Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 24 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 24 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S985-S998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Portman):
S. 478. A bill to promote career readiness indicators and career
counseling for students; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, preparing all students to be college and
career-ready upon graduating high school is one of the central promises
that public education and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
ESEA, should fulfill. However, career readiness has

[[Page S986]]

all too often taken a back seat to a focus on traditional college
preparation. Strong academic skills are essential to college
preparation, but it takes much more to be truly ready for a career.
Today many students graduate high schools with little knowledge of
the careers available to them and the technical skills needed to meet
the demands of the 2lst century job market. ``Career readiness
indicators'' are factors that demonstrate a student's preparedness,
including both academic and technical knowledge and skills, for
postsecondary education and the workforce. By encouraging school
districts to track and report on career readiness indicators, States
can send a signal to schools, communities, parents, and students that
it is critical to be prepared for the workforce regardless of
postsecondary education plans. Additionally, it provides public data
for employers to help locate their operations in regions with a high-
skilled workforce.
This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator
Portman and Senator Baldwin, the Career Ready Act, which will amend the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act to expand on these efforts by
encouraging more states to report on courses in their school systems.
This includes utilizing multiple indicators of career readiness when
states report data to the federal government such as student
participation in career and technical education courses or attainment
of recognized postsecondary credentials or academic and technical
skills including industry-recognized credentials, certifications,
licenses, and postsecondary degrees. Tracking and publishing this data
provides much-needed information for businesses and workforce leaders
that is not provided under current law.
This bipartisan legislation also strengthens the Elementary and
Secondary School Counseling grant program in current law by placing an
emphasis on career guidance and providing professional development for
school counselors to use labor market information and partnerships with
community groups such as local workforce investment boards, businesses,
industries, and regional economic development agencies to educate
students on postsecondary opportunities. The Career Ready Act
encourages schools to align career exploration course offerings and
counseling to the workforce needs of the local community and coordinate
with the requirements of the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act
and the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act.
I am proud to introduce this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to
improve career readiness and career guidance to ensure students are
prepared for the 21st century workforce. I strongly encourage my
colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee to
consider this legislation in any ESEA reauthorization.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 487. A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to
allow the rebuilding, without elevation, of certain structures that are
located in areas having special flood hazards and are substantially
damaged by fire, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire-
Damaged Home Rebuilding Act.
This legislation is simple. It allows families living in federally-
designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is
destroyed by a fire.
The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to
block reconstruction after floods, but which have been applied to block
reconstruction of homes after fires and other natural disasters as
well.
I was first made aware of this issue by a constituent from
Sacramento, Jennifer Taylor. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood
burned down, and she was denied when she applied for a permit to
rebuild it. The county informed her that Federal floodplain regulations
required her to elevate the home 20 feet above ground level because of
existing deficiencies in the levee protecting her neighborhood.
Can you imagine what that would look like? Every house in the
neighborhood at ground level, and one home towering 20 feet above the
rest?
More importantly though, the cost would be exorbitant, and would not
be covered by her insurance. Instead, the cost would be imposed on a
family trying to get back on its feet after a personal tragedy.
When the home burned down, the family collected $71,000 from their
insurance company. Contractors estimated the cost to restore the home
to its original condition was $170,000--a significant burden, but one
the family was willing to bear.
But when the family factored in the cost of elevating their home 20
feet, the cost skyrocketed. Contractors estimated the elevation project
would cost an additional $200,000.
Just to restore their home to its previous size and condition, the
family would owe $300,000 more than what they received from their
insurance.
There is a fundamental issue of fairness at stake.
This family tragically lost their home and many of their personal
belongings. But instead of helping the family during this difficult
time, the Federal Government is instead blocking them from rebuilding.
Why? Because the Federal Government has failed to maintain adequate
flood protection.
It just doesn't seem fair.
The Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act addresses this issue by allowing
local communities to grant variances to federal flood plain regulations
without jeopardizing their participation in the program.
The legislation allows waivers to be granted only if all of the
following conditions are met: communities must already have taken steps
to repair damaged levees, such as seeking Federal authorization of a
levee project, and there must be previously existing plans to obtain
the requisite 100-year flood protection in the near future.
The destroyed house must be within a deep floodplain where it would
be too expensive and unsightly to elevate the home.
The new home must be built within the footprint of the destroyed
structure.
The homeowner cannot qualify for new insurance discounts; and the
property has never been associated with a claim to the National Flood
Insurance Program.
These limitations will only allow families to rebuild very limited
circumstances after tragedy strikes that is unrelated to a flooding
event. The number of waivers local governments can approve is capped at
ten per year so that this authority is not subject to abuse. This limit
will ensure that waivers are used prudently and sparingly.
I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is
irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses to be constructed
without adequate mitigation in an area where you know that flooding is
likely.
The Federal floodplain regulations were put in place to block
individual homeowners from voluntarily renovating and improving their
homes. They were also designed to block homeowners from rebuilding
after a flood. By doing so, the Federal Government limits its liability
for future flood insurance claims.
Fire-damaged homes clearly represent an exception to these
circumstances, however. So we need to adjust the law to eliminate an
unfortunate and unintended consequence of an otherwise good policy.
City and county governments must be empowered to make case by case
judgments about whether it makes sense to elevate damaged structures by
10, 15, or 20 feet when the rest of the neighborhood remains at ground
level.
That is exactly what the Fire-Damaged Home Reconstruction Act does.
It provides limited authority to local governments, which will allow
them to do what makes sense for their communities and will allow
families to rebuild after a fire or other non-flood disaster.
This is a commonsense piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues
will work to quickly adopt the bill.
______

By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Flake,
Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 491. A bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss our country's
relationship with Cuba. I have long advocated modernizing our
relationship

[[Page S987]]

with Cuba. The current embargo has been in place for 50 years, and it
has greatly constrained opportunities for American businesses by
restricting commerce, by restricting our exports--things that are made
in America--from going to a place that is only 90 miles off our shores
and has 11 million people.
That is why today I introduce the bipartisan Freedom to Export to
Cuba Act with Senators Enzi, Stabenow, Flake, Leahy, and Durbin. This
bill lifts the trade embargo on Cuba and knocks down the legal barriers
to Americans doing business in Cuba. This bill will help open up new
economic opportunities for American businesses, which will mean more
jobs. It will also boost opportunities for farmers--something the Chair
knows well coming from the State of North Dakota, as we know well in
the State of Minnesota. This will also allow Cubans to have access to
these products, which we believe is good for their country, good for
their people so that they can become a different country.
Freeing our businesses to pursue opportunities for development could
greatly help the people of Cuba. Consider for example that Cuba only
has a 2G cellular network and that only about one-fourth of the
population has Internet access. Ultimately, I believe this legislation
will help usher in a new era for Americans and Cubans shaped by
opportunities for the future rather than simply a story of the past.
The process the President has jump-started to normalize our ties with
Cuba is a positive step forward. My home State of Minnesota exported
about $20 million in agricultural products to Cuba in 2013. I think
people are surprised by that, but as many of us know, there are
humanitarian exceptions to the current embargo. So our country is
already exporting, and my State alone exported $20 million in products.
With the President's action alone, the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture estimates that exports could increase by another $20
million. The United States is already the fourth largest source of
imports to Cuba based solely on authorized shipments of agriculture and
medical supplies. Over the past decade we have been one of Cuba's top
suppliers of food products. So it is not as if we don't already do
business there, but unlike every other country, including our own
neighbor to the north, Canada, we hamstring our businesses seeking to
export their products there. Export and travel restrictions have
continued to prevent Americans from seeking opportunities in Cuba, and
the embargo prevents Cubans from obtaining food and other goods we take
for granted in our country.
Cuban human rights activist Yoani Sanchez wrote:

It is impossible for Cubans to buy staples like eggs or
cooking oil without turning to the underground market.
Rationing forces people to stand in line for hours for
poultry and fish. On the Cuban government's 50th anniversary
in 2009, it provided families with an extra half pound of
ground beef, but that beef was not from the U.S. It was
sponsored by the Venezuelan government . . . a meager gift
nicknamed ``Hugo Chavez's Hamburger'' by everyday Cubans.

