[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.
____________________