[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3538-S3552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION
        NOMINATION OF ERNEST J. MONIZ TO BE SECRETARY OF ENERGY

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Ernest J. Moniz, of 
Massachusetts, to be Secretary of Energy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 3 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Republican leader finishes his time and a quorum call is made, that the 
time during the quorum be equally divided between the two sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                           IRS Investigation

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last night the President took an 
important symbolic step in accepting the resignation of acting IRS 
Commissioner Miller. I had called for this resignation on Monday, when 
we learned Mr. Miller signed his name to one, if not more, letters that 
we now know couldn't possibly have been truthful--couldn't possibly 
have been truthful. But let us be clear: This symbolic step was just 
that, symbolic.
  What Americans want right now is answers about what happened at the 
IRS, why it wasn't disclosed earlier, who is ultimately accountable for 
this behavior, and assurances this kind of thing isn't going to go on 
at the IRS or anywhere else in the Federal Government because the 
allegations of ideological targeting only continue to multiply. This is 
continuing to multiply.
  This morning I would like to focus on just one of those incidents. It 
is the case of a group called the National Organization for Marriage. 
Last May Senator Hatch, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, 
sent a letter to the IRS inquiring about reports that someone--
someone--at the IRS had leaked confidential donor information from 
NOM--the National Organization for Marriage--to an advocacy group whose 
political goals were in direct conflict with its own.
  NOM has since released documents suggesting that this information 
came from one source--from within the IRS itself.
  All this took place, by the way, in the middle of a national 
political campaign. Significantly, one of the NOM donors whose name was 
leaked was none other than Mitt Romney.
  And what about the group it was leaked to?
  It was headed by a guy who was named a national co-chair of the Obama 
campaign, and who published the confidential donor information on the 
website of the organization he ran, an organization opposed to the 
goals of NOM.
  So here is another situation that, at the very least, clearly merits 
investigation.
  There are allegations here that someone at the IRS committed a very 
serious crime that had the effect of chilling the speech of a political 
organization that happened to be on the wrong side of the current 
administration.
  Yet, a year later, Senator Hatch has yet to hear anything back from 
the

[[Page S3539]]

IRS. And, according to the folks at NOM, neither have they.
  Last year the people at NOM said they brought their concerns about 
this potentially illegal activity to the IRS and the Justice 
Department. They say they even hired a forensic specialist to prove 
that the document that was leaked had originated at the IRS.
  According to NOM, the forensics guy knew the document came from the 
IRS because it bore a watermark distinctive to the agency. And they say 
they had to hire him--get this--because the IRS asked NOM if they had 
leaked the confidential information themselves. So they say they 
provided evidence to show they had not leaked it themselves, and then 
earlier this year they asked the IRS to release all the information 
about their complaint, which had apparently reached a dead end at the 
IRS. And here is what they say they've gotten back: crickets.
  They say they have not heard a thing from the IRS or the DOJ about 
this potentially illegal breach of their confidential donor 
information--even as they have poured significant resources of their 
own into the investigation, and, according to them, seen some of their 
supporters scared off.
  Think about that: the IRS has not had the time to respond to this 
group, or the Finance Committee--a full year after their confidential 
donor information appears to have been leaked, from inside the IRS, to 
one of NOM's ideological opponents.
  But when the liberal group ProPublica requested confidential 
information about conservative groups, the IRS got back to those folks 
with the information they wanted in about two weeks.
  This is exactly the kind of thing I have been warning about for more 
than a year. Here is a group with an agenda that runs counter to that 
of the administration. Somebody over at the IRS gets a hold of their 
donor lists. And leaks it to their opponents.
  Why? So anybody who thinks about supporting them thinks twice. This 
is what government intimidation and harassment looks like. It is 
completely unacceptable.
  The idea that you have got to move heaven and earth to get somebody 
in the Federal Government to lift a finger to get to the bottom of it 
is an outrage. This is the kind of thing that people should be tripping 
over themselves to resolve. Yet Senator Hatch is still waiting on a 
response to a letter he sent about it to the IRS commissioner--last 
May!
  No one should be intimidated by the government into shutting up as 
part of our political process.
  That is why the Republican members of the Finance Committee are 
sending a letter today to Treasury's Inspector General for Tax 
Administration requesting investigation into this very issue.
  Because, without this sort of inquiry, we may never have confirmed 
the inappropriate harassment of conservative groups that was going on 
at the IRS for two years.
  Apparently, this is the only way to get this administration to take 
responsibility for its actions.
  We are determined to do that, because there is a very dangerous 
precedent being set here. I will say it again: Americans, be they 
conservative or liberal, should be free to participate in the political 
process without fear of harassment or intimidation from their own 
government.
  I would also like to note that, last month, the Secretary of Energy 
nominee, Dr. Ernest Moniz, was cleared by the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee with robust bipartisan support. The full Senate 
will likely vote on his nomination today.
  A number of my colleagues and I are optimistic about Dr. Moniz's 
pragmatic approach to solving America's energy challenges.
  In particular, I look forward to working with him on finding a 
sustainable, long-term solution for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant--a facility that benefits our country, its community, and the 
many dedicated workers who work there.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz to head 
the Department of Energy is now the pending business in the Senate. I 
would like to discuss the nomination. I note my friend and colleague 
Senator Murkowski is here. Both of us will take a short amount of time 
to discuss Dr. Moniz's qualifications.
  I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz to serve as the Secretary of Energy. Dr. 
Moniz is smart about energy policy, he is savvy about how the 
Department of Energy operates, and he is solution-oriented, which is 
what Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee saw when he was before our committee to consider 
his nomination.
  I am going to talk about why I believe Dr. Moniz is well qualified to 
spearhead our efforts to evolve our country's energy system, to 
increase domestic sources, emit less carbon, and to bolster our 
economy. First, though, I would like to talk for a few minutes about 
the job Dr. Moniz will be stepping into once he is confirmed.
  Right now the Energy Department is at the center of issues that are 
hugely consequential to our economy and the environment. They are how 
to manage the newly accessible reserves of natural gas, combating 
climate change, and making our economy more efficient. Certainly front 
and center is how, on a bipartisan approach, we can support the 
development of new energy technology. I believe our country needs that 
kind of energy to transition to a lower carbon economy. It is built on 
three pillars: strong economic growth, shrinking our carbon footprint, 
and spurring energy innovation.
  What is unique about this moment is that now, on the issue of energy, 
our country is truly in a position of strength. Historically, lawmakers 
have avoided energy issues until there was a short-term crisis. Usually 
that crisis is a spike in the price of gasoline. Then, as we know, 
there is a big hue and cry to pass a ``comprehensive energy bill,'' and 
it ends up being ``comprehensive'' and still lasts a relatively short 
period of time, maybe a year and a half or 2 years, until there is 
another hue and cry to pass yet one more comprehensive bill.
  Right now, the Congress and the executive branch--the Energy 
Department--are in a rare position, a position where we can make policy 
at a time when our country does not face those kinds of short-term 
calamities. I say that in no way minimizing the extraordinary challenge 
of climate change. In my view that is a potential catastrophe that 
needs real and immediate action, and it is something that cannot be 
ducked or ignored.
  On energy, however, the usual calculus has been flipped on its head. 
New technologies have located potentially huge supplies of natural gas 
as well as new oil reserves. At the same time, thanks to a combination 
of improved efficiency, increased renewable power generation, and a 
rise of affordable natural gas supplies, our carbon emissions actually 
fell recently. A decade ago no one dreamed of either of those facts.

  One of the most immediate issues that will face Dr. Moniz, if he is 
confirmed, is the question of how our country can maximize the benefits 
of unconventional shale gas. Abundant, low-cost natural gas provides 
our country right now with a competitive, economic advantage. The 
reality is all over the world others want our gas. Our competitors in 
Europe and Asia--where the costs are four or five times as high as our 
manufacturers--want what we have.
  I think it is obvious that this is also a national security 
advantage. We will be able to rely on our own energy resources instead 
of sources which come from unstable parts of the world that certainly 
don't wish the United States well.
  I was encouraged by the commitment Dr. Moniz made to me to use the 
best, most recent data to look at questions, such as how building 
natural gas export terminals is going to affect the areas adjacent to 
those facilities as well as the larger American economy.
  From my experience of working with Dr. Moniz, I think he is more than 
up to the big challenges our country faces as we deal with this 
historic transition in our energy sector. He knows how the Department 
works from the inside, and he knows it because he actually has 
experience there.
  With his background as a well-respected scientist, I am confident Dr. 
Moniz is going to use the best science and most current data in 
considering key policy issues. He has shown he will

[[Page S3540]]

take an independent, data-driven approach as a professor of MIT and 
director of that university's energy initiative. They have led numerous 
cutting-edge studies on a range of energy issues.
  In one sense the Department of Energy ought to be called the 
department of innovation. One of the bright lights there is the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency, what is called ARPA-E, which funds 
research with the potential to produce major breakthroughs in energy 
technology. It was authorized in 2005, and it was Dr. Moniz's 
predecessor, Secretary Steven Chu, who oversaw the first project there 
and, to his credit, he was an important champion for that agency in its 
early days.
  One of the dozens of efforts that was supported by ARPA-E, for 
example, is a project at the University of North Dakota which aims to 
reduce water usage of powerplants. According to the Department of 
Energy, the university is testing an air-cooled absorbent liquid that 
retains and releases moisture to cool powerplants that could result in 
efficient power production with minimal water loss.
  I think it would be fair to say we could put together a pretty 
impressive filibuster if any one of us wanted to describe the various 
types of research going on or the research funded by the Department. 
They are leading research in a number of areas our country needs to 
work on if we are to achieve that objective I have staked out, and that 
is to secure a lower carbon economy.
  As far as energy efficiency, the lowest cost way to reduce energy use 
and cut emissions is going to be a big part of the Department's mission 
in the next 4 years. Our committee is moving ahead in that area, 
starting with yet another bipartisan bill, the Shaheen-Portman 
legislation that, in my view, is the standard bearer now for energy-
efficient legislation. We passed it out of the committee with broad 
bipartisan support, and I hope it will come to the floor of the Senate 
very soon.
  The Department is also doing important work on carbon capture, carbon 
sequestration, and utilization--trapping emissions from fossil fuel 
operations and storing them underground to reduce the impacts to our 
climate. The chair of our Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 
Subcommittee--my friend Senator Manchin--has a great interest in this 
particular area, and Dr. Moniz, to his credit, has said this is an area 
which deserves a significant amount of attention.
  DOE research has also helped show that natural gas and renewables are 
not mutually exclusive. This country does not have to choose between 
the two. In fact, natural gas plants, in my view, make great partners 
for intermittent renewables such as wind and solar because they can 
fire up and power down quickly. That is a very important part of our 
future energy agenda. We want to have more wind and solar. We know they 
are intermittent sources.
  Some of the challenges, as the President of the Senate knows, are 
about how to find innovative approaches to storage, and looking at 
natural gas to help us get wind and solar into our baseload power 
structure. So this is an important issue.
  Renewables can also benefit natural gas. The Energy Department's 
Pacific Northwest National Lab in Richland, WA--across the river from 
Oregon--is going to soon test a project to use solar energy to make 
natural gas plants 20 percent more efficient.
  I am not going to pretend to know everything about engineering, but I 
think it is worth noting that the New York Times said earlier this 
month the idea that is being explored in Richland, WA, would use 
concentrated solar rays to heat natural gas and water to about 1,300 
degrees Fahrenheit and break open the natural gas and water molecules. 
The result would create synthetic gas, which burns more efficiently 
than natural gas alone. This would give us more energy for every 
molecule of gas burned, which means lower costs and reduced greenhouse 
gas emissions. This is just one of many projects the Department is 
backing. They are not sure which are going to ultimately pan out, but 
the potential for breakthroughs--such as the one I have described--is 
exactly why it is so important for the Energy Department to have a 
broad research portfolio.
  Our country's competitors are not sitting back waiting for our 
country to do all of the world's innovation. China, Germany, and others 
are pouring resources into R&D to try and get an advantage. The fact 
that we have our Energy Department on the front lines of this fight to 
show the world how to innovate is a huge American asset.
  A significant portion of the Energy Department's budget goes into an 
office that is described as Environmental Management, which essentially 
means cleaning up America's radioactive nuclear waste. There are 17 
active sites the Department is currently cleaning up, including the 
Hanford site in southeastern Washington. Whistleblowers and independent 
watchdogs, such as the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, have 
identified some troubling problems with how waste is stored in 
Hanford--including the potential for hydrogen to build up and explode 
in several waste tanks. They have also flagged ongoing design issues 
with the facility that will treat the site's nuclear waste--another 
matter the Department of Energy must solve.

