with unexpected serious outbreaks of
Legionnaires' disease. Taking money from one State's public health
defense effort to give it to another to deal with a public health
threat makes no sense in a great nation, particularly when the
President showed the appropriate leadership in asking for the $1.9
billion emergency supplemental to deal with the Zika crisis, and the
President asked over 2 months ago.
I know many Republicans are in denial when it comes to climate
change, but if they would have been in Springfield, IL, my home, last
Sunday--just 2 days ago--sitting out on the deck in 80-degree weather
in April, they might understand warm weather is coming sooner across
the United States and with that warm weather, mosquitoes, and with
those mosquitoes, the threat of the Zika virus.
I don't come to raise an alarm that is unmerited and unwarranted. I
believe this is a serious public health challenge, so serious we should
not leave Congress this week and take a recess without passing the
President's emergency budget supplemental for public health and the
Zika virus. The mosquitoes are not going to be on recess next week,
they are going to be working, and sadly they are going to be infecting
people across the South and across the United States while
congressional leaders dither.
The supplemental request would provide more than $1.8 billion in
emergency funding to improve CDC vector control to control the
mosquitoes that threaten us. It would accelerate efforts at the
National Institutes of Health to develop a vaccine. I have heard
testimony, so I know it takes time to develop a vaccine. Let's do it in
an expeditious, safe, thoughtful, and professional way, but let us not
shortchange NIH or any other agency that is facing this crisis.
We need to expand education. We need to expand access to women's
health planning services. The administration provided a comprehensive
plan. It cannot be implemented successfully without resources, and we
should act on it this week--get it done before we leave.
I joined my colleagues Senator Nelson, Leader Reid, Senator Schumer,
and Senator Hirono in introducing a bill to fully fund the
administration's request. I am pleased to hear my Republican colleagues
on the Committee on Appropriations are interested in working with
Democrats to reach a deal. I see Senator Alexander on the floor. I know
he is sensitive to this, and I hope he will join in calling for
leadership on both sides of the Rotunda to move on this issue before we
take our recess.
Let us not delay this any longer. We need to ensure we aren't
diverting necessary Ebola money to be used for the Zika virus. It is
naive to believe the Ebola threat is gone and we can ignore the
possibility of its reemergence. In my State and others, we know all too
well what happens when you divert money from one public health fund to
another.
This brings to mind the Biblical story of Noah and the great flood.
Noah built the arc before the rain, not after it started. It is
reckless, it is dangerous to delay. The cases of Zika are continuing to
grow, and inaction and further delay put many families, pregnant women,
and children in jeopardy.
We have seen the Zika threat coming for many months. We have had the
President's request for over 2 months. I urge my colleagues this week,
before we go home, to take this appropriate action to begin to protect
Americans in every State.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, at 11 a.m. we will have three votes on
the Merkley, Flake, and Reid amendments. That will bring to a total of
17 the number of amendments we will have disposed of on the floor.
Senator Feinstein and I have worked with Members on both sides of the
aisle to include many of their policy suggestions and requests in our
basic bill. The last count I saw said 77 Members of the Senate had at
least part of their requests or policy suggestions in our basic bill.
So we are doing very well. Cloture has been filed. There are only a few
amendments remaining that are in question. We hope to conclude that
quickly and bring the bill to a conclusion.
My hope is that when a Senator has a germane amendment, we can have a
vote. Sometimes, if they are controversial, they will be at 60. We have
done pretty well with that so far--giving Senators a chance to have a
say and to have a vote.
I would like to spend about 4 or 5 minutes on an amendment we will be
voting on at 11, when we will have limited time to talk--unless Senator
Feinstein has something she would like to say before I do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, as I understand it, the filing deadline for first-
degree amendments is this afternoon at either 1:30 p.m. or 2:30 p.m. So
everybody should get their amendments in.
I thank Senator Alexander again for the cooperative spirit with which
he is working on this bill. It is very much appreciated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to speak to the amendment from
the Senator from Oregon, which would increase the funding for the wind
energy program by $15.4 million. This is in addition to the $30 million
that our subcommittee has recommended at the request of Senator Gardner
of Colorado for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the $50
million Senator Collins of Maine has recommended for offshore wind
research. Within the priorities in the bill, we have already put $80
million, and this would add $15 million more.
