[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 116 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5486-S5513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters--like many Americans--are 
frustrated. They are frustrated when they see short-term patches that 
do not make investments in our crumbling infrastructure. They are 
frustrated with seeing meaningful policy advance, while Congress 
bickers over how to pay for it--and at what expense to other critical 
programs.
  Passing a long-term authorization to make needed improvements to our 
aging roads and bridges is a matter of common sense. It is a matter of 
safety. And quite frankly, for us in Congress, it's our job.
  After 11 short-term extensions over the course of 3 years, Congress 
finally approved MAP-21 in 2012. Now, two short-term extensions later 
and faced with another expiration deadline, we have a choice: another 
patch, or pass a meaningful, long-term transportation authorization 
that will give our States the ability to build and repair roads, 
bridges, and byways, to promote rail safety and transit, and to invest 
in the critical infrastructure that supports our cities and towns, 
enables interstate and intrastate commerce, and creates jobs for 
American workers. The time to pass a plan for long-term transportation 
funding is now.
  Vermonters take great pride in our historic downtowns and small 
communities. In our cities and towns, we have a culture of getting 
things done. We find a way to accomplish our shared goals. But, when 
those shared goals rely largely on a Federal funding stream that is 
unreliable at best, and uncertain at worst, it makes it impossible to 
double down on the investments needed to keep the cars, buses, and 
trucks moving on our roads. We can invest in bridges and roads 
overseas. We do it all the time. We decided to spend a couple of 
trillion dollars in Iraq. We didn't use any offsets; we just put it on 
the credit card. As one Vermonter said to me back home: We spend 
billions upon billions of dollars to build roads and bridges over 
there, and then they blow them up. Why don't we spend a little bit of 
that money here at home, and we will take care of those roads and 
bridges?
  As much as we invest in bridges and roads overseas, we must do so 
right here at home. Look at this bridge show in this picture I have in 
the Chamber. It is located in East Montpelier, just about 5 miles from 
where I was born. It was built in 1936--the year my parents were 
married. It is in dire need of repair. Weather, the sometimes very 
harsh Vermont climate, age, and traffic volume--more than 4,400 
vehicles cross it per day, 10 percent of which are trucks--have led to 
the deterioration of the bridge. It is one of nearly 300 long and short 
bridges in Vermont that have been deemed structurally deficient. The 
East Montpelier Bridge remains open--at least for now. It will be 
replaced in 2018, with a price tag of $7.3 million, about 2 minutes' 
worth of the money we wasted in Iraq. It is an issue of safety. It is 
an issue of economic certainty. It is a commonsense investment that has 
been delayed for too long because resources are far too scarce. I am 
willing to bet the same could be said of all 50 States represented in 
this body.
  We all agree that a long-term transportation bill means safe bridges, 
paved roads, and completed railways. But it also encourages innovative 
projects that incorporate public health, environmental, and social 
incentives. Look no further than Burlington, VT. A picturesque town 
nestled on the shores of Lake Champlain, it is home to a variety of 
innovative entrepreneurs and businesses, from high-tech hubs to 
specialty food producers. As our businesses and communities grow, 
Vermonters depend on safe and reliable modes of transportation to keep 
them connected.
  Church Street is a pedestrian-only street that welcomes locals and 
visitors to enjoy the many vibrant shops and restaurants. As businesses 
begin to sprawl beyond the limits of Church Street and settle into new 
homes along Pine Street, the city has invested in safe modes of travel 
to ensure accessibility. The Bike Path Rehabilitation Project and the 
Safe Streets Collaborative are projects that consider the needs of the 
community as a whole--either in a vehicle, on foot, or pedaling.
  Main Street--the heart of any Vermont downtown--is home to small 
businesses and services such as post offices, grocery stores, medical 
offices, and banks. In a rural State such as Vermont, investing in our 
infrastructure extends beyond bridges and roads. It is sidewalk repair. 
It is establishing crosswalks. It is widening roads to provide for 
parking, and it is installing such basic things as street lighting, 
refuse receptacles and landscaping.
  After many years of economic decline in downtown Barre--one of our 
larger cities--the city's Main Street was left with empty storefronts 
and lonely streets. The community introduced the Big Dig--a multiyear 
effort to revitalize Main Street and City Hall Park. With funding 
sourced from Downtown Transportation Grants and Federal funding sourced 
through the Agency of Transportation, 200 State employees were able to 
relocate into a new office building in the heart of downtown.
  Look at the before and after pictures. The differences are stark. 
These are the kinds of Federal investments, coupled with investments 
from States and towns, that can revitalize communities across the 
country. This project brought life back into Main Street. Businesses 
filled vacant office spaces, restaurants opened their doors, and the 
sidewalks welcomed locals and visitors alike. The transportation 
funding went beyond just improving the physical infrastructure; it was 
an investment in

[[Page S5487]]

the health and economy of the community.