  People who live near Hanford and depend on the Columbia River 
received some welcome assurances from Dr. Moniz. At the hearing, 
Senator Murkowski and I brought some of these issues up where Dr. Moniz 
said the status quo with respect to the Department of Energy on Hanford 
is not acceptable. I look forward to working with them on that long-
term solution.
  Finally, I think it is fair to say Dr. Moniz--and it is appropriate 
to close with this--has a long track record of collaboration. That is 
why I mentioned early on he showed in his confirmation hearing--and he 
showed Democrats and Republicans alike--that he is solution-oriented 
and collaborative on the difficult questions which are ahead. He brings 
that scientific credibility, which I have outlined, with real-world 
policy experience that is so important to managing a major Federal 
agency.
  There has been bipartisan support expressed from my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle for Dr. Moniz in a usually gridlocked Congress. 
I feel as though C-SPAN ought to put out a warning to viewers not to 
adjust their television because this really is how the Senate ought to 
be working.
  One of the reasons we had the bipartisan approach on energy issues I 
have been discussing--and it was demonstrated again this morning in the 
energy committee meeting--is because my friend and colleague Senator 
Murkowski consistently meets me at least halfway, and often more, on 
these big issues. I thank the Senator from Alaska for that cooperation 
on the Moniz nomination and many other matters. I look forward to 
Senator Murkowski's comments.
  I see other colleagues here who may wish to speak at this time, and I 
yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to follow 
my friend and colleague Senator Wyden from Oregon, the chairman of the 
energy committee, to speak today about the confirmation of Dr. Ernest 
Moniz to be our Nation's Secretary of Energy.
  I think it is good when we are able to stand as the chairman and the 
ranking member and come to terms of agreement so far as support for an 
individual for a position such as Secretary of Energy. This is an 
important position within this administration. It is an important 
position just from the perspective of how we move forward in this 
country while we deal with our energy issues and our energy future, 
which I think is where we get relatively enthusiastic about this 
nomination.
  Again, I thank the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, my friend from Oregon, for his leadership in advancing the 
nomination to the finish line.
  I also want to recognize and thank the members of our committee for 
their very thoughtful questions. When we had Dr. Moniz before the 
committee, it was perhaps one of the smoother confirmation hearings we 
have had in quite some time.
  I also thank the full Senate for working with us so we can fulfill 
our constitutional responsibility for advice and consent here today.
  Before I speak to Dr. Moniz's qualifications--and I do think Senator 
Wyden has addressed those very well--I wish to take a moment to discuss 
the agency he will soon lead.

[[Page S3541]]

  The Department of Energy was created back in 1977. It was created 
following the oil embargo which caused the gasoline shortages we saw 
around the country. The architects--those who put together the contours 
of DOE--were surveying a very different energy landscape than we face 
today.
  Back in 1977, energy was viewed from the position of scarcity rather 
than the abundance we recognize today. Those architects, as they 
defined what a Department of Energy would look like and what it would 
hope to achieve, as well as the mission set there, had some pretty high 
hopes for what the Department would accomplish.
  I think what we need to do is look back to that organic act which 
states that DOE would ``promote the general welfare by assuring 
coordinated and effective administration of Federal energy policy and 
programs.'' That is pretty simple.
  That same act goes on to list 18 different purposes, a few of which 
bear repeating. One of them is to assure, to the maximum extent 
practical, that the productive capacity of private enterprise shall be 
utilized in the development and achievement of the policy and purposes 
of the act.
  Another one of those purposes is to provide for the cooperation of 
Federal, State, and local governments in the development and 
implementation of national energy policies and programs.
  A third purpose is to carry out the planning, coordination, support, 
and management of a balanced and comprehensive energy research and 
development program.
  Looking back at DOE's creation is a reminder of how far we have come 
and yet how far we still have to go in achieving these various purposes 
that were set out in that organic act.
  Today the Department is a major department. It has a budget of more 
than $25 billion each year. Thousands of scientists work on cutting-
edge technologies at our national labs as they look for breakthroughs 
and manage our nuclear weapons programs.
  Yet more than three decades later, it would be difficult to find many 
who truly believe we have achieved this coordinated and effective 
administration of Federal energy policy. In fact, we are going to have 
some who would disagree as to whether we have developed a Federal 
energy policy that adequately serves our national needs. Instead, we 
have seen energy-related programs and initiatives that are fragmented 
and scattered throughout the Federal Government. Not enough money, in 
my view, is getting to the bench for research and development, which is 
a critical aspect of how we build out that energy policy. It is also a 
critical component of how we move toward our energy future.
  All too often it appears we have silos within the Department that 
stand in the way of progress. In recent years I have become concerned 
that DOE is not clearly and unambiguously working to keep energy 
abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure, principles that I 
think go into defining a good, strong Federal energy policy. As I see 
it, DOE, in particular, must be a stronger voice in the councils of 
this administration for energy supply. In light of several costly 
failures, the Department must become a better steward of taxpayer 
dollars.

  So all of these challenges, and more, will be inherited by our next 
Secretary of Energy. Along with the challenges, I think we also 
recognize there are great opportunities within the energy sector. That 
is why I believe we will do well to place Dr. Ernie Moniz, who is 
clearly a man with talent and experience in both the laboratory and as 
a public policymaker, to place him at the helm of this department.
  Dr. Moniz has some pretty impressive credentials. He is a physicist, 
having graduated from Boston College before completing his Ph.D. at 
Stanford. He served in the White House Office of Science and Technology 
Policy and as an Under Secretary of the Department of Energy during the 
late 1990s. For the vast majority of his career, he has also served as 
the director of the MIT Energy Initiative. He has studied and written 
about nuclear energy, natural gas, innovation--really any number of 
topics with direct relevance for the future of our energy policy. So he 
has both. He has the academic experience, most certainly, as we see at 
MIT and at Stanford, but he also has that practical application. My 
colleague from Oregon described him as solution oriented, and I think 
that is a very apt description. He is an impressive nominee.
  In our meetings where it is nice and casual and relaxed and people 
can have a pretty good conversation, I was very impressed with not only 
Dr. Moniz's background and experience but how he views moving forward 
within the Department of Energy. There is a level of comfortable 
confidence I found encouraging. He has shown he understands what his 
job requires, and because of that I believe he will be a capable 
Secretary. He is knowledgeable, he is competent, and he is refreshingly 
candid, and I think that is an important part of it.
  I kind of challenged him in the confirmation hearing before the 
Energy Committee to keep that up: Don't be afraid to speak out, to be 
refreshingly candid. I think that is good advice.
  He also has proven the Senate's confirmation process can be navigated 
successfully without undue delay, as long as questions are answered and 
concerns raised by Members are taken seriously, and I think he did 
attempt to do that.
  It is my hope that after his confirmation, Dr. Moniz will guide our 
Nation's energy policy as the respected scientist he is and do so 
rigorously, robustly, free of preordained conclusions, and, again, not 
afraid to speak up or to speak his mind. His Department will benefit, 
and I think the country will as well.
  As I have indicated in my comments, I think the Department of Energy 
needs good, strong direction. It needs that leadership, and I believe 
Dr. Moniz will provide both. That is why I am supporting his 
nomination, and I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in voting 
to confirm him later this afternoon.
  I note my colleague from New Jersey is here. I have some comments I 
wish to make about the Arctic Council meeting, but I will certainly 
defer to my friend from New Jersey for his comments this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to thank the distinguished 
ranking member for her courtesy. I intend to support this nominee for 
all of the reasons the distinguished chairman has said.
  (The remarks of Mr. Menendez pertaining to the introduction of S. 980 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER, the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, while we are waiting for colleagues 
to come and join us on the floor to speak about the nomination of Dr. 
Ernest Moniz to be Secretary for the Department of Energy, I thought I 
would take a few moments and fill in my colleagues about a meeting I 
just returned from in Kiruna, Sweden. This was the Arctic Council 
ministerial meeting.
  The Arctic Council is comprised of the eight Arctic nations, of which 
the United States is one by virtue of the State of Alaska, but not to 
diminish the fact that we truly are an Arctic nation, and our role as 
such, involved with other Arctic neighbors, is a growing role and a 
role the rest of the world is looking at with great interest and great 
anticipation as to how the United States is going to step forward into 
this important arena.
  This is the second Arctic Council meeting I have attended. I was in 
Nuuk, Greenland, with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Salazar 2 years 
ago. That was the first time the United States had sent a Cabinet 
member, sent the Secretary of State to the Arctic Council, and it 
caused great waves throughout the Arctic world and certainly gained the 
attention of nations around the world. The sentiment was the United 
States is finally stepping up, the United States is moving forward, 
recognizing its role as an Arctic nation. So it was exceedingly 
important that Secretary Kerry continued