I say it is time for America to stop ceding credit for the hamburger
to Venezuela. It is time that we made our hamburger accessible in Cuba.
The Freedom to Export to Cuba Act will help us do that. It is simply a
targeted repeal of the provisions in current law that keep the embargo
in place, including restrictions that prevent American businesses from
financing their own exports to the island and requirements for American
farms to seek special licenses for any transaction with Cuba.
It is also important to emphasize what this bill does not do. There
are many outstanding issues that many of my colleagues have discussed
between our two countries that must be dealt with, especially our
concerns about the Cuban Government's repressive policies. That is why
this bill does not repeal provisions of current law that address human
rights in Cuba or that allow individuals and businesses to pursue
claims against the Cuban Government for property.
None of us is under any illusion about the nature of the Cuban
Government. The Cuban Government must take serious steps to reform
politically and economically. It must free political prisoners and stop
arbitrarily arresting people for political speech. It must also take
steps to liberalize its state-centric economic system if it truly hopes
to allow its people to prosper and to benefit from growing commerce
with the United States.
We do not minimize the importance of those issues, but we also know
the embargo has not helped to solve them. Members on both sides of the
aisle recognize that continuing along the same path with respect to
Cuba has not achieved our objectives and in fact has constrained
Americans' freedom to pursue business opportunities abroad. It has
hindered our freedom to travel, which is why I also cosponsored the
Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act recently introduced by Senator Flake.
Both that bill and the Freedom to Export to Cuba Act that I have
introduced today with a bipartisan group of Senators shows that we can
work together in this new Congress to support a commonsense
relationship between the United States and Cuba.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It is
a chance to build on our current progress and take additional actions
to forge a practical and positive relationship with the people of Cuba
and the people of America.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Whitehouse,
Mr. Heinrich, and Mr. Bennet):
S. 492. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 in order to improve environmental literacy to better prepare
students for postsecondary education and careers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan
legislation to provide support for environmental education in our
Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Durbin, Whitehouse,
Heinrich, and Bennet for joining as original cosponsors of the No Child
Left Inside Act of 2015.
Given the major environmental challenges we face today, it is
important to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural
world. Preparing the next generation to be stewards of our natural
environment not only equips them with important skills and knowledge
but also, as studies have shown, enhances achievement levels in science
and other core subjects and increases student engagement. Another key
benefit is that it promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to
spend more time outside.
For more than 3 decades, environmental education has been a growing
part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the
need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st
century economy, many states and schools throughout the Nation now
offer some form of environmental education.
Indeed, according to the National Association for Environmental
Education, 47 States and the District of Columbia have taken steps
towards developing plans to integrate environmental literacy into their
statewide educational initiatives. In Rhode Island, organizations such
as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams
Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon
Society, as well as countless schools and teachers, are offering
educational and outdoor experiences that many children may never
otherwise have, helping inspire them to learn. In partnership with the
Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have
developed a statewide environmental literacy plan that is now being put
into action.
Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge, and
remains out of reach for too many children. With many schools being
forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs, fewer and
fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction
and field investigations, however effective or in demand these programs
are.
The No Child Left Inside Act would increase environmental literacy
among elementary and secondary students by encouraging and providing
assistance to States for the development and implementation of
environmental literacy plans and promoting professional development for
teachers on how to integrate environmental literacy and field
experiences into their instruction.

[[Page S988]]

The legislation would also support partnerships with high-need school
districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education
curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective
practices. Finally, the legislation would support interagency
coordination and reporting on environmental education opportunities
across the Federal Government. This legislation has broad support among
national and state environmental and educational groups.
In addition to the benefits that accrue to students, business leaders
also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is
critical for long-term success. Indeed, according to a 2011 survey by
the GreenBiz Group and the National Environmental Education Foundation,
65 percent of respondents valued environmental and sustainability
knowledge as a factor in making hiring decisions, and 68 percent
believed that the importance of this knowledge would continue to grow
in the future. We must ensure that our students are prepared with the
knowledge that employers are looking for, and that increasingly
includes environmental literacy.
For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the
bipartisan No Child Left Inside Act and to work together to include its
provisions into the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
______

By Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Gardner, and Mr.
Cotton):
S. 493. A bill to reduce a portion of the annual pay of Members of
Congress for the failure to adopt a concurrent resolution on the budget
which does not provide for a balanced budget, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I join Senator Cassidy of Louisiana,
Senator Gardner of Colorado, and Senator Cotton of Arkansas in
introducing the Balanced Budget Accountability Act. By establishing the
principle No Balanced Budget, No Pay, this legislation will bring
fiscal responsibility to Washington. The American people deserve a
balanced budget. Unfortunately, Washington remains unwilling to take
the steps needed to get our country back on solid fiscal ground. The
Balanced Budget Accountability Act reflects core principles that work:
common sense business practices that protect hardworking taxpayers and
making elected officials accountable for delivering results to the
people they serve. It is what Washington needs to finally balance the
budget.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 493

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Balanced
Budget Accountability Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Federal debt exceeds $18,000,000,000,000, continues
to grow rapidly, and is larger than the size of the United
States economy.
(2) The Federal budget has shown an annual deficit in 45 of
the last 50 years.
(3) Deficits and the Federal debt threaten to shatter
confidence in the Nation's economy, suppress job creation and
economic growth, and leave future generations of Americans
with a lower standard of living and fewer opportunities.
(4) It is the duty of Members of Congress to develop and
implement policies, including balancing the Federal budget,
that encourage robust job creation and economic growth in the
United States.
(5) Members of Congress should be held accountable for
failing to pass annual budgets that result in a balanced
budget.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING ADOPTION OF BUDGET RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR
BALANCED BUDGETS.

(a) Adoption of Budget Resolution.--Each House of Congress
shall adopt a concurrent resolution on the budget for a
fiscal year which provides that, for each fiscal year for
which a budget is provided under the resolution (beginning
not later than with the budget for fiscal year 2025)--
(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
(2) total outlays are not more than 18 percent of the gross
domestic product of the United States (as determined by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce)
for such fiscal year
(b) Certification by Congressional Budget Office.--Upon the
adoption by a House of Congress of a concurrent resolution on
the budget for a fiscal year, the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office shall transmit to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives or the President pro Tempore of
the Senate (as the case may be) a certification as to whether
or not that House of Congress has met the requirements of
subsection (a) with respect to the resolution.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect
to the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2016 and each succeeding fiscal year.

SEC. 3. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION.

(a) Rule for Fiscal Year 2016 and 2017.--
(1) Fiscal year 2016.--
(A) Holding salaries in escrow.--If the Director does not
certify that a House of Congress has met the requirements of
section 2(a) with respect to fiscal year 2016 before April
16, 2015, during the period described in subparagraph (B) the
payroll administrator of that House of Congress shall deposit
in an escrow account all payments otherwise required to be
made during such period for the compensation of Members of
Congress who serve in that House of Congress, and shall
release such payments to such Members only upon the
expiration of such period.
(B) Period described.--With respect to a House of Congress,
the period described in this subparagraph is the period that
begins on April 16, 2015 and ends on the earlier of--
(i) the date on which the Director certifies that the House
of Congress has met the requirements of section 2(a) with
respect to fiscal year 2016; or
(ii) the last day of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.
(2) Fiscal year 2017.--
(A) Holding salaries in escrow.--If the Director does not
certify that a House of Congress has met the requirements of
section 2(a) with respect to fiscal year 2017 before April
16, 2016, during the period described in subparagraph (B) the
payroll administrator of that House of Congress shall deposit
in an escrow account all payments otherwise required to be
made during such period for the compensation of Members of
Congress who serve in that House of Congress, and shall
release such payments to such Members only upon the
expiration of such period.
(B) Period described.--With respect to a House of Congress,
the period described in this subparagraph is the period that
begins on April 16, 2016 and ends on the earlier of--
(i) the date on which the Director certifies that the House
of Congress has met the requirements of section 2(a) with
respect to fiscal year 2017; or
(ii) the last day of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.
(3) Withholding and remittance of amounts from payments
held in escrow.--The payroll administrator shall provide for
the same withholding and remittance with respect to a payment
deposited in an escrow account under paragraph (1) or (2)
that would apply to the payment if the payment were not
subject to paragraph (1) or (2).
(4) Release of amounts at end of the congress.--In order to
ensure that this subsection is carried out in a manner that
shall not vary the compensation of Senators or
Representatives in violation of the twenty-seventh article of
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the
payroll administrator of a House of Congress shall release
for payments to Members of that House of Congress any amounts
remaining in any escrow account under this section on the
last day of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.
(5) Role of secretary of the treasury.--The Secretary of
the Treasury shall provide the payroll administrators of the
Houses of Congress with such assistance as may be necessary
to enable the payroll administrators to carry out this
subsection.
(6) Payroll administrator defined.--In this subsection, the
``payroll administrator'' of a House of Congress means--
(A) in the case of the House of Representatives, the Chief
Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, or an
employee of the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
who is designated by the Chief Administrative Officer to
carry out this section; and
(B) in the case of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate,
or an employee of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate
who is designated by the Secretary to carry out this section.
(b) Rule for Fiscal Year 2018 and Subsequent Fiscal
Years.--If the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
does not certify that a House of Congress has met the
requirements of section 2(a) with respect to fiscal year
2018, or any fiscal year thereafter, before April 16 of the
fiscal year before such fiscal year, during pay periods which
occur in the same calendar year after that date each Member
of that House shall be paid at an annual rate of pay equal to
$1.
(c) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office; and
(2) the term ``Member'' includes a Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to Congress.