That may not seem like much, but here is my question: I wonder if the
American taxpayers wouldn't think that $23 billion is enough to spend
on giant windmills--$23 billion. That is the amount the Congressional
Research Service has said Congress has spent of taxpayer money to
subsidize wealthy people so they can build giant wind turbines across
America. That money has been spent from 1992 through 2016 this year. It
started out as an effort to help wind turbines get started in 1992, and
it has been renewed 10 times. You would think this is a mature
industry. In fact, the previous Energy Secretary said it was.
What do we get for this $23 billion? Four percent of our electricity
is produced by wind turbines in the United States. This is a country
that uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the world, and we spend
$23 billion for 4 percent of our electricity. Thirty-seven percent of
all the subsidies, all the spending we have for different forms of
energy produces 4 percent of the electricity.
The President of the United States and a number of private people in
the United States, such as Bill Gates, have announced they would like
to double energy research. I support that. The Senator from Illinois,
Mr. Durbin, and I introduced legislation that would authorize increased
funding at the level of 7 percent for energy research this year so we
can move more rapidly toward the goal of doubling research for energy.
We spend $5 billion a year for energy research for the U.S.
Government. We spend nearly $5 billion a year on subsidizing wealthy
people so they can build giant wind turbines. We spend as much
subsidizing windmills as we spend on all our energy research. If we
stop the subsidies, we could double the research, which is what we
should be doing.
What are we getting for this? We are getting energy--electricity--
that is true, but it mostly blows at night, when we don't need it. It
can't be stored for use when we do need it. So it is unreliable. The
wind only blows about one-third of the time. In Tennessee it is 18
percent of the time. It can't be stored and we don't need it. We don't
need it. At the same time, it destroys the landscape.
I am astonished at the environmental groups that would support
putting
[[Page S2429]]
these huge giant turbines in the most beautiful part of our country and
then building transmission lines across the country through everybody's
backyard.
If we replace the 100 nuclear reactors in this country that produce
60 percent of the carbon-free electricity we have--60 percent of the
carbon-free electricity--it would take enough windmills to cover a
State the size of West Virginia, and I think you would have to have
about 17,000 miles, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines.
The Presiding Officer is the Senator from Arkansas. In Arkansas, a
windmill company is building 700 miles of transmission lines across
Arkansas that the State doesn't want and has objected to. Yet the
administration is allowing the wind mill company to use Federal
preemption for the first time to build transmission lines where people
don't want them.
Not only is this a wasteful amount of money, not only is it a kind of
energy that a country this big cannot rely on, the size of the
subsidies create preposterous results. For example, in some cases the
subsidy is so large the windmill-producing companies pay the utilities
to take their power and they still make a profit. They can pay the
utilities to take their power and still make a profit because the
taxpayers have spent $23 billion subsidizing wealthy people so they can
build windmills.
These aren't your grandma's windmills. You can see them for 20 miles
away--the flashing lights. They are twice as tall as the football
stadium at the University of Tennessee, and only one of these would fit
within the football stadium at the University of Tennessee.
It would take four nuclear reactors, each taking about 1 square mile,
to produce enough electricity to equal the same amount of electricity
produced by wind if you strung 45-foot windmill towers along the entire
2,178-mile stretch of the Appalachian Trail. You may say that is a
stretch, that will not happen, except that is exactly where the wind
towers would be most likely to go--on our scenic mountain tops where
more wind blows, and then the transmission lines come down the mountain
tops through your backyard.
My objection is a very simple one. I think $23 billion is enough to
spend on windmills. I have other objections to wind. I think we should
focus on nuclear power instead of unreliable wind power. I believe
trying to use wind turbines to power a country that uses 25 percent of
all the electricity in the world is the energy equivalent of going to
war in sailboats when the nuclear navy is available, but I certainly
think there is no need at all for Senators to say yes to an amendment
that spends more money for wind than our subcommittee recommended. We
are already spending $23 billion. The taxpayers have been bamboozled
into allowing that to happen, and I don't think they would want us to
spend more.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Flake
amendment No. 3820, which would lower the construction appropriation
for the U.S. Corps of Engineers by just under $69 million and eliminate
funding for environmental infrastructure projects.