[[Page S3542]]

that good work of Secretary Clinton in leading the United States in its 
role at this ministerial meeting.
  I will tell you, Secretary Kerry has been very involved here in this 
body as a Senator in his leadership on certain issues, specifically 
advancing the Law of the Sea Treaty--ratification of that important 
treaty--speaking out and being very forthright on the issue of climate 
change. His leadership at the council meeting in Kiruna yesterday was 
clearly evidenced as he worked to bring the parties together in terms 
of an agreement to move forward with how we treat observers to the 
Arctic Council. I commend Secretary Kerry for his leadership, certainly 
for his initiative, in ensuring that the United States continues to 
have a high profile and a growing profile.
  Why is this important? Why do we need to not only be engaged but to 
step up that engagement? Well, yesterday, the chairmanship of the 
Arctic Council transferred from Sweden to Canada, so our neighbors to 
the North will chair the Arctic Council for these next 2 years. In 
2015, the gavel of that chairmanship will pass from Canada to the 
United States, so we will be working to set the agenda, although it is 
a very consensus-driven process. But we will clearly be in a leadership 
role amongst the eight Arctic nations and those observer nations. It is 
critically important that we are ready, that we be working toward 
assuming this leadership position.
  In doing that, it is more than just attending meetings every other 
year. It is the agreements that come out as a result of these 
ministerials, these consensus initiatives that help to advance the 
dynamic in an evolving part of the world.
  In Nuuk, the first-ever binding agreement of the parties was entered 
into, and this was a search-and-rescue agreement. If there is an 
incident up in the Arctic--and the world up there knows very little in 
terms of boundaries and what happens with ice, but we recognize our 
infrastructure is severely limited. So who is in charge? How do we work 
cooperatively, collaboratively with search and rescue? It was an 
exceedingly important initiative that was adopted 2 years ago.
  Yesterday, in Kiruna, it was the adoption of the Agreement on 
Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the 
Arctic. There is a recognition that in the Arctic, where some 15 
percent of the world's known oil and gas reserves are situated, there 
will be activity. We are seeing it in Russia to our left-hand side; we 
are seeing it in Canada to our right-hand side. In the United States, 
as we all know, Shell attempted to begin exploration this year. There 
have been previous exploration efforts up in the Beaufort and in the 
Chukchi. Whether you are for or against oil development here in this 
country, the recognition is that within the Arctic nations there is 
activity. There are ongoing efforts, whether it is through exploration 
or, hopefully, production that will move forward.
  What we are trying to do within the Arctic Council and other entities 
is make sure that when that happens, we are prepared. So we are putting 
forward collaboration and collective agreements so there is an 
understanding that in the event--hopefully, a very unlikely event--
something would ever happen, there is an understanding as to how all 
the nations act, the level of preparation that moves forward.
  There are incredibly important initiatives as we deal with an 
evolving Arctic. Think about the world up north there. Really 
understand what is happening. This is no longer an area that is locked 
in ice and snow, an area where we are not able to transit, an area 
where there is no human activity. The Arctic has clearly seen an 
opening, as we see the sea ice receding. We are seeing a level of 
activity that is unprecedented. It is truly the last frontier--a new 
frontier, so to speak.
  Again, how we prepare for a world where there is more movement, where 
there is more activity, is going to be a critical key to the success 
and the opportunity. We recognize the volume of shipping now coming 
through the Northwest Passage, coming from Russia on down through the 
Bering Strait, through very narrow channels there out to Asia, down 
into the Pacific. There is incredible movement. So how are we preparing 
ourselves for an increased volume of shipping traffic? Do we have the 
navigational aids we need? Do we have the ports and the infrastructure 
that will be necessary? These are some of the initiatives that were 
discussed.
  Obviously, when we think about an Arctic that is changing, a key 
focus is on climate change and what is happening. We are seeing the 
impact of climate change in the Arctic more noticeably than in other 
parts of the globe. So there is a great deal of science and research 
that is going on that is necessary. How we collaborate, how we share 
that with all of our other Arctic neighbors is going to be key.
  How we map our resources, whether it is understanding the sea floor, 
whether it is understanding the coastline, this is an area that--we use 
the term ``frontier.'' When we go out into a new frontier, it is 
important to know what it is we are dealing with; how we can work 
cooperatively on things such as mapping; what we can do to ensure that 
as we see changes, as we see development, as we see increased economic 
activity in the Arctic, that the indigenous people--the people who have 
been there for thousands of years, living a true subsistence 
lifestyle--that their lifestyle remains intact, that there can be a 
balance and a harmony with their world and this changing scenery and 
landscape in front of them.
  This is a story that was conveyed to me several years ago. I was up 
in Barrow, which is, of course, the northernmost city in the United 
States. Barrow is a relatively small community of several thousand 
individuals. One afternoon there was a group of folks who were in town 
and they were all speaking German.
  Somebody asked: Well, how did you get here? Where did you come from?
  They did not see that many people getting off the Alaska Airlines 
jet. The German tourists pointed to a cruise ship that was offshore. 
They had lightered these German tourists into the community. Just a few 
years back, a cruise ship in these waters was unheard of. What we are 
seeing now are cruises. We have a level of tourism that would never 
have been anticipated. So how we prepare for all of this is a challenge 
for us.
  The work of the Arctic Council is again focusing on collaboration and 
cooperation in an area, in a zone of peace, as many would suggest. This 
is an important opportunity for us from a diplomacy perspective. Think 
about how many hot spots we have in the world, how many places on this 
planet where we are trying to put out fires that have been simmering or 
smoldering for decades, for generations, for some, millennia. If we 
have a part of the world where we can work together, what kind of a 
message, what kind of a symbol does that represent? So we have some 
enormous opportunities within the Arctic.
  Part of my challenge--and I shared this with Secretary Kerry--is 
impressing upon people in this country that we are an arctic nation. 
The Presiding Officer hails from the State of Massachusetts. My 
colleague and chairman of the Energy Committee comes from Oregon. I 
would venture to say that most of the Senator's constituents do not 
view themselves as people of the Arctic, but we are. As 50 States, we 
are. So how we work together to make sure America's role as an arctic 
nation is represented is key.
  I will conclude my remarks by noting that on Friday the White House 
released its Arctic strategy. This is a document to advance national 
security interests, how we responsibly manage the Arctic ecosystem, how 
we bolster international relationships--all very worthwhile goals. I 
think we recognize that it is perhaps a little bit light on detail, but 
the good news is that so many of our Federal agencies are working to 
help advance these goals.
  What we need, in addition to a coordinated strategy, is a policy that 
is going to make sense from all of the different levels, whether it is 
how we deal with the energy, how we deal with the human side, how we 
deal with the security aspect of it. These are complicated issues, but 
it is an opportunity that is almost unprecedented to be able to take a 
blank page and be able to create opportunities, to be able to create 
policies that really began with a level of collaboration and 
cooperation. This is what we are hoping to build not only

[[Page S3543]]

with our Arctic neighbors but beyond that.
  It was interesting to note the recognition of six nations that joined 
as observers: China, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. 
No one would ever suggest these are Arctic nations, but the reason they 
want to be engaged as observers is they recognize the importance of the 
Arctic to the rest of the globe. They recognize the importance, whether 
from a shipping perspective, whether from an environmental perspective, 
whether from just an opportunity for resources. There is a keen 
awareness of what is happening in the Arctic, that this is the place to 
be right now.
  So my urging to my colleagues is to pay attention to not only what is 
happening in the Arctic but pay attention to how an increased role in 
the Arctic impacts them and constituents in their States because 
whether it is sending goods from one nation to another, this is an 
opportunity to allow for transit and commerce that has only been a 
dream. Whether it is how we access our energy resources in a way that 
is done responsibly, safe, and with an eye toward environmental 
stewardship, there are opportunities for us--challenges, yes, but 
opportunities for us as well.
  So I will be talking much more about our role as an arctic nation, 
our responsibilities as an arctic nation, but I would ask that we start 
thinking about this: Where does Massachusetts, where does Oregon, where 
do they fit in as part of an arctic nation?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich.) The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. COWAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz--a native son of Massachusetts--to be 
Secretary of Energy. In voting yes on his nomination, the Senate will 
confirm someone who is extremely well qualified for the role of 
Secretary of Energy and someone who is proof positive that the American 
dream is alive and well.
  Dr. Moniz is a son to first-generation immigrants to America, to Fall 
River, MA, a historic city on the south coast of Massachusetts rich 
with a history in the textile and garment mills and now with a bright 
future in the innovation economy.
  It was in Fall River that Dr. Moniz first developed his love of 
science, both at home and in the Massachusetts public schools. With the 
help of scholarships from his father's labor union, Dr. Moniz was able 
to attend and receive his bachelor of science degree, summa cum laude 
in physics, from Boston College. From there, Dr. Moniz went on to do 
even greater work.
  In Massachusetts, we are grateful for the decades of service he has 
given to one of the finest institutions not just in the Commonwealth 
but in the world, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--otherwise 
known as MIT--where he has been a faculty member since 1973. Dr. Moniz 
has led many groundbreaking initiatives at MIT, including most recently 
serving as the funding director of the MIT Energy Initiative and 
leading the MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment. Through the 
MIT Energy Initiative, he has been at the forefront of 
multidisciplinary technology and policy studies on the future of 
nuclear power, coal, nuclear fuel cycles, natural gas, and solar 
energy. The initiative has spun out numerous startup companies from the 
campus lab into the emerging and important clean energy economy.
  In addition to his many years of service to the Commonwealth, Dr. 
Moniz also knows his way around this town, which I am sure will serve 
him well in his new position. He served previously as Under Secretary 
of the Department of Energy and before that as Associate Director for 
Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy for President 
Clinton.
  One of the biggest challenges he will undoubtedly face as Secretary 
is how to continue critical U.S. investments in emerging energy 
technologies, including fusion, in the face of a difficult budget 
climate. While I recognize that, as Secretary, Dr. Moniz will need to 
recuse himself from this particular issue, I strongly support continued 
DOE funding of the domestic fusion energy research program at MIT, the 
C-Mod Program, which has for years led in fusion science and is an 
incubator for the next generation of fusion scientists. Unless 
additional action is taken by DOE, the C-Mod research facility at MIT 
will be abruptly terminated, 130 fusion scientists, engineers, graduate 
students, and support personnel at MIT would also be terminated, and 
hundreds of millions of dollars invested in this program over the past 
generation will be lost.
  Our Nation's domestic fusion program simply cannot withstand the 
proposed reductions without a severe negative impact to our fusion 
research and our scientific contributions to the international fusion 
research community. This shortsighted approach could eliminate the 
ability of the United States to take a lead role in the development of 
the next generation of energy research.
  The Department of Energy has significant responsibilities that impact 
America's economic energy, environmental, and security future. It is my 
strong belief that Dr. Moniz has the ability, knowledge, experience, 
and vision to be an excellent Secretary of Energy for the people of the 
United States. I look forward to casting my vote to confirm this 
brilliant scientist, dedicated public servant, and, yes, native son of 
Massachusetts.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  NLRB