SEC. 4. SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR INCREASING REVENUE.

(a) In General.--In the Senate and the House of
Representatives, a bill, joint resolution, amendment,
conference report, or amendment between the Houses that
increases revenue shall only be agreed to upon an affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the

[[Page S989]]

Members of that House of Congress duly chosen and sworn.
(b) Rules of Senate and the House of Representatives.--
Subsection (a) is enacted by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is
deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but
applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed
in that House in the case of a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, conference report, or amendment between the Houses
that increases revenue, and it supersedes other rules only to
the extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.
______

By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Sullivan):
S. 494. A bill to authorize the exploration, leasing, development,
production, and economically feasible and prudent transportation of oil
and gas in and from the Coastal Plain in Alaska; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague Senator
Sullivan, to introduce a bill to open a small portion of the arctic
coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development.
I am introducing this bill today because I strongly believe that
whether oil and gas exploration should be conducted on a small portion
of the coastal plain is a question for Congress; not one for unilateral
action by Federal agency.
The 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie within the
non-wilderness portion of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge are North America's greatest prospect for conventional onshore
production. When Prudhoe Bay, the largest conventional oil field in
North America and one of the 20 largest fields in the world was
discovered in 1968, estimates at the time projected 9.6 billion barrels
of oil would be recovered. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to
estimate that this part of the coastal plain has a mean likelihood of
containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing
16 billion barrels of oil. With potential comparable to Prudhoe Bay,
the coastal plain represents an opportunity to ensure the American
energy renaissance continues and our domestic energy security is
bolstered for decades to come.
Alaska used to provide that foundation for our country. At its peak
in 1988, Alaska provided nearly 25 percent of America's domestic
production. Today it represents barely 6 percent. Importantly, despite
the Federal government owning almost 70 percent of the lands in Alaska,
almost all of our oil production is from State lands. The people of
Alaska are doing everything they can to contribute to America's energy
security by promoting production from State lands. In the past two
years the State of Alaska has passed oil tax reforms, improved State
permitting and provided more than $1.2 billion in State tax credits to
support the exploration and development of oil from State lands. The
only production on federal estate comes from the Northstar project, a
small man-made island that straddles state and federal waters in the
Beaufort Sea.
For more than 30 years, my State has successfully balanced resource
development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over
and over again, that these endeavors are not mutually exclusive, and
with advances in technology, the footprint of development projects is
only getting smaller. Yet as the Federal level, there is an astonishing
refusal to acknowledge the record.
With new exploration and development projects on Federal lands
stalled or outright blocked, Alaska faces a tipping point. The Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System, an engineering marvel that has served as one of
America's great energy arteries for decades is facing more and more
challenges from lower throughput. A closure of TAPS would shut down all
northern Alaska oil production, devastating Alaska's economy and
deepening our dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world.
Exploration and development in the Arctic offshore and National
Petroleum Reserve Alaska depend on the long-term viability of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.
The bill I introduce today, would disturb no more than 2,000 acres of
the vast coastal plain. To put this in perspective, 2,000 acres is less
than \1/6\ the size of the local Dulles Airport, or about \1/10\ of 1
percent of the refuge. Since these areas are less than 60 miles from
TAPS, development in the Coastal Plain is the quickest, most
environmentally sound way to increase oil production in Alaska and
ensure the pipeline will operate well into the future, providing jobs
and supporting the economies of both Alaska and the United States.
The bill includes strong protection for fish and wildlife, fish and
wildlife habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment.
Development would not move forward if it would cause significant
adverse impacts to the coastal plain. The bill also ensures these
protections are strong because it provides for strict consultation with
the residents of the coastal plain; the City of Kaktovik as well as the
regional government, the North Slope Borough. The bill also provides
important impact aid to the local communities from the State's share of
revenues due to it under the Mineral Leasing Act and Alaska's Statehood
Act.
As we continue to struggle with long-term unemployment, and an
unsustainable national debt, we need to pursue development
opportunities more than ever. The shale oil and gas boom on 2 state and
private lands in the Lower 48 has been the shining light as our economy
struggles to recover from the recession. My bill offers us a chance to
produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in
an environmentally-friendly way and with the meaningful impact of the
local people.
For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support
development of the coastal plain, have been asking permission to
explore and develop the resources located there. Consistent with the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, the state of
Alaska recently submitted a plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to conduct minimal exploration activities in the coastal plain and was
rejected. Despite the fact that the State was in court presenting its
case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released an updated Plan for
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that puts areas like the Coastal
Plain in de facto wilderness status as Wilderness Study Areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states that they did not consider
an oil and gas alternative, as requested by the State of Alaska, North
Slope Borough, various Alaska Native Regional and Village Corporations
as well as a broad spectrum of Alaskans, because they stated that the
decision to conduct oil and gas development is one for Congress to
make. I hope this Congress will rise to that challenge and have the
common sense to allow America to help itself by developing a small
portion of the coastal plain. This is critical to my State and the
nation as a whole and one more step we can take to push back against
the unilateral executive actions that are threatening our economy and
very system of government.
With this in mind, Senator Sullivan and I will work to educate
members of this chamber about the opportunity we have and the
tremendous benefits it would provide. We will show why such development
should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit all of us and
help secure our energy security for decades to come.
______

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter,
Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Moran, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Risch, Mrs. Fischer, and Mr. Daines):
S. 498. A bill to allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain
concealed firearms; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 498

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page S990]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Constitutional Concealed
Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED
FIREARMS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the
following:

``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain
concealed firearms

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law
of any State or political subdivision thereof to the
contrary--
``(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law
from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic
identification document and a valid license or permit which
is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits
the individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or
carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or
destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the
State of residence of the individual that--
``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to
obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms
by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and
``(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law
from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic
identification document and is entitled and not prohibited
from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the
individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph
(1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a
machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State
other than the State of residence of the individual that--
``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to
obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms
by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
``(b) Conditions and Limitations.--The possession or
carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section
shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations,
except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or
under Federal or State law or the law of a political
subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or
carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or
political subdivision who are licensed by the State or
political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the
State from doing so.
``(c) Unrestricted License or Permit.--In a State that
allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry
concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of
firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits,
an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section
shall be permitted to carry a concealed handgun according to
the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or
permit issued to a resident of the State.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to preempt any provision of State law with
respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry
concealed firearms.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 926C the following:

``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.

(c) Severability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, if any provision of this Act, or any amendment made
by this Act, or the application of such provision or
amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be
unconstitutional, this Act and amendments made by this Act
and the application of such provision or amendment to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall
take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Flake, Mr. Booker, Mr. Paul, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Coons):
S. 502. A bill to focus limited Federal resources on the most serious
offenders; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Smarter
Sentencing Act, which I believe is a very critical piece of
legislation.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation in this
Congress, and I thank the bipartisan coalition of Senators who have
come together, led by Senator Mike Lee from Utah and Senator Dick
Durbin from Illinois. Their leadership on this issue has been
absolutely critical.
The Smarter Sentencing Act has essential front-end reforms. These are
reforms for when a person gets to the point of incarceration. What they
actually do is combat injustices in the Federal sentencing program.
They address a real plague in our country; that is, mass incarceration.
Think about this: We are the land of the free. We are a nation that
believes in liberty and justice. But we are singular in humanity for an
awful distinction: We have 5 percent of the globe's population but we
incarcerate 25 percent of the globe's incarcerated people. That is
unacceptable unless you believe for some reason that Americans have a
higher proclivity for crime, unless you believe we have something in
our water that makes us more likely to do wrong, and that is not the
case.
The challenge is that we have seen in the past three decades a
profound over-incarceration driven by a drug war that has created
unfortunate negative consequences to our society. I thank Members of
Congress for stepping up in this Congress to speak to this issue. It is
un-American that we should hold the largest amount of incarcerated
people per population than any other country. It goes against the very
strains of our society dedicated to liberty, dedicated to keeping
government focused on what it should be doing, not overreaching, not
becoming overly aggressive, not surrendering or taking the liberty
unnecessarily of other Americans.
I would like to talk for a few minutes about this broken system. What
is broken in our criminal justice system? Well, when about three-
quarters of our Federal prisoners are actually nonviolent offenders--I
am actually one of those people who believe that if you do a violent
crime, you should pay a very hefty price for that, that we as a society
should have a place where we take stern action against people who
promulgate violence, who undermine civil society. But as we look at
this mass-incarceration problem where 25 percent of the globe's prison
population is in our country, we realize that three-quarters of those
people in the Federal prison system are nonviolent offenders.
This is not our history. This is not our tradition. Over the course
of all of our Nation's history, we did not have this problem. It has
really been the last 30 years where we have witnessed the explosion in
the U.S. Federal prison population. In those 30 years alone--think
about this--in the last 30 years alone, the prison population at the
Federal level has expanded by nearly 800 percent. That is a massive and
unacceptable increase, especially when you realize this was driven by
the incarceration of nonviolent offenders.
This expansion of our prison population had a harmful effect when
those people were released because once someone has a nonviolent felony
offense, it is hard to get a job, it is hard to get business licenses,
and they cannot get Pell grants. Often those people get caught up and
go back to being involved in the drug war. So what happens is that two
out of three of those people get rearrested within 3 years.
We are paying for this broken system, this revolving door of
arresting nonviolent offenders, releasing them, and bringing them back
into our system. It is plaguing the Federal budget and, frankly, State
budgets all around our country. Each year more than one-quarter of a
trillion dollars is being spent on this broken criminal justice
system--money that could be used to empower people to succeed, to
repair our infrastructure, or, how about this, it could stay in
taxpayers' pockets.
What makes this system worse is that it undermines our American
ideals. As I look across the way from the Capitol Building where I
stand now and see the Supreme Court, written above the Supreme Court
building, at the top, is this ideal of equal justice under law. The
ideal that everyone will be treated equally under the law. But this
broken criminal justice system has disproportionately impacted certain
Americans and not others, which undermines America's core values of
fairness and equal treatment for all.
More than 60 percent of our prison system is comprised of racial and
ethnic minorities. The painful reality is that if somehow African
Americans or Latinos used drugs at different levels than Whites, that
might explain the disparate impact. If they dealt drugs at different
levels, yes, that might explain it. But that is not the case. African
Americans engage in drug offenses at a lower rate than Whites but are
incarcerated at a rate 10 times that of Whites.