Ostensibly, the Corps of Engineers uses these funds to build water
supply, water treatment, and wastewater projects. I am not here to
argue against the need for environmental infrastructure projects. There
are a great many municipalities that consider these projects essential
and have made an effort to fund them on their own. That is usually done
through a combination of utility bills and municipal bonds. Typically,
the users pay for this.
However, despite the fact that these projects have traditionally been
funded by State and local governments, Federal support is actually
duplicative. The Federal Government already offers resources for
similar projects through the EPA. Specifically, the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs
provide States with low-interest loans based on the merits of these
projects and the needs of the communities.
Taxpayers deserve better than to be expected to provide the U.S.
Corps of Engineers $69 million it never asked for to fund projects they
already support in a program that has been described by many as a slush
fund for parochial interests. That is certainly how the program started
years ago. Frankly, it has never seemed clear that the Corps of
Engineers understands how these projects fit into its mission. Because
of a years-old congressional carve-out, these environmental
undertakings are not subject to the environmental studies, economic
analyses, and cost-effectiveness standards that are required for more
traditional Corps projects. As far as I can tell, there is really no
rhyme or reason as to how one project gets funding over another.
With a national debt of over $19 trillion, it is time that we get a
little more serious about putting our fiscal house in order. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment and eliminate this duplicative
funding.
Mr. President, I wish to say a couple words about Reid-Heller
amendment No. 3805.
I support the Colorado River System Conservation Program. Voluntary
efforts like these in Arizona are estimated to have kept Lake Mead at
about 3 feet higher than it would have been otherwise. Not
coincidentally, last week the Bureau of Reclamation announced that at
the end of this year, Lake Mead is predicted to be 3 feet above the
level that would trigger a shortage declaration. What I want to make
sure happens is that any conserved water actually stays in Lake Mead
and keeps these levels up above the shortage declaration area.
I note that this amendment simply authorizes funds to go to the
conservation program. I hope that before this money is actually spent,
we can develop assurances that the water will go to its intended
purpose. The Lower Colorado River Basin States have developed such
language, and I look forward to ensuring that our Federal dollars are
well spent in this area.
Amendment No. 3820 to Amendment No. 3801
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3820 and ask unanimous
consent that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Flake] proposes an amendment
numbered 3820 to amendment No. 3801.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To withhold certain funds for the construction of
environmental infrastructure)
On page 3, line 11, strike ``$1,813,649,000'' and insert
``$1,744,699,000''.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 3812 to Amendment No. 3801
(Purpose: To provide for funding for wind energy)
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3812.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment
numbered 3812 to amendment No. 3801.
On page 23, line 15, strike the period at the end and
insert the following: ``: Provided further, That of such
amount, $95,400,000 shall be available for wind energy.''.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I wish to add a few remarks about this,
as we are preparing shortly to consider a number of amendments.
This particular amendment is a bipartisan amendment, which I am
pleased to sponsor with my partner from Iowa, stating that wind energy
is particularly important. This amendment would restore funding for
wind energy research to fiscal year 2016 levels of $95.4 million.
Otherwise, research in wind energy would suffer a substantial
reduction.
This program is indispensable to the success of wind energy in the
United States. The wind energy program works to advance innovations in
the grid integration, manufacturing, and deployment that are key to
reducing the cost of wind energy. For example, the Wind Program helps
to address market barriers through including wind-forecasting tools in
power system operations, which helps utilities and regulators better
integrate large amounts of wind energy into the grid.
[[Page S2430]]
The Wind Program provides research, development, and technical support
to manufacturers and distributors of wind technologies that are still
emerging. This enhances small wind manufacturing, supports offshore
demonstration projects, and will improve the economic viability of
distributed wind.
Currently, eight National Laboratories across our Nation conduct
research or testing related to wind energy. The proposed fiscal year
2017 funding level is only $80 million, which is over $15 million less
than last year's funding--thwarting our ability to realize the true
potential for wind energy.
During debates, we have sometimes heard that wind is a mature
industry and that is why the funding for research should be revoked or
lowered. But in fact, as wind is emerging, we are seeing continuous
innovations resulting in different designs and different strategies for
integrating intermittent wind energy into the grid. As that wind
component becomes substantially larger, we need to understand the
details of how we accommodate it effectively. If we were to talk about
mature industries, then we wouldn't be doing studies for the fossil
fuel industry, which is about as mature as an industry can get.