  Mr. CASEY. I rise to speak about the National Labor Relations Board. 
This is a board and a set of issues we are going to be debating and 
have begun to debate recently. It will be with us for a while, and it 
is an important debate we are having.
  As the Senate considers the National Labor Relations Board member 
nominations, I think it is very instructive, and I would even say 
essential, to look back at the history of the Board and the National 
Labor Relations Act, the legislation that created the Board, to recall 
why this Board and the act are so important to our economy, our 
workers, and our businesses.
  The National Labor Relations Act played a key role in making the 
United States the prosperous Nation we are today. A properly 
functioning labor board and a revived, modernized National Labor 
Relations Act could be key players in a more prosperous future.
  Congress passed the act in 1935 during the depths of the Great 
Depression. The National Labor Relations Board Act legitimized and gave 
workers the right to join unions. It encouraged and promoted collective 
bargaining as a way to set wages and settle disputes over working 
conditions, and it led to a surge in union membership and 
representation. It is worth remembering as well why the act was passed 
in the first place.
  To quote section 1 of the act: ``The inequality of bargaining power 
between employees . . . and employers . . . substantially burdens and 
affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business 
depressions by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage 
earners.''
  I am quoting in pertinent part the most significant words in that 
part of the act which are the flow of commerce, how important it is to 
settle disputes so we can have a free-flowing commerce, and that 
workers have the rights they are entitled to.
  As I said, it was passed in 1935. The economy was reeling. One-fourth 
of the workforce was jobless. Millions of Americans were poor, hungry, 
and homeless. Balancing the bargaining power of employers and 
employees, Congress hoped to restore the Nation to economic prosperity. 
Giving workers the right to organize and bargain collectively would 
allow them to stand up to corporate power and demand higher wages, 
thereby increasing their incomes and their purchasing power. That, in 
turn, would increase consumption and demand for goods, increasing 
production and, in fact, increasing employment.

[[Page S3544]]

  As former NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman said: ``The law was enacted 
less as a favor to labor, than to save capitalism from itself.''
  We know that before the New Deal, the Federal and State governments, 
the courts, and the law had all been hostile to the collective rights 
of workers in their struggles against corporate power. For decades, 
going back to the late 1800s, the majority of production workers in 
America's heavy industries had labored in harsh and often dangerous 
conditions for low wages, with little security. I know this from my own 
family's history, but I also know it from the history of my own region 
of northeastern Pennsylvania, the so-called hard coal or anthracite 
region of Pennsylvania.
  Stephen Crane, the great novelist, wrote about the coal mines right 
around the turn of the century. Actually, they are the coal mines of my 
home county. He talked about all the ways a miner could lose his life 
in the coal mines. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record that part of Stephen Crane's essay about the coal mines.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The novelist Stephen Crane toured a mine near Scranton in 
     1894, just ten years before my father went to work in the 
     mines. He described the scene in McClure's Magazine:
       The breakers squatted upon the hillsides and in the valley 
     like enormous preying monsters, eating of the sunshine, the 
     grass, the green leaves. The smoke from their nostrils had 
     ravaged the air of coolness and fragrance. All that remained 
     of vegetation looked dark, miserable, half-strangled. . . .
       The [boys] . . . are not yet at the spanking period. One 
     continually wonders about their mothers, and if there are any 
     schoolhouses. But as for them, they are not concerned. When 
     they get time off, they go out on the culm heap and play 
     baseball . . . And before them always is the hope of one day 
     getting to be door-boys down in the mines; and, later, mule 
     boys; and yet later, laborers and helpers . . .
       A guide then led Crane into the mine:
       It was a journey that held a threat of endlessness. Then 
     suddenly the dropping platform slackened its speed. It began 
     to descend slowly and with caution. At last, with a crash and 
     a jar, it stopped. Before us stretched an inscrutable 
     darkness, a soundless place of tangible loneliness. Into the 
     nostrils came a subtly strong odor of powder-smoke, oil, wet 
     earth. The alarmed lungs began to lengthen their 
     respirations.
       Our guide strode abruptly into the gloom. His lamp flared 
     shades of yellow and orange upon the walls of a tunnel that 
     led away from the foot of the shaft. Little points of coal 
     caught the light and shone like diamonds. . . .
       The wonder of these avenues is the noise--the crash and 
     clatter of machinery as the elevator speeds upward with the 
     loaded cars and drops thunderingly with the empty ones. The 
     place resounds with the shouts of mule boys, and there can 
     always be heard the noise of approaching coal cars, beginning 
     in mild rumbles and then swelling down upon one in a tempest 
     of sound. In the air is the slow painful throb of the pumps 
     working at the water which collects in the depths. There is 
     booming and banging and crashing, until one wonders why the 
     tremendous walls are not wrenched by the force of this 
     uproar. And up and down the tunnel there is a riot of lights, 
     little orange points flickering and flashing. Miners stride 
     in swift and somber procession. But the meaning of it all is 
     in the deep bass rattle of a blast in some hidden part of the 
     mine. It is war. It is the most savage part of all in the 
     endless battle between man and nature. Sometimes their enemy 
     becomes exasperated and snuffs out ten, twenty, thirty lives. 
     Usually she remains calm, and takes one at a time with method 
     and precision. She need not hurry. She possesses eternity. 
     After a blast, the smoke, faintly luminous and silvery, 
     floats silently through the adjacent tunnels . . .
       Great and mystically dreadful is the earth from the mine's 
     depth. Man is in the implacable grasp of nature. It has only 
     to tighten slightly, and he is crushed like a bug. His 
     loudest shriek of agony would be as impotent as his final 
     moan to bring help from that fair land that lies, like 
     Heaven, over his head. There is an insidious, silent enemy in 
     the gas. If the huge fanwheel on the top of the earth should 
     stop for a brief period, there is certain death. If a man 
     escapes the gas, the floods, the squeezes of falling rock, 
     the cars shooting through little tunnels, the precarious 
     elevators, the hundred perils, there usually comes to him an 
     attack of miner's asthma that slowly racks and shakes him 
     into the grave. Meanwhile, he gets $3 per day, and his 
     laborer $1.25.

  Mr. CASEY. When unions sprang up to defend the rights of workers, 
they were treated as illegal conspiracies, ruthlessly smashed by 
companies that either used violence or called on the police or military 
to defend their interests. The unions rarely made more than temporary 
gains.
  When America began to industrialize in the 1800s, the relationship 
between workers and their bosses changed dramatically. Craft work by 
skilled employees was replaced by mass production with hundreds or even 
thousands of people working for a single, impersonal corporation. Giant 
powerful entities generally treated their workers like faceless, 
expendable commodities--inputs into the production process, whose costs 
had to be kept low in order to maximize profits in the incomes of 
robber barons. That was certainly true in my home State of 
Pennsylvania.
  The corporations amassed enormous wealth, but the employees were 
mostly left behind, with lives of misery and hardship. In Pittsburgh, 
for example, the western corner of our State, a remarkable in-depth 
sociological study by the Russell Sage Foundation of the lives of 
working families in the early 1900s found widespread grinding poverty 
and child labor, poor health and education, and astonishing levels of 
work-related injury and illness. In Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh 
is located, with a million residents, more than 500 workers died in 
industrial accidents in a single year, most of them in the steel mills. 
The same was true in the coal mines.
  To give you an example, in 1907, 1,516 workers were killed in the 
coal mines of Pennsylvania. In over about a 98-year period, 31,047 
known fatalities happened in the coal mines of Pennsylvania.
  If the United States today had a proportional number of occupational 
fatalities as they had in Pittsburgh when 500 workers died, the number 
would be 150,000 workers today losing their lives on the job. Workers 
were chewed up and discarded with no workers' compensation system and 
no hope of suing the corporation for negligence. The law of labor 
relations was seriously unbalanced. Whereas business owners were able 
to act collectively, joining together in corporations to be treated as 
a special kind of person under the law, while escaping individual 
liability for corporate acts, unions were sometimes treated as criminal 
conspiracies, their strikes were considered illegal restraints against 
trade, and courts intervened to issue injunctions to hold unions liable 
for the acts of their members.
  When workers tried to form unions to defend themselves or to win a 
fair share of the profits, they were usually met by fierce resistance 
by employers, fueling anger and resentment, often leading to violence.
  One of the most famous and, I should say, infamous tragedies involved 
Carnegie Steel, which for 10 years had a collective bargaining contract 
with its skilled employees at the Homestead plant but decided in 1892, 
during an economic depression, both to cut the employees' wages and to 
destroy the union. I won't go into the whole story today; we don't have 
time. Suffice it to say the union was crushed completely because of the 
actions of that steel company and then steel companies after it.
  Move forward in history when demand for their products dried up in 
the Great Depression. Many businesses cut both wages and hours, further 
depressing workers' incomes and purchasing power.
  In President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first year in office in 1933, he 
pushed through Congress the National Industrial Recovery Act. One of 
its main purposes was to encourage companies to recognize their unions 
and to bargain with them. FDR and Labor Secretary Frances Perkins were 
convinced that raising wages and thereby increasing consumer demand was 
essential to lift the economy and put people back to work.
  Unfortunately, the entity the act created to encourage collective 
bargaining, the National Labor Board, as it was called at the time, had 
no power to compel compliance with the new law. Union membership 
soared, but the companies continued to resist collective bargaining or 
recognize the sham company unions they controlled, effectively 
bargaining with themselves rather than the real representatives of the 
workers. Instead of an orderly, efficient act, or system, I should say, 
the act produced chaos. The Supreme Court ruled that the act was beyond 
the powers of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution.
  What happened then was Senator Robert Wagner of New York started

[[Page S3545]]

over and drafted the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. It passed 
quickly and survived a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court. 
The new law required companies to recognize unions as the exclusive 
representative of their employees when they could prove majority 
representation. It gave the new board the authority to conduct 
elections and to order companies to bargain in good faith over wages 
and working conditions. It outlawed sham company-dominated unions, and 
it protected employees from violations by employers of their right to 
join a union or to engage in strikes or other protected, concerted 
activities such as hand billing or picketing.
  The Board itself was given the power to require employers to hire 
back fired workers, to pay lost wages with interest, and to agree not 
to break the law in the future.
  For a time, the new law worked. As Wilma Liebman, on the National 
Labor Relations Board for 14 years, said recently:

       Over the next decades, millions of workers voted for union 
     representation in NLRB-conducted elections. And millions 
     achieved a middle class way of life through collective 
     bargaining and agreements that provided fair wages and 
     benefits in major industries of the economy.