[[Page S991]]

What is alarming about the mass incarceration is that people are
actually not committing more and more crimes. The National Research
Council recently released a report confirming what numerous other
studies have actually shown: Incarceration rates are actually not tied
to crime rates. We have seen incarceration rates going up and up, but
now crime rates are coming down.
What is perpetuating this explosion of our prison population? It is
the war on drugs that has created over the last 30 years alone an over-
criminalization of nonviolent individuals, which stacked our prison
population full of Americans, disproportionately minority and
disproportionately poor.
Please understand that the people paying the highest price for this
are the poor in our country. The New York Times yesterday published an
article detailing how our jails have become warehouses made up
primarily of people too poor to pay bail or to hire lawyers or too ill
with mental health or drug problems to adequately care for themselves.
If you look at our prison population, you will see that poverty, race,
mental illness--those are the folks who are being disproportionately
incarcerated.
If we follow our core ideals of fairness, democracy, and justice--
then we know that mass incarceration is not who we are. That is not
right. That the times demand that we examine this broken system and do
those commonsense things that are needed to make our justice system
just, to work first and foremost for our safety, to not be a gross
waste of taxpayer dollars, and to make sure basic ideas of fairness are
fulfilled.
This is not just speculation. And what is so powerful about this
moment in time, even though all I have said so far is compelling
enough, is that we as Federal actors--the 100 Senators here, the 435
Congress men and women, the President and the Vice President--don't
need to figure out a way forward, make it up, design legislation based
on our own ideas. We actually only have to look at the pathway forward
by looking at Governors and legislatures in the States. They are so
burdened by the costs of this unruly system, a system that is now
plaguing--the Federal Bureau of Prisons is plaguing our country with
its cost. What the States are doing to bear that cost is they are
finding pragmatic, commonsense, bipartisan ways to move forward.
In fact, what gets me excited as a Democrat is that we just have to
look at the red States and what the red States are doing to reduce
their prison populations. Let me give an example. States such as Texas,
Georgia, and North Carolina are leading on this issue, and the Federal
Government should follow.
Texas is a State known for law and order, and known for being tough
on crime. Yet Texans realize that being smart on crime means saving
taxpayer dollars, using that money efficiently and effectively,
lowering crime, and guess what, hey, we can also lower our prison
population and empower people to be successful in life and not slip
down that slope back toward recidivism. They have made tremendous
strides in Texas in adopting policies that are designed to reduce their
prison population and lower recidivism.
In 2007, Texas boasted the fourth largest incarceration rate in the
country. Faced with a budget projection that estimated by 2012 the
State would need an additional 17,000 prison beds--think about that for
a second. They saw that they were going to need to build more prisons,
house 17,000 more prison beds, and it was going to cost them $2 billion
in Texas. The State's legislature said: Enough of this madness. Enough
of this craziness.
They enacted bold reforms that would act as a model for us in the
Federal legislature. As a result, they passed this broad-based
legislation. Texas was able to stabilize their prison population and
avert that budgetary disaster.
Texas State Representative Jerry Madden, a Republican, noted in a
recent hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations that the crime rate is
now at 1968 levels. They were able to close three prisons and six
juvenile facilities, and remarkably the Texas prison system is now
operating at a 96-percent capacity. Commonsense reforms.
Georgia is another State. They have made remarkable progress. They
are showing that reducing the prison population can lead to dividends
for taxpayers, and can lower crime. In fact, over the past 5 years, in
terms of the racial disparities in incarceration, Georgia has reduced
the number of Black men incarcerated in the State by 20 percent. And
they haven't seen crime go up--quite the contrary. They have seen it go
down.
These States are proving that they don't have to lock up more people
to create that safety we desire. States such as New Jersey, Texas,
California, Virginia, Hawaii, Wyoming, Massachusetts, Kentucky,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Colorado, New York, South Carolina, Alaska,
and Georgia have all seen drops in crime rates as they have been
implementing commonsense criminal justice reform.
So let's be clear. I am advocating for the Smarter Sentencing Act,
but we should also be moving for bold, broad-based criminal justice
reforms, copying the successes of red States with Republican Governors.
We should be looking at their innovations and following their
commonsense solutions and mirroring their success at the Federal level.
I am speaking of reforms at the front end when people get arrested;
reforms behind the wall--inside the prison system to address what goes
on in prison and helping these people, and reforms on the back end when
they come out of prison, to ensure they stay out of prison.
Front-end reforms going on around our country are exciting, such as
sentencing reform. What about radical ideas such as letting judges make
decisions about sentencing and stop trying to legislate it? Judges are
the experts. They know of the brutality of a person's circumstances.
They can design sentences.
These policy initiatives should address the entire system. Behind-
the-wall efforts should focus on initiatives to change the way
prisoners experience life behind bars. To get treatment and job
training so they don't commit future crimes. This is commonsense stuff.
We shouldn't send people to prison and have them become criminalized or
undermine their ability to be successful adults when they come out.
We should also focus on that back end, this idea that we need reentry
policies to help people get jobs, reconnect with their families, and
become strong, full-fledged American citizens. I am speaking of things
such as parole reform.
To move forward we need to think big. This is what I will be
advocating for. We can tackle this by taking a systemic approach. We
must look at a broad-based reform agenda.
I love the fact that we have conservatives and liberals united on
this issue--Republicans and Democrats, red Staters and blue Staters.
Criminal justice reform is not a partisan issue, it is an American
issue.
In 2010, Senators on both sides of the aisle came together to improve
our justice system by passing the Fair Sentencing Act, which the
President signed into law. This was a bipartisan piece of legislation
that reduced the sentencing disparities between crack and powder
cocaine--drugs that are pharmacologically indistinguishable. They
changed it from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1, and I thank Senators Durbin,
Grassley, Leahy, and Graham for their leadership on this issue.
Last year I joined with Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. I don't know
how many sentences are used by people that contain the names Cory
Booker and Rand Paul in them, but we agree on this issue. We have
common ground, and we introduced the REDEEM Act. This legislation aims
to keep juveniles out of the criminal justice system. We looked to stop
acts that many other countries consider torture, such as taking
juveniles and routinely putting them into solitary confinement where
they are traumatized and often come out of those circumstances more
likely to do harm to themselves or others. We are going to reintroduce
that bill this year.
Just last month I sat on a criminal justice reform panel right here
in the Halls of the Senate, hosted by Van Jones on the left and Newt
Gingrich on the right. In the last few months I have talked to Grover
Norquist, I have