Clearly, this is an evolving industry with great potential to assist us
with clean energy and, moreover, a program that can affect the economy
of rural America.
In 2015 wind energy supplied about 5 percent of the total electricity
generated in the United States. So it is no longer just a fraction of a
percent; it has grown enormously in the last few years. But the
Department of Energy estimates that wind could provide as much as 35
percent--or more than one-third--of the electricity generated in our
country by the year 2050.
As my colleague and partner on this bill, the Senator from Iowa,
knows, wind energy can be a huge boon to a State's economy. Iowa is
already getting over 30 percent of its electricity from wind. And
because wind energy is less expensive in the forecast of potential
other sources, it could result in billions of dollars of savings to
energy consumers in that State.
In my home State of Oregon, we already have over 10 percent of our
electricity being generated from wind energy. The savings for our State
down the road could be enormous, but we can only reach these goals if
we support wind energy research.
With the development of wind energy comes hundreds of thousands of
jobs in manufacturing, in installation, in maintenance, and in
supporting services. The estimate is around 600,000 jobs--generally
good-paying jobs--by the year 2015.
I do a lot of townhalls back home in Oregon, one in every county
every year. Much of Oregon is very rural. I hear about the impact
property taxes on these wind installations have on our rural counties,
enabling them to do things--for example, to build libraries or assist
in the development of their local schools. There is no question that
this is a boon to the rural economy.
It is our job in Congress to look at what policies will be the most
successful and give the most bang for the buck in terms of creating
jobs now and in the future. We should be supporting programs that spur
economic development and support families in rural areas. That is what
this amendment calls for. When we create jobs, local communities
benefit, certainly the energy industry benefits, and our environment
benefits. All of this depends upon robust research, and we are simply
asking that research continue at the same level it did in fiscal year
2016.
Let's back red, white, and blue, American-made wind energy and
support this bipartisan amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
There are now 2 minutes equally divided on amendment No. 3812.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we will be voting on amendment No. 3812,
which my colleague from Iowa and I have put together to restore
research on wind development to the level it was last year. When you
see these wind turbines, what you should see is economic development in
highly deserving rural communities, putting clean electrons onto the
grid, putting jobs into the community, and putting money into the
property tax coffers in local communities to do good work.
I wish to reserve the rest of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Does the Senator from Tennessee wish to use his time on the
amendment?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I do, but I will wait until the end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one uses time, time will be charged
equally to both sides.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, can I not reserve the rest of my time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this point.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, don't you think $23 billion is enough
to spend on windmills? That is what we have spent since 1992--$23
billion for 4 percent of America's electricity. This is electricity
that is unreliable. The windmills blow about one-third of the time,
often at night, and it can't be stored. We will spend $5 billion this
year and $4.4 billion next year. We could double our energy research
spending if we would stop subsidizing wealthy people to build giant
wind turbines. Sixty percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from
nuclear reactors. Relying on giant wind turbines and new transmission
lines to power a country that uses 25 percent of all the electricity in
the world is like going to war in sailboats when the nuclear Navy is
available.
We already have $80 million going to research, which Senator Gardner
and Senator Collins have asked us to include in the legislation. It is
in the bill. We don't need to spend more.
We have already spent $23 billion since 1992. Spending $4 or $5
billion a year is more than enough to spend on giant wind turbines.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Merkley amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, these subsidies are a tiny dot compared
to the $52 billion spent annually on fossil fuel subsidies and the
massive subsidies spent on nuclear. Yet these subsidies are creating
jobs in rural America, and that matters. These communities need these
jobs. These are clean electrons, these are terrific middle-class jobs,
and this is an industry that is still on a curve where research is
truly beneficial in making it a success.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
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 Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Ernst
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
[[Page S2431]]
NAYS--42
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Tillis
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--4
Cruz
Sanders
Toomey
Warner
The amendment (No. 3812) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Amendment No. 3805 to Amendment No. 3801
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid, I call up the
Reid-Heller amendment No. 3805 and ask unanimous consent that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Heller], for Mr. Reid,
proposes an amendment numbered 3805 to amendment No. 3801.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make funding for water management improvement subject to a
condition)
In section 204, strike ``and inserting `$400,000,000' ''
and insert ``and inserting `$450,000,000, on the condition
that of that amount, $50,000,000 is used to carry out section
206 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2015 (43 U.S.C. 620 note; Public Law 113-
235)' ''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, the Colorado River is the lifeblood of the
West. It supplies many of our communities with the majority of its
water. The ongoing drought is threatening shortages, reviving the old
Mark Twain saying that ``whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting
over.''