  At the peak of union power, 35 percent of workers were covered by 
union contracts. They won higher wages, job security, and other 
benefits. American family incomes grew by an average of 2.8 percent per 
year from 1947 to 1973. Let me say that again. There was almost a 3-
percent increase in family incomes from 1947 to 1973, with every sector 
of the economy seeing its income roughly doubled.
  Due to a number of factors, union membership as a share of private 
sector employment has declined from that 35 percent to less than 7 
percent today. We know that our history tells us not only is the act 
important for union members and for their families, but it is also very 
important for the middle class.
  No one thinks the National Labor Relations Board by itself will be 
able to restore balance to America's incomes or restore purchasing 
power to the middle class. The Board itself can help make a difference, 
especially if Congress repairs decades of damage to the rights of 
unions and employees to organize, bargain and, if necessary, to, 
in fact, strike. The Employee Free Choice Act would have been a good 
start in that campaign of repair and restoration.

  Tens of millions of Americans today are working at poverty wages. By 
one estimate, 28 percent of workers are paid at a poverty-level wage or 
less. People who work hard for a living deserve a path to a decent 
economic future. Workers today are better off than the average workers 
surveyed in Pittsburgh 100 years ago, as I cited earlier, but their 
lives are getting harder every year. They are not sharing in our ever-
growing national wealth.
  I hope we can begin a process of reviving collective bargaining soon, 
but first we must end the disgrace of leaving the Nation's most 
important labor relations agency without leadership. It is shameful if 
we allow this to happen. The recent record of obstruction of 
nominations in the Senate is, in a word, unacceptable and should be 
unacceptable to every American. It is time to confirm the President's 
nominees to the National Labor Relations Board, to give certainty to 
workers and to businesses as we continue to recover and create jobs.
  As I leave, I would go back to the few short words I will read from 
the opening Findings and Policies of the National Labor Relations Act:

       Experience has proved that protection by law of the right 
     of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards 
     commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and 
     promotes the free flow of commerce by removing certain 
     recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest.

  I yield the floor, and 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. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                The IRS

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday morning I called for the 
immediate resignation of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller in light 
of the IRS's admission that it targeted conservative groups for 
inappropriate scrutiny. While I was willing to give Mr. Miller and 
other IRS officials the benefit of the doubt until the facts were in, 
the Treasury Inspector General report released on Tuesday has erased 
any doubts as to the severity of the misconduct and the blatant 
incompetence in dealing with the highest levels of the IRS.
  I am pleased President Obama chose to heed the call that I made, and 
others as well, by dismissing Mr. Miller last night. This is a 
necessary step, but only a first step, toward restoring the credibility 
and the integrity of the IRS. This scandal is much larger than any one 
official within the IRS. Any government official who knew about the 
misconduct within the IRS and decided not to make this information 
public should be held accountable. No American taxpayer should ever 
have to worry that a group they belong to or a view they espouse would 
subject them to less favorable tax treatment by their government. Yet 
the IG report has, unfortunately, confirmed this political profiling is 
exactly what happened.

  The misconduct by the IRS is troubling for a host of reasons, but 
there are two questions yet to be answered that I find particularly 
troubling. First, how was the improper targeting of IRS agents allowed 
to continue for more than 18 months before it was finally brought to an 
end?
  Secondly, how did the internal IRS process involve so many high-level 
IRS officials yet remain hidden from the public and from Congress for 
more than 2 years?
  Former Commissioner Miller was quoted yesterday as saying the IRS 
misconduct was a result of two ``rogue'' employees in Cincinnati who 
were ``overly aggressive.'' Yet we now know from the IG report the 
IRS's attempt to deal with the targeting of conservative groups went 
through numerous high-level IRS officials in Washington.
  We know as early as March of 2010, IRS officials in Washington were 
involved in applying special scrutiny to tea party and other 
applications with conservative-sounding names. According to the IG 
report, the head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division and the IRS 
Chief Counsel became aware of this targeting almost 2 years ago in the 
summer of 2011.
  Let's be clear: The scandal isn't simply a few rogue employees. The 
real scandal is an entire bureaucratic structure within the IRS that 
allowed this targeting to go on for 18 months.
  Behind me is the organizational chart from the IG report showing all 
the offices that were involved in dealing with the improper targeting 
of conservative groups. As you can see, of the 12 offices on this 
chart, only two of these offices are based in Cincinnati. The other 10 
offices are in Washington, DC. This particular office was the office--
until just last night--Acting Commissioner Steven Miller held. But as 
you can see, Mr. President, this is lifted directly from the IG's 
report. This is an organizational chart that suggests the two offices 
in Cincinnati were a small part of a much bigger web of offices and 
individuals who were involved.
  This situation may have started with a few rogue employees in 
Cincinnati, but the idea that somehow it was confined to that one small 
part of the IRS structure is simply untrue. It is also misleading to 
suggest the IRS has been anything other than secretive and resistant to 
calls for greater transparency when it comes to the agency's handling 
of conservative groups.
  We now know then-Deputy Commissioner Miller was made aware of 
inappropriate targeting of conservative groups as early as May of 2012. 
Yet for 1 year Mr. Miller did not bring this information to the 
attention of the public or Congress.
  In June and August of 2012 I joined with fellow Republican Senators 
on the Finance Committee in sending letters to the IRS regarding 
reports the IRS was requiring conservative 501(c)(4)s to disclose their 
donors and expressing concerns the IRS may change regulations affecting 
these groups in response

[[Page S3546]]

to political pressures. The IRS responses to these letters did not 
acknowledge any special treatment of conservative groups.
  In November Mr. Miller became the Acting IRS Commissioner, and in 
this capacity he testified before the Senate Finance Committee 
regarding the issue of tax fraud and ID theft. He did not take that 
opportunity to make remarks or to comment on the subject of targeting 
conservative groups. Time and time again high-level IRS officials 
deliberately avoided disclosing information regarding the targeting of 
conservative groups.
  The American people deserve to know that action will be taken to 
ensure the IRS will never participate in this kind of partisanship 
again, and they deserve to know that leaders of such agencies will be 
held accountable for such breaches of trust. These actions undermine 
the confidence the American people have in the IRS to objectively and 
transparently administer our Nation's tax laws.
  These actions by the IRS are a continuation of a troubling trend from 
the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history. All of 
these incidents are beginning to add up to a growing credibility gap 
between this administration under President Obama and the high standard 
of public service the American people deserve.
  Now, thanks to ObamaCare, the IRS will be administering parts of the 
health care law. The IRS's power will grow as they become responsible 
for determining whether Americans have satisfied the government mandate 
to have health insurance and whether the government will pay for part 
of that coverage through refundable tax credits.
  As noted by the National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, ObamaCare is 
``the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to 
implement in recent history.''
  As I previously mentioned, this isn't the only ObamaCare-related 
scandal that has come to light this week. Over the weekend the 
Washington Post reported that Secretary of Health and Human Services 
Kathleen Sebelius has been soliciting donations from health care 
executives to fund left-leaning organizations that are trying to work 
hand-in-hand with HHS to enroll individuals in ObamaCare exchanges.
  If these reports are accurate, the actions taken by the Secretary 
represent a very serious conflict of interest. Companies and 
organizations should never be pressured for money because it sends the 
message that contributions are necessary to secure favorable regulatory 
decisions, creating a pay-to-play environment.
  Earlier this week David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President 
Obama, said it isn't possible for the President to be aware of all 
these problems in government because government is simply too big. It 
is mind-blowing to consider how large the Federal Government is and how 
the one individual responsible for this $3.6 trillion entity can't even 
keep tabs on all the activity. Perhaps this is exactly why we should be 
focused on policies that shrink the size of government so it can be 
more transparent and more accountable to citizens of this country.
  Chief Justice John Marshall, in the seminal opinion McCulloch v. 
Maryland, wrote: ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.'' Those 
words still ring true nearly 200 years later.
  This administration is using one of its greatest powers--the power to 
tax--to destroy one of the people's strongest God-given rights, the 
right to free political speech. This isn't just an attack on certain 
conservative groups, it is an attack on all of our rights to assemble 
and to express free political speech without the fear of repercussion 
from our government. President Obama has a long way to go to restore 
public confidence and to stop the growing credibility gap that so far 
has plagued his second term.
  I look forward to next Tuesday's oversight hearing in the Finance 
Committee where I hope we can begin the process of reining in a 
government agency that has run amuck.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               IRS Rules

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I have been watching today as 
various speakers have come to the floor. I want to join in the outrage 
about what has happened at the IRS, the idea that the IRS would pick 
specific groups and target them. In this case, apparently they used the 
name ``patriot'' and they searched through incoming applications for 
501(c)(4)s--and the term ``tea party''--and they were obviously 
focusing on one side of the political spectrum. They should not have 
done that.
  There is no doubt that the people who are writing me, that people in 
America have watched this and feel a sense of outrage. They should be 
outraged. They are outraged, and I am outraged.
  One of the things we have to understand as a result of this is that 
the IRS has tremendous power. It has the power to audit. It has the 
power to request information. It has the power to refer for criminal 
conduct. I think in many cases the IRS is probably more feared than the 
prosecutor's offices, which also have tremendous power. As many know, I 
have had some real experience there, having been a Federal prosecutor, 
having been a State attorney general. That is power that should be used 
in a very careful way. You do not pick one part of the political 
spectrum and target people when you are entering a phase of a 
prosecution or an audit, as the IRS was doing. I think our President, 
who is a lawyer, understands that. President Obama has called for the 
resignation of the top IRS official. That official has resigned. That 
is the right thing to do. Such action is inexcusable. No one disputes 
that. More disciplinary action is likely. The FBI is investigating, and 
I hope they do a full, thorough, and complete investigation. Of course, 
as I said before, the IRS should not be targeting specific sides of the 
political spectrum.
  But in thinking about this, there is another failure, and we should 
talk about that at the same time. The IRS does not have clear rules for 
nonprofit groups and political activity. We need transparency about 
what is allowed and what is not allowed. Those rules should be applied 
to all groups across the board on all sides of the political spectrum. 
Front groups for huge amounts of campaign money are continually allowed 
to file false statements with the IRS and get away with it. Over and 
over again, they do this. This is wrong whether the group is liberal or 
conservative, Democratic or Republican. This is wrong across the board.
  How does this happen? We know that lots of secretive groups want to 
funnel cash to influence elections, to get their candidates elected. 
But campaign finance rules are supposed to have transparency. How do 
these groups, left or right, keep their money secret? They hide behind 
an organization that is listed with the IRS called a 501(c)(4). They 
ask for permission under the IRS to be a 501(c)(4) status organization. 
That is a tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation regulated by the IRS.
  These groups have one big hurdle to jump through. The 501(c)(4) has 
to be set up ``for the promotion of social welfare.'' In fact, the law 
says it must be exclusively--the law Congress wrote says it must be 
exclusively for social welfare. That is the law Congress wrote. It 
seems pretty clear, doesn't it? It seems as though Congress was saying 
what it intended. But the IRS muddied the water by deciding 
``exclusively'' actually means ``primarily.'' ``Primarily engaged in 
social welfare activity'' means at least 51 percent of the time--not 
100 percent of the time, 51 percent of the time. This is baffling, and 
it is completely misguided.
  To make it more confusing, the IRS regulations state that ``the 
promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect 
participation, or intervention, in political campaigns on behalf or in 
opposition to any candidate for public office.'' To establish a 
501(c)(4) corporation, the organizers must file a form with the IRS 
pledging that they do not plan to spend money