[[Page S992]]

talked to the Koch brothers' representative, their chief counsel, and I
have talked to conservative think tanks and Christian evangelicals. All
of us agree on this issue. This chorus of voices, this coalition, this
courageous commitment to our country's ideals lets us know that whether
you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative, whether you consider
yourself moderate leaning, left or right, this is an area we can agree
on. It will save taxpayer money, uphold our ideals of liberty and
freedom, create safer communities, and empower individuals to be
successful.
Today I am excited to have joined with Senators Lee, Durbin, Leahy,
and Cruz to support the Smarter Sentencing Act. We need to have this
conversation about reducing Federal mandatory minimums. In fact, I love
that the Urban Institute has stated that mandatory minimums for drug
offenses is the single largest factor in the growth of the Federal
prison population.
Let me repeat that. Mandatory minimums for drug offenses are the
single largest factor in the growth of the Federal prison population. A
key factor in that 800-percent growth in the last 30 years has been
driven by nonviolent drug offenders and mandatory minimums.
This bill also would do other things. It would expand the Federal
safety valve, giving judges greater discretion and allowing them to
hand out their sentences. Those people who believe in separation of
powers, let the judiciary have more space to hand down fairer sentences
and not shackle them with laws made by legislators who don't know the
particulars of a case. Many Federal judges have spoken out about
mandatory minimums being unnecessarily restrictive for them in doing
their job.
The bill would also make the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, which
would allow persons convicted under the old crack-powder cocaine
disparity to now receive a fairer sentence. With the crack-cocaine law
changed in 2010, an individual arrested today would receive a lesser
sentence. So making this law retroactive to impact people sentenced for
crack cocaine offenses prior to 2010 is only fair.
This bill could save a lot of money--hundreds of millions of dollars.
It would give us some freedom not only to return some toward debt
relief for this country--Lord knows we need to focus on that--but also
to invest in other programs many people on both sides of the aisle
support, such as reentry programs to help people stay out of prison and
get back to a productive lifestyle. If enacted into law as the bill is
currently scored, it would save $3 billion over the next decade alone.
This is critically important.
So this is a call to the conscience of the Congress. Every single day
we pledge allegiance to our flag. That is not something anybody in this
Chamber does as sort of a routine, perfunctory salute. We say those
words because they mean something, and we end with this ideal that is a
light to all of humanity--this ideal of liberty and justice for all.
If we mean those words, then that, across the board, is what we
should be pursuing in this body. We know in our country States are
doing things to further uphold these ideals, that they are making
commonsense reforms that are keeping people safe and lowering crime,
commonsense reforms that are saving taxpayer dollars and relieving the
burden on taxpayers and budgets, that they are passing reforms that
liberate people from the shackles of an imprisonment that is
unnecessary, that is directly addressing the painful disparities of
race and poverty, and that it is empowering Americans, our brothers and
sisters. In all of our holy texts it talks about the dignity of all
people, whether they are behind bars or on our streets, the dignity of
worth that empowers people to be successful, to have life and liberty
and to pursue their happiness.
So I say I support reforming our criminal justice system. More
importantly, I say let's support our ideals. Let's be a nation of
liberty and justice for all. Let's follow the lead of courageous
governors and legislatures and let's make this Nation even better than
it is today. I urge all Senators to promptly pass the Smarter
Sentencing Act through the Senate.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch, Mr. Merkley, Mr.
Udall, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mr. Tester):
S. 517. A bill to extend the secure rural schools and community self-
determination program, to restore mandatory funding status to the
payment in lieu of taxes program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Secure
Rural Schools and Payment in Lieu of Taxes Repair Act with my colleague
Senator Crapo. The bill will ensure that counties across the nation
will have three more years of Secure Rural Schools, SRS, payments.
Additionally, the bill would restore mandatory funding for Payment in
Lieu of Taxes, PILT.
Because Congress failed to take action to reauthorize SRS before the
end of the 113th Congress, counties across the country received SRS
payments this week that represent a fraction of last year's payment,
leaving counties struggling to find ways to fund schools, roads, and
emergency services this year. Without certainty and stability, counties
will be forced to make cuts to essential services, leaving residents
and communities reeling. County payments are a lifeline for cash-
strapped rural communities that are already facing shortfalls to pave
roads, keep teachers in schools and firefighters on call. This
bipartisan bill keeps up the commitment the government made to support
rural counties in Oregon and across the country. I am glad to once
again partner with Senator Crapo to get this vital legislation across
the finish line.
Right now, this bill is not funded. It will be. Senator Crapo and I
will work with our colleagues to find funding for these important
programs that is satisfactory to the left and to the right.
Funding for counties is an issue that impacts almost every State in
the country. As Congress considers this bill, I ask my colleagues to
talk to county leaders in their home states, visit local communities
struggling to fund critical services, and find out how SRS and PILT
impact their budgets, their priorities, and their quality of life.
Rural communities deserve better than to have politics delay funding
for SRS, so I urge my colleagues to join Senator Crapo and me in our
efforts to reauthorize this critical program.
______

By Mr. CARDIN:
S. 518. A bill to require States to establish highway stormwater
management programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the
introduction of my latest legislative proposal to better control the
harmful and volumes of polluted stormwater that is generated from our
Nation's Federal aid highways. Highway stormwater is a growing threat
to water quality, aquatic ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that
depend on the health of these ecosystems. Moreover, the high volumes
and rapid flow of stormwater runoff from highways and roads poses a
very serious threat to the condition of our Nation's water and
transportation infrastructure as well as personal property particularly
in urban and suburban communities.
The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that pollution
from point sources have been steadily declining since the enactment of
the Clean Water Act. Likewise, we have seen reductions in pollution
from certain non-point sources like agriculture which are attributable
in part to the success of a wide variety of USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service Programs and farming innovations in soil
conservation and nutrient pollution management.
One non-point source sector where we are unfortunately seeing an
increasing impact on water quality is from impervious surface that
create rapidly moving high volumes of untreated polluted stormwater
that rush off of road surfaces, erode unnatural channels next to and
ultimately underneath roadways comprising the integrity of roadway
infrastructure, and increases the stress on storm sewer systems
shortening the useful life of this infrastructure and ultimately lead
to the discharge of untreated pollution that is carried off roadways
and into our lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters.

[[Page S993]]