In response, the West has teamed up to establish the Colorado River
System Conservation Pilot Program, an innovative effort to improve
levels in our reservoirs. It is very clear the program is working well.
Nineteen agreements have come together, saving 80,000 acre-feet, enough
western water for 160,000 households. Increasing our region's water
security is essential to Western States.
Without water, we cannot grow. I would urge this body to support this
extremely important western initiative.
I yield the floor.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this amendment does not increase
funding in the bill and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein,
and I intend to vote for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 23, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]
YEAS--73
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Inhofe
Isakson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Udall
Vitter
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--23
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Ernst
Hoeven
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
NOT VOTING--4
Cruz
Sanders
Toomey
Warner
The amendment (No. 3805) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3820
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No.
3820, offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, this amendment would simply cut $69 million
in unrequested funding for Corps of Engineers projects. This is kind of
the outgrowth of the bad old days when we had earmarks, when all of
this funding came about. We now have an earmark ban, but some of the
funding still goes to some projects that have not even been requested.
If we have a debt of $19 trillion and a deficit of $500 billion, it
is time that we actually make some cuts somewhere. I would submit that
this is a place ripe for cutting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am going to oppose the Flake
amendment. The Army Corps of Engineers rebuilds locks and dams, dredges
our rivers and harbors, works to prevent floods and storm damage, and
builds environmental restoration projects. There is not a funding line
in the budget that more Senators seek for their States.
Our spending is under control on the discretionary side. It is the
mandatory spending, the entitlement spending, that is out of control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also strongly oppose this amendment.
This would eliminate funding for our environmental infrastructure
projects of the Army Corps of Engineers. Funding for these projects
enables communities to solve local problems in a way that protects the
environment.
Problems are being solved, such as upgrading wastewater treatment
facilities, so that our drinking water and marine resources are
protected, and replacing deteriorated distribution systems with
efficient systems that help conserve water.
I hope we will vote this amendment down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3820.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 12, nays 84, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]
YEAS--12
Barrasso
Coats
Enzi
Flake
Gardner
Heller
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
McCain
Moran
Sasse
NAYS--84
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
[[Page S2432]]
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Vitter
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Cruz
Sanders
Toomey
Warner
The amendment (No. 3820) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations:
Calendar Nos. 307, 357, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, and
508; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or
debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to
the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record;
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and
the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I
understand our Democratic friends are going to propound a number of
different unanimous consent requests here with regard, I assume, to the
judiciary. The core question here is whether President Obama has been
treated fairly, and I think it is noteworthy that at this point in
President Bush's 8 years, 303 of his judicial nominees had been
confirmed. At this point in President Obama's term, the number is 324.
That is 21 more judges the current President has gotten at this point
than President Bush.
Clearly, President Obama has been treated fairly and, therefore, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I am very disappointed the Republicans are
blocking dozens of qualified nominees--nominees who have been reported
to the Senate floor on a bipartisan basis. This is certainly, in my
view, not about whether the President is being treated fairly, but it
is about the Senate doing its job. The Senate is on track to confirm
the lowest number of judicial nominees in our history.
Let me mention a nominee from Hawaii: Clare Connors. She was
confirmed or voted on unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last
month, a statement to her qualifications. Her wide-ranging experience
includes district and appellate venues, criminal and civil arenas, and
litigation on issues ranging from tax law to tough cases such as crimes
against children.
Clare and the other nominees before us today will be kept from
serving on the Federal bench because of Republican inaction. My
Republican colleagues intend to stop all judicial nominations in July,
although there are 79 vacancies pending, 28 of which are considered
emergencies. If Ms. Connors is not confirmed, the Hawaii district court
seat will be left vacant for over a year.
Our judiciary should be composed of the full complement of judges
accorded to each district court. One of the fundamental jobs of the
Senate to engage in is its advice and consent function with regard to
these judicial nominees, and we are not doing that.
I call upon my colleagues, my Republican friends, to enable all of us
to do our jobs and begin again the advice and consent process which we
are, under the Constitution, required to do.