[[Page S3547]]

to influence elections. It appears that many of these groups have lied 
on their applications for nonprofit status. It also appears that they 
are allowed to get away with it. That is corrupt, and it is also a 
crime--and nothing appears to be done about it. That is a scandal right 
there. As the IRS stands by, these groups, whatever their political 
affiliation, mock Federal tax laws.
  The Center for Responsive Politics noted that in the 2012 election, 
501(c)(4) groups spent $254 million to support or oppose candidates. 
Why would someone donate to a 501(c)(4) instead of giving money to the 
parties or to the campaigns of candidates they support? Simple--to 
avoid disclosure. If someone gives $1,000 to a political campaign, that 
is required to be reported and the donor is known. It is out there. It 
is in the public. But if someone gives $1,000 to a 501(c)(4) that is 
improperly engaging in political activity, the public remains in the 
dark. So if someone gives $1,000 to a 501(c)(4), nobody knows about it, 
but it can go out under these rules and engage in political activity.
  This secret money is a bipartisan outrage. They are seeking to 
influence elections, not promote social welfare. This has to change. I 
have long argued that it must change. Since 2010 many of us have come 
to this floor calling for vitally needed reforms, demanding that we 
change the way we do business. I believe that requires a constitutional 
amendment overturning the disastrous Buckley and Citizens United 
decisions by the Supreme Court, restoring to Congress and the States 
the authority to regulate elections.
  We have also pushed for the DISCLOSE Act. That legislation would have 
taken the IRS out of the business of investigating these groups--a job 
it is failing to do anyway. It would have required open reporting with 
the Federal Election Commission. The DISCLOSE Act doesn't ban any 
group, but it does say the American people have a right to know who is 
trying to influence their vote, who is paying for all those ads on 
television.
  There is a saying in Washington from the Watergate era: ``Follow the 
money.'' That is what I am trying to do. Where does the money come from 
and where is the money going? Not a single Republican voted for the 
DISCLOSE Act--not one. In fact, they filibustered it, blocked it from 
an up-or-down vote.
  Partisan bias and abuse by the IRS cannot be tolerated. President 
Obama is not tolerating it. But Americans are also fed up with the 
deception by shadowy groups that continue to drown our elections in 
anonymous cash. The fact that these secret political money groups also 
serve as tax breaks for extremely wealthy people adds insult to injury.
  We need clear rules from the IRS. Exclusive means exclusive, in my 
book. When the Congress says ``exclusive,'' it means exclusive, and we 
need to enforce those rules equally on all applicants for tax-exempt 
status, every single one. If you are a charity or true social welfare 
organization, you should not pay taxes. There is no need to publicize 
your donors. But if you are looking to influence Americans' votes and 
how Americans vote, the voters should know who you are. There must be 
disclosure at the very least.
  We have to change the way we do business. The failure of IRS 
bureaucrats--billionaires writing political checks but hiding in the 
shadows and avoiding taxes--this has to change. The time has come to 
change this.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am honored and privileged to stand here 
today and to say good words on behalf of Ernest Jay Moniz, also known 
as Dr. Moniz and Ernie Moniz. He is one of my favorite people from the 
world of academia. I have in my hand a bio of him that I will read out 
loud. It is not very long, and it is worth listening to.
  Dr. Ernest J. Moniz is the Cecil and Ida Green professor of physics 
and engineering systems at MIT. His research at MIT, where he has 
served on the faculty since 1973, has focused on energy technology and 
policy.
  Dr. Moniz also serves as the director of MIT's Energy Initiative and 
the MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.
  From 1997 until 2001, Dr. Moniz served as Under Secretary of the 
Department of Energy. Prior to that time, he served as Associate 
Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in 
the Executive Office of the President from 1995 until 1997.
  In addition to his work at MIT and the Department of Energy, Dr. 
Moniz has served on any number of boards and commissions, including the 
President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology from 2009 
until today, the Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory 
Committee from 2010 until today, and on the Blue Ribbon Commission on 
America's Nuclear Future from 2010 to 2012.
  Dr. Moniz is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement 
of Science, the Humboldt Foundation, and the American Physical Society. 
In 1998 he received the Seymour Cray HPCC Recognition Award for vision 
and leadership in advancing scientific simulation.
  Dr. Moniz received a bachelor of science degree summa cum laude in 
physics from Boston College and a doctorate in theoretical physics from 
Stanford University.
  I have been privileged to know this man for a number of years. Our 
oldest son was an undergraduate in mechanical engineering at MIT and 
graduated a few years ago.
  I remember holding a field hearing at MIT--gosh, about a half dozen 
or so years ago--and Dr. Moniz was one of our witnesses. Among the 
things I liked about him is that he was so approachable. We have all 
heard the term ``good guy.'' He is a really good guy.
  Sometimes we think of somebody as a professor in an ivy tower and 
kind of out of touch, unable to communicate and connect with people. He 
could not be more different from that caricature. He is a real person, 
not to mention a very smart person. As a professor, he is able to 
explain complex concepts of nuclear energy and clean coal so that even 
I can understand what he is saying.
  He has a wonderful sense of humor. If you happen to be a young person 
or an older person, Democratic or Republican, he just works so well 
with everybody. He is smart as a whip. He has a great way about him. He 
is approachable and has a very can-do attitude. I think the President 
made a great choice.
  I say to Ernie and his family, I appreciate his willingness to serve 
in a lot of capacities and his willingness now to serve in this 
capacity. Hopefully, it will be good for him, his life, and his family. 
I think it certainly is going to be good for our country, so we 
appreciate that.
  I say to my colleagues who have not had a chance to get to know him, 
I think everyone is going to like him a lot and enjoy working with him. 
I know I certainly have.
  I also wish to discuss something I touched on earlier this week. I 
stood here just this week talking about the Swiss cheese we have in the 
executive branch of our Federal Government. There are too many 
positions that don't have someone confirmed for those positions.
  In some cases, the administration has been derelict in terms of 
sending us nominations because they spend forever vetting nominations 
because they don't want to send someone to us who has a flaw or a 
blemish. As a result, I think they spend entirely too much time vetting 
nominees. In some cases, even when a nominee's name gets here, even if 
they are really good and well qualified, we delay those nominations 
further. Whether it is a Democratic or Republican President, we put the 
nominees through--not torture but something pretty close to it.
  We need good people to be willing to serve. When they step up and are 
willing to serve, we need to process and vet those nominations. We need 
to scrub them hard, but at the end of the day we need to move them 
forward.
  In the Environment and Public Works Committee, we took a small but 
important step with the President's nominee Regina McCarthy to be the 
Administrator for the Environment Protection Agency. She is enormously

[[Page S3548]]