Impervious surfaces include most buildings and structures, parking
lots and of course the nearly 9 million lane miles of roads across our
country. The total coverage of impervious surfaces in an area is
usually expressed as a percentage of the total land area.
The coverage increases with rising urbanization. In rural areas,
impervious cover may only be 1 percent or 2 percent, however road
surfaces comprise 80 percent-90 percent of a rural area's total
impervious surfaces. In residential areas, impervious surface coverage
ranges between 10 percent in low-density subdivisions to over 50
percent in more densely developed communities, where the composition of
the impervious surface area coverage works out to be 50 percent roads.
In dense urban areas, the impervious surface area is often over 90
percent the total land area, with roads comprising 60 percent-70
percent of that coverage.
According to EPA, urban impervious cover, not just roads, in the
lower 48 adds up to 43,000 square miles--an area roughly the size of
Ohio. Continuing development adds another quarter of a million acres
each year. Typically two-thirds of the cover is pavement, roads and
parking lots, and \1/3\ is buildings.
According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, impervious surfaces compose
roughly 17 percent of all urban and suburban lands in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. The greatest concentration of impervious surfaces in the
bay watershed is in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Areas of DC,
Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia Tidewater area, Philadelphia's
western suburbs, and Lancaster, PA, are also regions in the watershed
where impervious surfaces are greater than 10 percent of the total land
area.
Rainfall on hard surfaces like roads and highways has a very
destructive and turbulent affect on nearby waterways and
infrastructure. For example, the rain events that occur over a week
long period at the end of April brought nearly 8 inches of rain to the
Baltimore-Washington region. The urban runoff from roads in Baltimore
caused an embankment above the CSX railroad track along East 26th
Street, between St. Paul and Charles Street, to collapse. Fortunately
no one was injured though homes had to be evacuated for more than a
month, nearly a dozen parked cars were destroyed and moreover movement
of freight along CSX railroad was disrupted for more than a week. This
event shows just how destructive and disruptive poorly managed
stormwater from transportation infrastructure can be.
Some may chalk this up to a freak storm of unusually large
proportion. It's true this storm was unusual, but so were the polar
vortexes and all of the snow New England and Buffalo received this
winter, and 2013's 3-mile wide tornado in Alabama, the ongoing drought
in California. ``Unusual'' weather seems to becoming a lot more usual.
As extreme weather events triggered by our changing climate become more
frequent it is imperative that we incorporate better designs into our
infrastructure to be better handle these types of events.
Under the Clean Water Act, stormwater is considered a non-point
source and there are no requirements that stormwater be collected or
treated. The exception being for localities where in order to meet the
standards set in an MS4, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, permit
a region may include its transportation infrastructure in its MS4
permit.
However, in most cases stormwater that falls on roadways washes oil,
grease, asbestos brake-dust, nitrogen deposits from tailpipe emissions,
trash, road salt and de-icing agents, and sediment into nearby
waterways. Highway stormwater runoff is most often not treated or
adequately managed.
While these organic and inorganic contaminants are legitimate threats
to water quality, the greater concern with roadway runoff is the sheer
volume and rapid flow rate in which stormwater leaves these hard
surfaces and enters our waterways. Flows and volumes that cause roads
to collapse in Baltimore.
Roads are designed for stormwater to flow off of the driving surface
quickly, for safety reasons. When stormwater rushes off of road
surfaces into storm drains it is usually piped straight into the
nearest river or stream without removing contaminants, detaining any of
the volume, or slowing down the flow. This creates an enormously
destructive set of circumstances for our waterways.
Another example of the destructive force that persistent unmitigated
and poorly managed highway runoff can have on the condition and safety
of highway infrastructure is in Mobile Alabama along Highway 131 in the
Joe's Branch Watershed. The Mobile Bay Estuary Program, part of the
National Estuaries Program, in coordination with Alabama Department of
Transportation is having to spent millions of dollars to reinforce a
highway embankment to keep the highway from slipping down a hill and
into the Joe's Branch Creek, restore the hydrology of the river, and
help protect private property from the dangerous erosion that's been
caused by poorly managed stormwater from Highway 131.
The Mobile Bay Estuary Program described the problem this way: ``In
the Joe's Branch watershed, on the property of Westminster Village
adjacent and parallel to Highway 131, a head cut stream is eroding at
an accelerating rate, an ominous condition as ALDOT prepares to
undertake improvements to the highway. Identified as a high priority
stabilization area in the D'Olive Creek, Tiawasee Creek and Joe's
Branch Watershed Management Plan, MBNEP has submitted a funding request
to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management on behalf of its
partners in Spanish Fort, Daphne, ALDOT and Westminster Village to
undertake restoration of the stream using a cutting-edge technology
called Regenerative Step Pool Storm Conveyance.''
The four entities involved are spending large amount money to repair
a problem caused by stormwater damage that could have been prevented at
a lower cost by incorporating better stormwater mitigation facilities
into the design of the highway.
These high-volume/high-speed flows also hasten the deterioration of
water infrastructure. A 2001 study on the erosive power of urban
stormwater flows examined how excessive stormwater volumes and flow
rates off of urban surface infrastructure caused more than $1 million
in roadway and water infrastructure damage in the Cincinnati
metropolitan areas in Ohio and Kentucky in a single year.
While there are serious water quality concerns with not adequately
controlling roadway infrastructure runoff, there are serious
infrastructure costs, that are ultimately passed on to taxpayers and
ratepayers, that can be avoided if transportation authorities do more
to control and manage stormwater runoff with the infrastructure assets
they manage and build.
The increased incidence of flash flooding events that occur even
during seemingly mild and routine storm events is a direct result of
the growing percentage of impervious land cover in urban and suburban
communities. Replacement of the ``greenscapes'' that are lost to
pavement is essential to restoring hydrological balance to our urban
and suburban communities and impaired watersheds.
According to USGS: an inch of rain on one square foot of pavement
produces 1.87 gallons of stormwater, Scaled up, 1 inch of rain on one
acre would produce 27,150 gallons of stormwater. Using FHWA design
standards for interstate highway lane and shoulder widths, 12 feet per
lane, 10 foot right shoulder, 2x, 4 foot left shoulder, 2x, 10 miles of
a four lane interstate highway generates nearly 2.5 million gallons of
polluted stormwater for every inch of rain. To put that into
perspective for the Potomac and Anacostia River Watersheds: The Capital
Beltway, not including its 48 interchanges, generates nearly 30
million, 29,920,946, gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of
rain that falls on the 64 mile 8 to 12 lane interstate highway loop. It
is volumes of stormwater like that which cause dangerous streambank
erosion.
Gillies Creek is an urban waterway located East of Downtown Richmond.
It is a tributary of the James River which flows into the Chesapeake
Bay. Gillies Creek is surrounded by industrial and residential
development and also receives stormwater from State highway 33,
Interstate 64, US 60, and hundreds of city streets including Stony Run
Parkway which directly adjacent to the creek for several miles.

[[Page S994]]

The banks and bed of this creek have eroded so badly as urban
development around the creek has added more impervious surfaces to the
watershed that streambed sheering has created cliffs more than 10 feet
tall at spots along the creek. Trees supporting the bank continually
fall into the creek and nearby roadways and other infrastructure as
well as homes and business are at risk. Reducing the impacts of the
storms by mitigating the flow and volume of stormwater in this
watershed will protect against further erosion and save the cost of
repair and eventual replacement of the assets located along this
endangered creek.
The aim of this legislation is to improve highway designs to better
manage stormwater to avoid the costly damage that poorly managed
stormwater causes to infrastructure and nearby streams, rivers and
coastal waters.
I held a hearing on this issue in the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee
on May 13, 2014. I heard many ideas from both the minority and majority
witnesses that were invited to present testimony at this hearing. I
listened to the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle and I have incorporated provisions into this bill that should
alleviate concerns they may have had with previous attempts to better
control highway stormwater.
My bill's approach to highway runoff management is one that I hope my
colleagues of both parties can support. First of all it put States in
the driver's seat for developing hydrological analysis and
implementation of best management practices to control highway runoff.
The objective of the legislation is to control and manage flow and
volume of stormwater from highways not to treat runoff in order to meet
water quality standards. By taking this sort of approach we avoid EPA's
involvement in the process. Lastly, States would only need to apply
these procedures to new construction on major reconfiguration projects
that significantly increases the amount of impervious surface in the
project area.
Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a
significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the
environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of
``context sensitive solutions.'' In 2008, the Government Accountability
Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that needed
to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill.
That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy
and the environment. With 985,139 miles of federal aid highways
stretching from every corner of the US, polluted highway runoff is no
small problem facing our Nation's waters. I would urge my colleagues to
join me trying to address this problem facing America's waterways and
infrastructure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 518

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Runoff Management
Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY RUNOFF MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 330. Federal-aid highway runoff management program

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered project.--The term `covered project' means a
reconstruction, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, renovation,
major resurfacing, or new construction project on a Federal-
aid highway carried out under this title that results in--
``(A) a 10-percent or greater increase in impervious
surface of the aerial extent within the right-of-way of the
project limit on a Federal-aid highway or associated
facility; or
``(B) an increase of 1 acre or more in impervious surface
coverage.
``(2) Erosive force.--The term `erosive force' means the
flowrate within a stream or channel in which channel bed or
bank material becomes detached, which in most cases is less
than or equal to the flowrate produced by the 2-year storm
event.
``(3) Highway runoff.--The term `highway runoff ', with
respect to a Federal-aid highway, associated facility, or
management measure retrofit project, means a discharge of
peak flow rate or volume of runoff that exceeds flows
generated under preproject conditions.
``(4) Impacted hydrology.--The term `impacted hydrology'
means stormwater runoff generated from all areas within the
site limits of a covered project.
``(5) Management measure.--The term `management measure'
means a program, structural or nonstructural management
practice, operational procedure, or policy on or off the
project site that is intended to prevent, reduce, or control
highway runoff.
``(b) State Highway Stormwater Management Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, each State shall--
``(A) develop a process for analyzing the erosive force of
highway runoff generated from covered projects; and
``(B) apply management measures to maintain or restore
impacted hydrology associated with highway runoff from
covered projects.
``(2) Inclusions.--The management measures established
under paragraph (1) may include, as the State determines to
be appropriate, management measures that--
``(A) minimize the erosive force of highway runoff from a
covered project on a channel bed or bank of receiving water
by managing highway runoff within the area of the covered
project;
``(B) manage impacted hydrology in such a manner that the
highway runoff generated by a covered project is below the
erosive force flow and volume;
``(C) to the maximum extent practicable, seek to address
the impact of the erosive force of hydrologic events that
have the potential to create or exacerbate downstream channel
erosion, including excess pier and abutment scour at bridges
and channel downcutting and bank failure of streams adjacent
to highway embankments;
``(D) ensure that the highway runoff from the post-
construction condition does not increase the risk of channel
erosion relative to the preproject condition; and
``(E) employ simplified approaches to determining the
erosive force of highway runoff generated from covered
projects, such as a regionalized analysis of streams within a
State.
``(c) Guidance.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation
with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall
publish guidance to assist States in carrying out this
section.
``(2) Contents of guidance.--The guidance shall include
guidelines and technical assistance for the establishment of
State management measures that will be used to assist in
avoiding, minimizing, and managing highway runoff from
covered projects, including guidelines to help States
integrate the planning, selection, design, and long-term
operation and maintenance of management measures consistent
with the design standards in the overall project planning
process.
``(3) Approval.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall--
``(A) review the management measures program of each State;
and
``(B) approve such a program, if the program meets the
requirements of subsection (b).
``(4) Updates.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
publication of the guidance under this subsection, and not
less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter--
``(A) the Secretary, in consultation with the heads of
other relevant Federal agencies, shall update the guidance,
as applicable; and
``(B) each State, as applicable, shall update the
management measures program of the State in accordance with
the updated guidance.
``(d) Reporting.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)(A),
each State shall submit to the Secretary an annual report
that describes the activities carried out under the highway
stormwater management program of the State, including a
description of any reductions of stormwater runoff achieved
as a result of covered projects carried out by the State
after the date of enactment of this section.
``(2) Reporting requirements under permit.--
``(A) In general.--A State shall not be required to submit
an annual report described in paragraph (1) if the State--
``(i) is operating Federal-aid highways in the State in a
post-construction condition in accordance with a permit
issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
``(ii) is subject to an annual reporting requirement under
such a permit (regardless of whether the permitting authority
is a Federal or State agency); and
``(iii) carries out a covered project with respect to a
Federal-aid highway in the State described in clause (i).
``(B) Transmission of report.--A Federal or State
permitting authority that receives an annual report described
in subparagraph (A)(ii) shall, on receipt of such a report,
transmit a copy of the report to the Secretary.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``330. Federal-aid highway runoff management program.''.