I see some other colleagues on the floor, so I yield to my good
friend from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will have a unanimous consent request
after I make a few brief remarks. I thank my friends, the Senators from
Hawaii and Maryland, for joining me here today.
We all know it is the job of the Senate to keep up with the need to
confirm judges, but our friends on the other side of the aisle aren't
holding up their end of the bargain. The judicial confirmation process
has been at a crawl for years. Now it has come to a functional
standstill, as noncontroversial nominations--some of which were
approved out of committee by overwhelming votes, the majority of
Republicans and the majority of Democrats--languish on the Executive
Calendar.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle did their best to slow
the pace of confirmations when the Senate was under Democratic
leadership, and now they are sluggishly moving nominations under a
Senate they control. That has culminated in an irresponsible partisan
blockade of President Obama's Supreme Court pick.
Let's talk about some real numbers. More than 1 year into this new
Congress, the Republican leadership has allowed only 17 judges to be
confirmed. How many months do we have here? We had 12 in the last year
of this Congress, and we are now at the end of April, so that is 4. So
that is 16--1 a month.
Let me show the contrast. I say to my dear friend, our majority
leader, this is the number that counts because the analogy was the last
2 years of the Bush administration when there was a Democratic
majority. Then, a Republican President and a Democratic majority; now,
a Democratic President and a Republican majority. They confirmed 17 and
we confirmed 68. This has consequences--real consequences.
The number of vacancies has risen from 43 to 79 since the Republicans
took over the majority. That didn't happen when President Bush was
President and made nominations. Twenty-eight judicial emergencies. For
people seeking justice--they can't get it very speedily because of the
obstruction of judges.
There are 20 noncontroversial judges on the Executive Calendar. We
are urging our colleagues to let these noncontroversial judges go
through. Very simply, we are urging our colleagues to do their job.
I know the leader wants to have the Senate move along, and we have
tried to go along whenever it is possible. But this is a glaring
example where it is easy to do your job, where it is easy to move
things forward, and all we face is obstruction and for no voiced
reason.
I would like to know why the judges who I will ask for unanimous
consent--it is a smaller list than my colleague from Hawaii has asked
to go forward with. I would love to know a single reason why any of
them shouldn't be sitting on the bench.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session
to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 307, 357, 358,
359, 362, and 363; further, that the Senate proceed to vote without
intervening action or debate on the nominations; that if confirmed, the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
say to my Democratic friends that no effort to redefine what this is
about will be successful.
The issue before the Senate is, has President Obama been treated
fairly with regard to the confirmation of judges during his tenure in
office? We are to a point where we know that so far during the Obama
years, he has gotten 23 more judges than President Bush got to this
point. That is the fundamental question. Has President Obama been
treated in some way differently from President Bush? The answer, of
course, is no. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland.
Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I will continue to try here, and I thank
the Senate majority leader for his patience.
This is really not a matter of fairness to the President but fairness
to the
[[Page S2433]]
American people. As my colleague Senator Hirono pointed out, this is a
matter of justice delayed is justice denied. We have judicial
emergencies--many on our list--that have not been filled.
As Senator Schumer pointed out, this is about comparing what has been
done on the workload of this Congress to any previous Congress on the
confirmation of judges, and we are dead last as far as action that has
been taken.
I think the critical number is the number of vacancies. Compare the
number of vacancies. When the Republicans took the majority, there were
43 vacancies in our courts. That number has almost doubled to 79
vacancies.
When we take a look at the pace of confirmation--because we could say
maybe there were a lot that had to be taken up over a President's term.
But, as Senator Schumer pointed out, there have been only 17 judges
confirmed to date. That is one of the lowest numbers in the modern
history of our country. In the last year of President Bush's
administration, in the same period of time of that 2-year cycle, 68
judges had been confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate.
What makes matters more difficult for the American people to
understand is that 20 judicial nominations have currently passed the
Senate Judiciary Committee. I believe every one has been passed by
unanimous voice vote, so they are not controversial. It is just a
matter of getting them up for confirmation--20 of them that have yet to
be acted on the floor of the Senate.