well qualified. She has already been confirmed by the Senate for the 
air pollution side for the EPA and has done a very nice job.
  Although she has been nominated by a Democratic President, in the 
past she served with five Republican Governors. She is smart, hard-
working, she has great credentials, and she is approachable. She is 
somebody who is able to understand and explain things. She will do a 
great job.
  We have had a hard time being able to move her nomination out of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. Today we were joined by our 
Republican colleagues. Unfortunately, none of them voted to report her 
nomination out of committee. We have reported her out on a straight 
party-line vote.
  My hope is that we will have an opportunity to do what we did a 
number of years ago--about 7 or 8 years ago. Mike Leavitt, the former 
Governor of Utah, was nominated to be the head of EPA. There was some 
delay in his nomination.
  We actually had a big markup and business meeting scheduled to 
consider his nomination, and the Democrats boycotted that meeting. We 
waited a couple of weeks. At a followup meeting, the Democrats showed 
up, and we reported him out with Democratic support. Later, we voted 
for his nomination. It was a big bipartisan vote. I think there were 70 
or 80 votes in favor of his nomination.
  My hope is that is what we will do with Gina McCarthy. She deserves a 
vote, and from my perspective she deserves a positive, affirmative 
vote.
  We have Ernie Moniz coming our way later this afternoon in about 40 
minutes. I hope my colleagues will join me and give him a big vote so 
we can send him to work for our country one more time.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleagues from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. This is about Dr. Ernie Moniz's appointment to be 
Secretary of Energy. I put a hold on Dr. Moniz. It has nothing to do 
with him. He is a wonderful fellow. He is an MIT professor. He has been 
amply associated with the Department of Energy, including the MOX 
Program. All of us in Georgia and South Carolina look forward to 
working with him.
  What we are upset about is the Obama administration's decision to 
temporarily stop construction on the MOX facility. It is about 60 
percent complete.
  What is MOX? It is a program to take 34 metric tons of weapons-grade 
plutonium in excess of our defense needs and dispose of it by turning 
it into commercial-grade fuel. It is enough weapons-grade plutonium to 
make 17,000 warheads.
  In 2000 there was an agreement between the United States and Russia: 
They would dispose of 34 metric tons and we would dispose of 34 metric 
tons. And we have been studying how to do that.
  In 2010 the Federal Government--and the Obama administration--in the 
agreement with the Russians to move forward, said we would MOX the 34 
metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. We were to turn it into mixed 
oxide fuel to be used in commercial reactors, which was a technology 
deployed in France, and that was the way forward.
  To the administration's credit, we are finally moving forward. 
Senator Isakson, Senator Chambliss, and I went to the facility a couple 
of years ago and finally saw it moving forward. It is about 60 percent 
built. Now, in the budget proposal of the President, they stopped 
construction to study an alternative. There is no other alternative. If 
they try to turn it into vitrified glass material, that will take more 
money and more time than doing MOX, and it has not been proven to work 
the way it is set up today.
  At the end of the day, the problems we should be focusing on are the 
cost overruns of the MOX Program. It is about $2 billion over cost. I 
would join with the administration to sit down with a contractor and 
try to recoup that $2 billion to find a way forward and make it 
affordable.
  There are statutes in place that require a $100 million fine to be 
paid to the State of South Carolina if we don't meet our disposition 
goals. Last year we extended that statute by 2 years because we don't 
want the fine money, we want the MOX Program. It is good for the 
country, and it is good for the world.
  Now that we have stopped the study, our fear is that we are stopping 
and studying an alternative that doesn't exist, and it cannot be 
cheaper than $2 billion. There is no other way to do it. We have been 
studying this for about 15 years, and we will be breaking the agreement 
with the Russians. Other than that, we don't have a problem with what 
they are doing.
  What we want to do is sit down with the contractor and the 
administration and lower the costs of the program but keep it moving 
forward. This administration has talked consistently about reducing 
nuclear proliferation and making the world safer from the use of 
nuclear materials. This is a program that started in the Clinton 
administration--then Bush, and now Obama--that really would accomplish 
that.
  Thirty-four metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium--enough to make 
17,000 warheads--would be taken off the market forever. In this way, a 
sword becomes a plowshare by making commercial-grade fuel out of it. It 
is a good program, and we need to complete the program.
  The reason we put a hold on the nominee for Secretary of Energy is to 
get everybody's attention. I have been talking with Dennis McDonough, 
and I have been talking with the administration. We hope we can resolve 
this, but we are here to speak for Georgia and South Carolina.
  We have a deal with the Federal Government. We agreed to take this 34 
metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium years ago with the understanding 
that it would leave South Carolina and not affect the environment of 
South Carolina and Georgia in a permanent way.
  We are very DOE-friendly in South Carolina and Georgia. The Savannah 
River site is right on the border. There are almost as many people from 
Georgia working at the site as there are from South Carolina. My 
colleagues from Georgia have been absolutely terrific.
  At the end of the day we are going to be insistent that the Federal 
Government keep its commitment to the States of South Carolina and 
Georgia and to the Russians. We are going to make sure we dispose of 
this weapons-grade plutonium, and we are going to be more cost-
conscious about it.
  We are going to let Ernie Moniz become Secretary of Energy in 40 
minutes. I will vote for him, but I will continue to slow down the 
process and make life incredibly miserable if we cannot find an 
accommodation that I think is fair. My State and the State of Georgia 
have been good partners with the Federal Government and the Department 
of Energy on energy issues.
  Several years ago, when I first became a Senator--I think it was in 
2002 or 2003--we agreed to leave some waste in the bottom of about 50 
tanks that contained high-level waste material from the Cold War era 
from reactors at the Savannah River site used to make tritium to help 
fuel hydrogen bombs. By leaving a small amount in the bottom of the 
tank--the heel--and filling it with concrete, we were able to save $16 
billion in cleanup costs. Instead of scrapping it all out and sending 
it to Yucca Mountain, which never came about, we were able to leave a 
small amount that would not hurt the environment of South Carolina and 
Georgia.
  Now, in this budget they are reducing the tank closure by $106 
million. We cannot do it that way. They cannot get us to help save 
money for the Federal Government and take on a reasonable risk--not 
much of a risk at all--and then short us. Whether it is a Republican or 
Democratic administration, people are going to stop dealing with the 
Federal Government when it comes to nuclear materials if this is the 
way we are going to do business.
  The people in Georgia and South Carolina have been very 
accommodating. We appreciate the Savannah River site. It is a wonderful 
DOE facility. We are proud of it, and we are proud of the employees. 
But we are not going to be taken advantage of.

[[Page S3549]]

  We are asking for the administration to sit down with us and others 
who care about this to find a way to lower the cost of the MOX 
construction but continue forward with the construction so we can get 
the MOX facility up and running. We need to honor our commitment to the 
Russians and get this weapons-grade plutonium off the market.
  Count us in in terms of lowering costs; count us out when it comes to 
stopping the program in the middle and trying to find an alternative 
that doesn't exist.
  As to the tanks, the Federal Government is going to honor its 
commitment to the people of South Carolina and Georgia to get these 
tanks closed up on time and on schedule. We have, again, saved $16 
billion over the life of the close-up plan for the tanks just by being 
reasonable.
  When it comes to MOX, there were three facilities planned to take the 
weapons-grade plutonium and turn it into a commercial-grade fuel. We 
were able to consolidate two of the facilities into one and save $2 
billion. I am all for saving money, but I am also all for keeping one's 
word.
  To our friends in the administration, we will work with you when we 
can, fight you when we must, but when it comes to this, I hope there 
will be a lot of bipartisanship for the delegations of South Carolina 
and Georgia to make sure we honor the commitment entered into between 
the Federal Government and the State of South Carolina that will affect 
our friends in Georgia and keep this program moving. We are not asking 
for too much. As a matter of fact, we are insisting on the Federal 
Government holding up its end of the bargain because we have held up 
our end of the bargain.
  To our friends in the administration, let's see if we can solve this 
problem.
  To my colleagues in this body, I hope I would have the good judgment 
and common sense to support the Members if anyone found themselves in 
this position of trying to do something good for the Nation and have it 
get off the rail. I hope I would be willing to help the other side when 
it comes to something such as this.

  It is very difficult to deal with these high-level waste issues, 
particularly weapons-grade plutonium. When we find somebody who is 
willing to be reasonable and helpful, the last thing that should be 
done is to change the rules in the middle of the game.
  With that, I will yield to Senator Isakson to just quickly ask him, 
from his point of view, does he see this as a fundamental breach of the 
agreement we have had for years, and what effect does he think it will 
have on our nonproliferation agenda and how does it affect South 
Carolina and Georgia?
  Mr. ISAKSON. First of all, I wish to thank the Senator from South 
Carolina for his leadership on this important issue, and I am proud to 
join the senior Senator from Georgia Saxby Chambliss and, in effect, 
join Sam Nunn, who is a former Senator from Georgia who, with Dick 
Lugar, brought about the Nuclear Threat Initiative program which 
brought about the treaty of 2000 which calls for the reduction by 68 
metric tons of nuclear materials.
  I would answer the question of the Senator from South Carolina with 
another question: Where else in the United States of America are there 
two States willing to accept plutonium, reprocess it into fuel rod for 
commercial use, and do it safely and have dealt with nuclear materials 
for over 50 years? That is Georgia and South Carolina.
  The idea that we can fund a study to look for an alternative is 
laughable. That is just merely a smokescreen for the current 
administration's position.
  The Senator is exactly right. Senator Chambliss and myself, along 
with Senator Scott and Senator Graham, are happy to sit down with the 
administration, look at the cost overrun on the MOX facility, and find 
ways to find savings. But the dumbest economic decision in the world 
would be to stop the process when we are half finished because then we 
have wasted every dime that has already been spent, and we have to 
spend more money on an alternative that does not exist.
  So I wish to add my support to the remarks of Senator Graham and my 
State's support to reprocess this weapons-grade plutonium into 
reprocessed materials that fuel powerplants and commercial 
opportunities. That is a good use. It is a good way to get rid of this 
nuclear material, and it is also a good way to keep it out of the hands 
of the terrorists. If we don't destroy it and it lays around in Russia 
or anywhere else, it is always suspected of being stolen or used in a 
way that none of us would ever want.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I can't thank Senator Isakson enough. Senator Scott has 
been with us at every step. But I want to let everybody in Georgia know 
that when it comes to the Savannah River site, we have worked as a team 
for years, and I just can't thank the Senator enough.
  Senator Chambliss is one of the leading national security experts in 
the Senate, and he has been intimately involved in the MOX program. My 
question for Senator Chambliss is, we have an agreement with the 
Russians; they will dispose of their 34 metric tons of excess 
plutonium--enough to create 17,000 warheads in Russia--and we have 
agreed to do the same. If we are seen to stop and not honor our 
commitment, what reaction does the Senator from Georgia think the 
Russians would have, and is it smart to delay this program in the times 
in which we live?
  I worry about the materials being compromised not so much in South 
Carolina and Georgia but very much in Russia. Could the Senator express 
his thoughts about that?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as did my colleague from Georgia 
Senator Isakson, I wish to thank Senator Graham for his leadership on 
this issue. He is right. We have been to the facility a number of times 
to examine what is going on there. There is great work being done by 
highly trained, highly educated individuals to deal with one of the 
most sensitive products we have in this country.
  The Senator is exactly right that there are significant consequences 
from an international standpoint if the numbers in the President's 
budget are allowed to stand. That is why we have had conversations with 
a number of individuals currently at the Department of Energy and why 
we had a conversation with Dr. Moniz in preparation for his 
confirmation by this body. Those discussions have led to the fact that, 
as the Senator from Georgia says, we are willing--and we have their 
agreement that they are willing--to sit down with a contractor to talk 
about the money. That is the real issue because we are talking about a 
budget item and whether we can afford to do this. If we don't involve 
the contractor, then obviously we can't get that number down to a 
manageable number.
  So, again, with the leadership of the Senator from South Carolina, we 
look forward to working with Dr. Moniz and others with respect to 
sitting down with the contractor and coming to some resolution of the 
ultimate budget number that is going to be needed.
  With respect to Russia, the President met with President Medvedev in 
2010, and the two of them, in a press conference, talked about the MOX 
facility and the agreement on MOX. Here we are 3 years later with this 
President submitting a budget number that, in fact, in effect starves 
this program and would have the obvious intended result of eliminating 
this program, thus breaking his word with President Medvedev in 2010 as 
well as breaking the U.S. agreement with Russia. That has the potential 
to have very serious consequences on the international stage.
  Also, abandoning the project would have severe economic impact to 
both the State of Georgia and the State of South Carolina because of 
the individuals who have been working there for now, as Senator Isakson 
said, 50 years.
  It is also going to strand up to 64 metric tons of weapons-grade 
plutonium. Where else is it going to go? There is no place else for it 
to go. There is no State jumping up and down saying: Please bring your 
uranium and your plutonium to my State and we will deal with it. You 
can transport it to my State. In fact, the exact opposite is happening.
  It was intended that we would process this plutonium and it would 
ultimately ship to Yucca Mountain, as Senator Graham alluded to. Now 
the State of Nevada is saying no. They are throwing up their hands and 
saying: We don't want that processed material in

[[Page S3550]]

our State because it is hazardous waste.
  Well, what we are saying is, we are happy doing what we are doing 
because we have those trained, sophisticated professionals who know how 
to deal with this hazardous material. They do an outstanding job of it. 
We have spent billions of dollars constructing the facilities to the 
point where they are 40 percent away from being completed now. If we 
just accept the President's budget, then we will have wasted all of 
that money and the construction phase of the buildings that are there. 
Also, we are not going to have anywhere to put this 64 metric tons of 
hazardous material and weapons-grade plutonium.
  So this stands to have economic impacts to our part of the country. 
It stands to certainly create international issues with the Russians if 
we break our agreement with them. Also, just as significantly, it 
leaves 64 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium outstanding, with 
nowhere to go, nowhere to store it.