[[Page S995]]

______

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Coons, Mr. Carper,
and Mr. Warner):
S. 519. A bill to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to
permanently reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails
Network; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, authorized under P.L. 105-312 in 1998 and
reauthorized by P.L. 107-308 in 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and
Watertrails Network helps several million visitors and residents
discover, enjoy, and learn about the special places and stories of the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Today, I am introducing legislation
to permanently authorize this successful 17-year-old program.
For visitors and residents, the Gateways are the ``Chesapeake
connection.'' The network members provide an experience of such high
quality that visitors indeed connect to the Chesapeake emotionally as
well as intellectually, and thus to the Bay's conservation. Through
more than 160 of these sites, the Gateways Network partner sites and
water trails enable visitors to experience the authentic Chesapeake.
The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. The Chesapeake ranks as
the largest of America's 130 estuaries and one of the Nation's largest
and longest fresh water and estuarine systems. The Atlantic Ocean
delivers half the bay's 18 trillion gallons of water and the other half
flows through over 150 major rivers and streams draining 64,000 square
miles within 6 states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake
watershed is among the most significant cultural, natural and
historical assets of our Nation.
The Chesapeake is enormously vast and diverse--to the extent that it
is impossible to experience all the culture, history and natural beauty
in any one place. That is why the gateways program is designed to
connect and use the scores of existing public resources to collaborate
on presenting the many chapters and tales of the bay's story. Visitors
and residents go to more places for more experiences, all through a
coordinated Gateways Network.
Beyond simply coordinating the network, publishing a map and guides,
and providing standard exhibits at all Gateways, the National Park
Service has helped gateways with matching grants and expertise for
several hundred high-quality projects, developing sites to provide
fishing, boating, and viewing access to the bay and its major
tributaries. This is a great deal for the bay--it helps network members
tell the Chesapeake story better and inspires people to care for this
National Treasure, in addition to supporting local, State, and national
water trails--and it's a good deal for the Park Service. It serves all
170+ gateways and their 10 million visitors. No other National Park can
provide such a dramatic ratio of public dollars spent to number of
visitors served.
With the National Park Service's expertise and support, gateways have
made significant progress in their mission to tell the Bay's stories to
their millions of members and visitors, extend access to the Bay and
its watershed, and develop a conservation awareness and ethic. It is
time to not only reauthorize the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails
program, but make the annual $3 million reauthorization for this
program permanent. It is my hope that the Congress will act quickly to
adopt this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 519

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and
Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT REAUTHORIZATION.

Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998
(16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended by
striking ``for'' and all that follows through the period at
the end and inserting ``for each fiscal year.''.
______

By Mr. CARDIN:
S. 520. A bill to amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act to reauthorize the Act; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act. More than half of the bird species
found in the U.S. migrate across our borders and many of these spend
our winter in Central and South America. This bill promotes
international cooperation for long-term conservation, education,
research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species
of neotropical migratory birds. Through its successful competitive,
matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports
public-private partnerships in countries mostly in Latin America and
the Caribbean. Up to \1/4\ of the funds may be awarded for domestic
projects.
This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory
birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by
consuming billions of harmful insect and rodent pests each year,
providing pollination services, and dispersing seeds. Migratory birds
face threats from pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and
invasive species that degrade their habitats in addition to the natural
risks of their extended flights. Birds are excellent indicators of the
health of an ecosystem. As such, it is troubling that, according to the
National Audubon Society, half of all coastally migrating shorebirds,
like the Common Tern and Piping Plover, are experiencing dramatic
population declines.
The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of Maryland and one whose song
brightens all of the Northeastern U.S., has steadily declined in
population despite being protected by federal law under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the State of Maryland's Nongame and
Endangered Species Conservation Act. Likewise, the iconic Red Knot
bird, whose legendary 9,000 mile migration centers on a stopover in the
Mid-Atlantic states, is decreasing in population quickly. Threats to
these beloved Maryland birds are mainly due to habitat destruction and
deforestation, particularly in the Central and South American countries
where the birds winter. In addition, international use of toxic
pesticides ingested by insects, which are then eaten by the birds, has
significantly contributed to this decline. Conservation efforts in our
country are essential, but investment in programs throughout the
migratory route of these and countless other migratory birds is
critical. This legislation accomplishes this goal.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track
record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies
for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United
States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. Since 2002, more than
$50.1 million in grants have been awarded, supporting 451 projects in
36 countries. Partners have contributed an additional $190.6 million,
and more than 3.7 million acres of habitat have been affected.
This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a
highly successful Federal program. This simple reauthorization bill
will make sure that this good work continues.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 520

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD
CONSERVATION ACT.

Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 6109) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this Act $6,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2015 through 2020.
``(b) Use of Funds.--Of the amounts made available under
subsection (a) for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent
shall be expended for projects carried out at a location
outside of the United States.''.
______

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 521. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a special resource study of President Station in Baltimore, Maryland,
and for

[[Page S996]]

other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today marks an important day in history as
our Nation continues to honor the sesquicentennial of the Civil War.
There are many landmarks in my hometown of Baltimore that are
significant to Civil War history, which I believe are in the Nation's
interests to protect for future generations. As our Nation pays tribute
to this trying time in our Nation's history, I am proud to reintroduce
the President Street Station Study Act, which would initiate the
process for preserving one such landmark in the heart of Baltimore.
President Street Station played a crucial role in the Civil War, the
Underground Railroad, the growth of Baltimore's railroad industry, and
is a historically significant landmark to the presidency of Abraham
Lincoln.
The station was constructed for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and
Baltimore, PW&B, Railroad in 1849 and remains the oldest surviving big
city railroad terminal in the United States. This historical structure
is a unique architectural gem, arguably the first example and last
survivor of the early barrel-vault train shed arches, also known as the
Howe Truss. The arch-rib design became the blueprint for railroad
bridges and roofs well into the 20th century and was replicated for
every similarly designed train shed and roof for the next 20 years.
The growth of President Street Station and the PW&B railroad mirror
the expansion of the railroad industry throughout the country in the
latter half of the 19th century. This station played an essential role
in making Baltimore the first railroad and sea-rail link in the nation
and helped the city become the international port hub it is today.
In its heyday, President Street Station was the key link connecting
Washington, D.C. with the northeast States. Hundreds of passengers
traveling north passed through this station and, by the start of the
Civil War, Baltimore had become our Nation's major southern railroad
hub. Not surprisingly, the station played a critical role in both the
Civil War and the Underground Railroad.
Perhaps the most famous passenger to travel through the station was
President Abraham Lincoln. He came through the station at least four
times, including secretly on his way to his first inauguration in 1861.
President-elect Lincoln was warned by a PW&B private detective of a
possible assassination plot in Baltimore as he transferred trains.
While it is unclear if this plot existed and posed a serious threat,
Lincoln nevertheless was secretly smuggled aboard a train in the dead
of night to complete his trip to Washington.
Just a few months later, President Street Station served as a
backdrop for what many historians consider to be the first bloodshed of
the Civil War. The Baltimore Riot of 1861 occurred when Lincoln called
for Union volunteers to quell the rebellion at Fort Sumter in
Charleston. On this day in history, April 19, 1861, Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania volunteers were met and attacked by a mob of secessionist
and Confederate sympathizers. The bloody confrontation left four dead
and 36 wounded. As the war continued, the Station remained a critical
link for the Union. Troops and supplies from the north were regularly
shuttled through the station to support Union soldiers.
It is well known that Maryland was a common starting point along the
Underground Railroad and that many escaped slaves from Maryland's
Eastern Shore plantations were destined for Baltimore and the President
Street Station to travel north to freedom. Last year, Congress acted to
honor Maryland's own Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad's most
famous ``conductor'' by enacting the Harriet Tubman National Historical
Parks Act, establishing the first set of National Historical Parks to
commemorate the life of an African American woman. While Harriet Tubman
personally led dozens of people to freedom, her courage and fortitude
also inspired others to find their own strength to seek freedom.
President Street Station was indeed a station on this secret network.
Prior to emancipation in 1863, several renowned escapees, including
Frederick Douglass, William and Ellen Craft, and Henry ``Box'' Brown,
traveled through the Station, risking their lives for a better and
freer life.
Others' journeys for a better life also passed through President
Street Station. From its beginning and into the 20th century, Baltimore
was both a destination and departure point for immigrants. New arrivals
from Ireland, Russia, and Europe arriving on the eastern seaboard
traveled by way of the PW&B railroads to the west.
For decades, President Street Station has long been recognized as
having an important place in history: In 1992, it was listed on the
National Register of Historic places and the city of Baltimore has
dedicated it a local historical landmark. For many years it served as
the Baltimore Civil War Museum, educating generations of people about
the role Maryland and Baltimore played in the Civil War and the early
history of the city. In recent years, the museum, run by dedicated
volunteers from the Maryland Historical Society and Friends of
President Street Station, have struggled to keep the station's doors
open and keeping the station's character true to its historical roots.
The area around President Street Station has changed dramatically over
the decades, but the Station has worked to preserve its place in place
in history. It has been many years since trains passed through the
President Street Station and it is clear that today the best use for
this building is to preserve the building and use it to tell station's
American story.
President Street Station is an American historical treasure. This
bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special
resource study of President Street Station to evaluate the suitability
and feasibility of establishing the Station as a unit of the National
Park Service. President Street Station, a contributor to the growth of
the railroad, and a vital player in the Underground Railroad, Lincoln
Presidency and Civil War, is part of this history. I urge my colleagues
to join me in giving this station the recognition it deserves and
support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 521