I will make two unanimous consent requests that will deal with 4 of
these 20 currently pending. All passed the Judiciary Committee by
unanimous voice votes. Two are from States that have Democratic
Senators and two are from States that have Republican Senators.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session
to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 307, Xinis of
Maryland; Calendar No. 357, Martinotti of New Jersey; Calendar No. 358,
Rossiter of Nebraska; and Calendar No. 359, Stanton of Tennessee; that
the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the
nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that
any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the reasons previously expressed by
the majority leader, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to make one further request in the
series with Senator Hirono and Senator Schumer, and that is to deal
with the next nominee who would be up, considering the length of time
she has been on the calendar. It is the nomination of Paula Xinis of
Maryland made in March 2015--over 1 year ago--by President Obama. She
was recommended by Senator Mikulski and me after an exhaustive vetting
process that we go through before making recommendations to the
President of the United States. She was nominated over 1 year ago. She
had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in July of 2015. As I said
earlier, she was reported out of the committee by unanimous voice vote
in September of last year, and she has been waiting all this time for
action on the Senate floor.
We need this vacancy filled. We now have two vacancies in the
Maryland District. The chief judge has related to us several times that
this position is critical for the administration of justice for the
people of Maryland and our Nation. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following
nomination: Calendar No. 307, Xinis of Maryland; that the Senate
proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination;
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be
in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in
the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for reasons previously given, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to inject a few comments in this
discussion too. This isn't all about Republicans. This isn't all about
Democrats.
I had a nominee from Wyoming. Incidentally, he wasn't nominated by
me; he was nominated by our Democratic Governor. It took me about 9
months to get a hearing in committee. This was for a district judge.
This wasn't for the Supreme Court. This wasn't for a circuit court.
This was for a district court. It took me about 9 months to get a
hearing for him. At the end of 2 years, he had not gotten a vote in
committee. His life was in suspense for 2 years. That is not right.
Neither party should do that. But as long as the other side is saying
that we are holding things up, I have to point out that it is not just
a one-sided thing.
I hope some of the criticism can end and some of the work can be
done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I just want to share in the frustration of
my colleague from Wyoming. This should not be a partisan issue. I
agree, it is wrong to hold people's lives in abeyance. We are trying to
get the very best people to serve on our courts. If they have to put
their lives on hold for a year or two, will they come forward and seek
to serve as a judge?
We know that for the ones we are trying to get on the bench, it is
going to be a financial sacrifice. They can make more money in the
private sector. We want the very best on our courts. If someone is put
on hold for 2 years or for 1 year, it compromises their ability if they
are in the private practice of law, and it is not the right thing to
do--whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. We
have to act on these appointments a lot faster.
The point I raised is that during this term of Congress, during this
year and a half, we have seen the number of judicial vacancies go up
from 43 to 79. At this particular moment, there are 20 nominees on the
Executive Calendar who have cleared the committee by voice vote and who
are not controversial. Some have been waiting over a year since their
nomination.
We can do something about it right now, and we should do something
about it right now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I wish to say a few more things regarding
our request for action on these judicial nominations.
The group of nominations on which I requested action includes
nominees from Maryland, New Jersey, Nebraska, Tennessee, New York,
California, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Hawaii. They are all
waiting.
I have just one comment about the Supreme Court vacancy. The last
time the Senate refused to deal with a Supreme Court vacancy was during
the Civil War. They so objected to dealing with the President's
nomination that the Congress actually changed the number of Justices on
the Supreme Court. The number of Justices is set by law, so the
Congress changed the law and changed the number of Justices from 10 to
7 so that they would not have to deal with the President's nominee to
the Supreme Court vacancy. The President vetoed that bill, the Congress
overrode that veto, and so they changed the makeup and number of
Justices on the Supreme Court. Certainly that is not what I am
suggesting Republicans should do. In fact, we have had a nine-member
Supreme Court for almost 150 years.
I agree with my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, that this should
not be a partisan issue. Certainly, I agree with my friend from
Maryland that we should get on with it. We should get on with these
judicial nominations. We should do our advice and consent role, and
clearly with regard to the Supreme Court vacancy, where, with this
inaction, we are going to leave that Court
[[Page S2434]]
with eight members for a year. That is not acceptable to the people of
our country. We need to do our job.
I ask my Senate colleagues, my Republican friends, to enable the
Senate to do our advice and consent role and do our job as set forth in
the U.S. Constitution.
I yield the floor.
____________________