  The MOX project was designed to deal with a very sophisticated issue 
years and years and years ago, and it just makes no sense whatsoever to 
stop in the middle of it now and say, well, we just don't have the 
money to take care of something that is as hazardous and potentially as 
life-threatening as what this weapons-grade plutonium is.
  We do need to spend our money wisely. We have to be careful. But 
there are agreements we need to honor. There are certain aspects of 
governing that need to be done and need to be done in the right way, 
and this is simply one of those.
  So with the continued leadership of Senator Graham and Senator 
Isakson and Senator Scott, I look forward to us sitting down with Dr. 
Moniz once he is confirmed--and we are all going to vote to confirm him 
today--because he has so much knowledge about this.
  One thing we failed to mention is the fact that he is the guy who 
negotiated the agreement. He is the guy the President is saying, well, 
we know you went through some very difficult times in negotiating this 
with the Russians, but the heck with your agreement, the heck with all 
the work you did. Thank goodness his attitude is that he wants to work 
with us.
  We want to find a way forward. We look forward to his confirmation 
being completed, to sitting down with us and the contractor, and let's 
figure out a way we can make this project the continued success it has 
been thus far, as well as moving forward.
  With that, I yield to Senator Graham.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank Senator Chambliss.
  I believe Senator Reed wishes to be recognized for a request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning 
business after Senator Graham has completed his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Just to conclude, I wish to thank both of my colleagues. 
They have been great partners on this issue and many others. We have 
tried to be good partners with the Federal Government. We are proud of 
the Savannah River site and all that has been accomplished over the 
last 50 years. Now we are moving into a new phase of trying to get rid 
of Cold War materials--34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium here, 
and in Russia, 60 percent completion of the MOX program.
  As to the $2 billion overrun, that is not lost upon me as being a lot 
of money. That is a lot of money. But what I am telling my fellow 
Members of the body, and the country as a whole, there is no way we can 
find an alternative to MOX cheaper than that $2 billion. It is just not 
possible. We have been studying this forever, and in the agreement 
itself with the Russians, it specifically says MOX, and it prohibits us 
as a nation from burying the plutonium.
  So this is the way forward. I promise the Members of the body and the 
administration we will lower the cost overruns, I promise. This is a 
complicated scientific endeavor, but we will lower the cost overruns.
  What we will not do is stop the program when it is 60 percent 
complete and study an alternative that has no possibility of coming 
about scientifically and could never lower costs and interrupt the 
disposition of this weapons-grade plutonium and breach the agreement 
with the Russians. We will not be a party to that. We will keep 
talking.
  As to Mr. Moniz, he will be an outstanding Secretary of Energy. We 
look forward to working with him.
  I appreciate my colleagues coming down and joining me in this 
colloquy and putting everything on the record about the Savannah River 
site and MOX.
  With that, I yield the floor to Senator Reed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I ask unanimous 
consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Chambliss be 
recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, July 1 is less than 7 weeks away, and unless 
we act the interest rate on need-based student loans will rise from 3.4 
percent to 6.8 percent.
  Student loan debt is second only to mortgage debt for American 
families. Now is not the time to add to student loan debt by allowing 
the interest rate on need-based student loans to double.
  I have worked with Chairman Harkin, Leader Reid, and many of my 
colleagues to develop a fully offset, 2-year extension of the current 
student loan interest rate. Instead of charging low- and moderate-
income students more for their student loans, the Student Loan 
Affordability Act will keep rates where they are while closing 
loopholes in the Federal Tax Code. We should take up this legislation 
and pass it without delay.
  I know many of my colleagues, including myself, are working on longer 
term solutions that more effectively reflect market rates--but my 
concern is, frankly, that we will run up against this July 1 deadline 
and we will not have the long-term solution in place. We have to do 
something. That is why I urge us to pick up this legislation as quickly 
as possible.
  Our first priority must be to reassure students and families that the 
interest rate will not double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 
1. We have to do that. Then we can work toward a longer term solution. 
We also owe it to them to commit to a full and thoughtful process for 
devising this longer term solution, to develop an approach that will 
set interest rates and terms and conditions on all student loans that 
will be more reflective of market rates, but also more beneficial to 
students and their families who are borrowing this money.
  Senator Durbin and I have put forward a long-term proposal that would 
set student loan interest rates based on the actual cost of operating 
the program so the Federal Government would not be offering student 
loans at a profit.
  There are other long-term proposals on the table. Some of them, such 
as the one reported out of the Education and the Workforce Committee in 
the House today, could actually leave students worse off than they 
would be if the rates were to double. We need to take the time to fully 
consider comprehensive solutions to our student loan debt crisis--
solutions that will make college more affordable, not less so. Rather 
than rushing to overhaul the Federal student loan program without fully 
considering the impact on students and college affordability, the 
Student Loan Affordability Act will secure low interest rates until 
Congress can act on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 
Without swift congressional action, more than 7 million students will 
have to pay an estimated additional $1,000 for each loan. These are the 
students who need the help the most.

  Sixty percent of dependent subsidized loan borrowers come from 
families with incomes of less than $60,000, while 80 percent of 
independent subsidized loan borrowers come from families with incomes 
below $40,000.
  Unlike Republican proposals that would balance the budget on the 
backs of students by charging them higher interest rates or make 
students vulnerable to exorbitant interest rates in the future, this 
legislation which we are

[[Page S3551]]

proposing will help ensure that college remains within reach for 
students who rely on Federal loans to pay for their education. This 
legislation is fully paid for.
  Specifically, the pay-fors would be limiting the use of tax-deferred 
retirement accounts as a complicated estate planning tool, closing a 
corporate offshore tax loophole by restricting ``earnings stripping'' 
by expatriated entities, and closing an oil-and-gas industry tax 
loophole by treating oil from tar sands the same as other petroleum 
products.
  We should not be collecting additional revenue from students when we 
can eliminate wasteful spending in the Tax Code, and we should not 
allow--not allow--the interest rate to double on July 1.
  I hope all my colleagues will support, as the first step, the 2-year 
extension until we can truly come up with a thoughtful, comprehensive 
approach to long-term student lending in the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Miller Resignation

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the resignation 
of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller.
  The request by President Obama and Mr. Miller's resignation is too 
little too late. This is just another example of the President 
continuing to search for a scapegoat for his own administration's 
misdeeds.
  The American people deserve trust, and this egregious abuse of power 
demonstrates the worst fears of the American people that they cannot 
trust their government.
  It has been 2 years since these incidents were first reported, and 
while Members of Congress were led to believe no malfeasance occurred, 
the details of the IG report were more shocking than we could have 
realized, as many conservative groups were not only targeted for 
additional reviews but were harassed as well. Moreover, in some cases, 
information was purposefully leaked by the Internal Revenue Service.
  These actions are unacceptable, and while President Obama's reactions 
seem to be sincere, he has not yet demonstrated to the American people 
that all of those responsible will be brought to justice. Above all, we 
have to make sure this never happens again.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support President Obama's 
nomination of Dr. Ernest J. Moniz to be the next Secretary of Energy. 
Dr. Moniz has a solid and extensive background in the energy field and 
I believe will bring a balanced and practical perspective to our 
Nation's energy policy. Dr. Moniz has significant familiarity with the 
Department of Energy and its issues, having served as Under Secretary 
during the second Clinton administration. During the Obama 
administration, he has served in a number of advisory positions, 
including as a member of the President's Council of Advisers on Science 
and Technology, the Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory 
Committee, and the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
  The Committee on Armed Services, which I chair, has jurisdiction over 
both the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security 
Administration, NNSA, and Department's Environmental Management 
Program. The NNSA is responsible for the management and security of the 
Nation's nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and naval reactor 
programs. The Environmental Management Program is responsible for 
cleanup of the environmental legacy from the Nation's nuclear weapons 
development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. Combined, 
these programs represent more than $16.7 billion of the Department of 
Energy's $26.3 billion budget, or more than 63 percent.
  I recently had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Moniz and to 
highlight several issues of importance to the State of Michigan and to 
the Nation. I look forward to working with Dr. Moniz on these issues.
  Among these issues is the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, FRIB, 
which will be the world's most powerful rare isotope accelerator and 
provide cutting-edge research capabilities to study questions about the 
fundamental nature of matter. Applications of research discoveries from 
FRIB will assist development of new technologies in the fields of 
biomedicine, environmental science, and national defense. Michigan 
State University, MSU, was selected in 2008 after an extensive 
competitive process, and the FRIB project plans and schedules have been 
through rigorous Federal review. As home of the National Science 
Foundation's National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, MSU has 
solid and well-known expertise in the field of rare isotopes and 
nuclear physics, with the largest nuclear physics faculty in the Nation 
and a nuclear physics graduate program that ranks No. 1 in the United 
States. MSU already produces 10 percent of the Nation's Ph.D.s in 
nuclear physics. In addition to expanding our knowledge of physics and 
the life science, successful completion of FRIB also will enhance the 
education of nuclear scientists and engineers needed to maintain U.S. 
competitiveness.
  Another important issue to the State of Michigan and the Nation is 
collaboration between Federal agencies, the private sector, and 
academia on the development and transition of advanced ground vehicle 
and energy technologies. Collaboration in these areas is critical to 
leverage and maximize the value of the work being done in the Federal 
Government, in the private sector, and at our academic institutions 
around the country. The Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance, 
AVPTA, is a partnership between the Department of Energy and the 
Department of the Army which was created to provide a mechanism for 
this collaboration. A charter was signed between these two agencies in 
July 2011 establishing the mission of the AVPTA to ``leverage resources 
and research involving the commercial automotive and defense ground 
vehicle manufacturers to transition technologies into both the 
commercial and military marketplaces and increase precompetitive 
research and development.''
  Dr. Moniz is familiar with and supportive of these programs, and I 
look forward to his Senate confirmation as Secretary of Energy. The 
Department of Energy has been effectively led by Dr. Steven Chu. Dr. 
Moniz will carry on that good work.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe we have run out of those in the 
Senate who wish to speak. I would just like to state again that this is 
a nominee who is supported by both Senator Murkowski and myself. This 
is a nominee who got an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  As I said earlier, I think he is an individual who is smart about 
energy policy, he is savvy about how the Department of Energy operates 
and he is a solution-oriented person and Democrats and Republicans in 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee saw that in the 
confirmation process.
  There are huge challenges ahead of him at the Department of Energy, 
but I think he is very qualified for this position. I would urge all 
Senators--Democrats and Republicans--to support the nominee.
  I yield back all remaining time on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Ernest J. Moniz, of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of Energy?
  Mrs. BOXER. 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

[[Page S3552]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Blunt
     Coburn
     Moran
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________