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``President Street Station
Study Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the
President Street Station, a railroad terminal in Baltimore,
Maryland, the history of which is tied to the growth of the
railroad industry in the 19th century, the Civil War, the
Underground Railroad, and the immigrant influx of the early
20th century.

SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a special resource
study of the study area.
(b) Contents.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall--
(1) evaluate the national significance of the study area;
(2) determine the suitability and feasibility of
designating the study area as a unit of the National Park
System;
(3) consider other alternatives for preservation,
protection, and interpretation of the study area by the
Federal Government, State or local government entities, or
private and nonprofit organizations;
(4) consult with interested Federal agencies, State or
local governmental entities, private and nonprofit
organizations, or any other interested individuals; and
(5) identify cost estimates for any Federal acquisition,
development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance
associated with the alternatives.
(c) Applicable Law.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall be conducted in accordance with section 8 of Public
Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
(d) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which
funds are first made available for the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that
describes--
(1) the results of the study; and
(2) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
______

By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Casey,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr.

[[Page S997]]

Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin,
Mr. Carper, Mr. Coons, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Franken, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Heitkamp, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine,
Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Markey, Mr. Manchin,
Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Tester, Mr.
Udall, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mrs.
Feinstein):
S. 522. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have made great strides in recent years
ensuring that Americans of all ages have access to quality health care.
Part of this success comes from the Children's Health Insurance Program
created in 1997 as a joint State-Federal health insurance program for
low- to moderate-income children and pregnant women.
Because of CHIP, 10 million children, including 130,000 children in
my State--most of whom are sons and daughters of working parents who
are in low-income jobs and not making enough money to afford insurance
and for employers that typically don't offer insurance--have access to
health care today--health care they may not have received otherwise.
We know CHIP works not just in the number of children insured under
the program but because of the flexibility CHIP provides States and the
quality of care children receive. It works. It works for children, it
works for parents, and it works for communities.
That is the good news. The bad news is, even though the law is on the
books until 2019, the funding for CHIP will expire in September. That
is why I am proud to introduce legislation today with my colleagues
Senators Stabenow, Wyden, Casey, and Leader Reid to protect the CHIP
program and to extend its funding to match the authorization until
2019.
The Protecting and Retaining our Children's Health Insurance
Program--PRO-CHIP--Act is straightforward, it is common sense, and will
provide much needed budget predictability for our States.
The Republican Governor of my State supports CHIP. He understands
they need it in Ohio and across the country sooner rather than later so
they can properly budget and plan and avoid gaps in health care for
vulnerable children.
Again, these 130,000 children in my State alone are overwhelmingly
sons and daughters of working parents who don't make enough money to
pay for health insurance out of pocket, and who are working at
companies and businesses that don't provide health insurance.
I am honored that 30 of our Senate colleagues have already joined as
cosponsors. Providing health insurance to low-income children isn't
just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Children stay
healthier, families function better, neighborhoods are better off, and
children do better in school as a result, with fewer sick days. They
feel better when they are at school because they have a family doctor,
because they have health insurance.
We know it works. Listen to these numbers: Thanks to CHIP, the number
of uninsured children has fallen by half, from 14 percent in 1997--when
this bill passed with bipartisan support, and it has been extended and
reauthorized a couple of times since--to a record low of 7 percent in
2012.
In nearly every State of the Union, Governors planning their State
budgets and parents planning their family budgets are relying on us to
extend CHIP now. We should not go right up to the deadline, as some are
now talking about in terms of shutting the government down. We should
not go up to the deadline but do it now. It would provide a sigh of
relief for parents, not only for financial reasons but because CHIP
means better access to comprehensive care for their kids.
Think about the anxiety parents face knowing they have insurance
today under CHIP but not being certain they will have it this time next
year. We should act together to protect this vital program that
provides comprehensive health care coverage for 10 million children.
States will start to roll back their CHIP program and funding for the
program will expire at the end of September if we don't act soon.
This has always been bipartisan. It should continue to be. I look
forward to working with all my colleagues to prioritize children's
health and help pass this PRO-CHIP legislation as soon as possible.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kirk):
S. 529. A bill to improve the services available to runaway and
homeless youth who are victims of trafficking, to improve the response
to victims of child sex trafficking, to direct the Interagency Task
Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking to identify strategies to
prevent children from becoming victims of trafficking and review
trafficking prevention efforts, to protect and assist in the recovery
of victims of trafficking, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a measure that
would help us make progress in the fight against domestic human
trafficking, a terrible crime. This legislation, titled the Combating
Human Trafficking Act of 2015, has three objectives. First, it would
encourage federal agencies to devote existing grant resources to
initiatives that are designed to protect runaway and homeless youth
from human traffickers. Second, it would update the authorizing
language for the cyber tipline of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children to ensure that the statute specifically references
``child sex trafficking.'' Third, and finally, this legislation would
help ensure that trafficking victims' housing needs are met and equip
Congress with more information on the best practices to combat human
trafficking.
The first title of this measure is based on legislation introduced by
U.S. Congressman Joseph Heck of Nevada in January. It is titled the
Enhancing Services for Runaway and Homeless Victims of Youth
Trafficking Act of 2015. Similar language passed the House on January
26 by a unanimous voice vote. This part of the bill would improve the
support provided specifically to runaway and homeless youth who are
trafficking victims. This title also would enable the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to devote existing grant resources to
training grantees' personnel on the effects of human trafficking on
runaway and homeless youth. Finally, this title would allow the HHS
Secretary to provide street-based services to such victims.
The second title of the bill, based on a measure introduced by U.S.
Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio, would amend the Missing Children's
Assistance Act to ensure that the phrase ``child sex trafficking'' is
incorporated into the statutory language that authorizes the cyber
tipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Nearly identical language already passed the U.S. House of
Representatives earlier this year.
The final title of this legislation is known as the Human Trafficking
Prevention, Intervention and Recovery Act of 2015, after a bill
introduced by U.S. Congresswoman Kristi Noem of South Dakota. It would
charge the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
with several duties, such as identifying best practices and strategies
to combat human trafficking and cataloging the anti-trafficking
activities of various State and Federal agencies. This task force,
which was created under the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act,
must provide a report within one year of its review and findings, under
the legislation.
The third title of this legislation also calls for the Government
Accountability Office to report to Congress on governmental and law
enforcement efforts to combat domestic human trafficking. This title
also recognizes that minors who are trafficking victims in the United
States are in desperate need of housing. It would ensure that certain
grants, which are available from the U.S. Department of Justice under
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, can be used for
initiatives to assist trafficking victims with their

[[Page S998]]

housing needs. Shelters and facilities that are seeking to expand or
develop services to trafficking survivors would be eligible to apply
for these grant funds, under this title of the legislation. Nearly
identical language passed the House last month.
I urge my colleagues to pass this vitally important legislation. I
also want to extend my appreciation to my colleague from Illinois, Mr.
Kirk, who has agreed to join me as an original cosponsor of this
measure.

____________________