  The highway trust fund is not just about infrastructure; it is about 
jobs--jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
  Earlier this year, I met with Jeff Tucker, the president of Dubois & 
King. D&K is a Vermont owned and based consulting engineering firm 
which employs 100 people, including about 80 Vermonters. Jeff's 
frustration was clear: short-term highway trust fund extensions 
paralyze the ability of States and municipalities to plan. Jeff's 
company provides high quality engineering jobs with an average annual 
salary of over $71,000. These jobs come with full benefits--health 
care, paid vacation, sick and holiday paid time off and retirement 
packages.
  A significant portion of his business includes transportation-related 
engineering projects that originate from the Vermont Agency of 
Transportation. The Vermont Agency of Transportation creates a 
statewide plan based on the State's known Federal transportation 
funding share--something the agency has not been able to count on in a 
long time. There are thousands more examples of businesses around the 
country hampered in the same way. In a State like Vermont, a short-term 
construction season paired with a short-term funding stream is a 
terrible combination, for both the State and the companies that provide 
these services.
  Now the Senate is debating how to move forward with a long-term 
investment in our roads and bridges and railways. It is an important 
debate. There is a lot about this policy proposal that I support. I 
share the concerns, however, of many that it will undermine the safety 
of riders, bikers, and pedestrians.
  The policy is not perfect, but how we pay for it should also be 
considered. The highway trust fund has been supported for the most part 
by a user-fee driven system. Our roads and byways need our attention, 
but a long-term extension of this authorization, paid for by robbing 
from other critical programs, is as unsustainable as a network of 
short-term patches.
  America is starving for real, certain infrastructure investment. The 
highway trust fund cannot limp forward on a continued series of short-
term extensions. Our country's progress is being stalled, and it is 
time we start building for our future.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. President, last week the junior Senator from Arkansas objected to 
a request to vote on any of the five nominations to the U.S. Court of 
Federal Claims. They have been waiting for 10 months for a vote. He did 
not want to debate the merits of any of these eminently qualified 
nominees. I think the junior Senator is dusting off the Republican 
playbook from the last Congress to try to do to the U.S. Court of 
Federal Claims what he could not do to the DC Circuit.
  The caseload statistics of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims--as in 
other courts--have increased and decreased at various times. This does 
not mean that one Republican should be permitted to put up a wholesale 
blockade of nominees to a specific court preventing every single one of 
them from being considered on their merit by the full Senate. 
Furthermore, in contrast to the assertions made by the junior Senator 
for Arkansas, the number of new cases filed with the court since 2007 
has actually increased by 13.4 percent.
  Early in the last Republican administration, there was discussion 
about the caseload of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, but no Senate 
Republican voiced concern then. In fact, during the Bush 
administration, the Senate confirmed nine judges to the CFC--with the 
support of every Senate Republican. Only three CFC judges nominated by 
President Obama have received confirmation votes. This is the same 
double standard that Senate Republicans tried to apply to President 
Obama's D.C. Circuit nominees, when they filibustered and refused to 
permit any of President Obama's three pending D.C. Circuit nominees 
from receiving a vote last Congress.
  Not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee raised a 
concern about the CFC's caseload either during the committee hearings 
on these nominations last year or during the committee debate last year 
or this year. In blocking these five nominees, the junior Senator from 
Arkansas ignores the Senate Judiciary Committee's unanimous votes on 
these nominations in 2014 and again this year. He also disregards the 
chief judge who speaks on behalf of the entire court and the five past 
presidents of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association who have 
urged the Senate to fill these vacancies.
  In 2003, the now-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee engaged 
in a debate on the caseload of this court. He said then: ``I feel it is 
unfair to these Court of Federal Claims nominees to deny them a seat by 
bringing up this point at this late date.'' I hope that the junior 
Senator from Arkansas will heed these words and remove his objection to 
an up or down vote on these nominees. If he personally does not believe 
these judges need to be confirmed, he can certainly vote against them.
  The fact is that all five of these nominees are impeccably qualified. 
One of the nominees, Armando Bonilla, would be the first Hispanic judge 
to hold a seat on the court, but the junior Senator from Arkansas 
objected. The nominee is strongly endorsed by the Hispanic National Bar 
Association and has spent his entire career--now spanning over two 
decades--as an attorney for the Department of Justice. He was hired out 
of law school in the Department's prestigious Honors Program, and has 
risen to become the Associate Deputy Attorney General in the 
Department.
  Another nominee, Jeri Somers, retired with the rank of lieutenant 
colonel in the U.S. Air Force, but the junior senator from Arkansas 
objected. The nominee spent over two decades serving first as a Judge 
Advocate General and then as a Military Judge in the U.S. Air Force and 
the District of Columbia's Air National Guard. In 2007, she became a 
Board judge with the U.S. Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and 
currently serves as its vice chair.
  Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Somers are just two of the five nominees being 
blocked from consideration by one Senator. Both of them have dedicated 
the majority of their careers in service to our Nation. They deserve 
better than the treatment they are receiving from this Senate. I urge 
the Senate majority leader to move to confirmation votes on these well 
qualified nominees without further delay.
  Since President Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, 
I am afraid Republicans have made it their priority to obstruct 
nominations put forward.
  More than half a year into this new Congress, the Republican 
leadership has scheduled votes to confirm only five judicial nominees. 
Let me contrast that with the last 2 years of President George W. 
Bush's tenure. Democrats had taken over the Senate majority. If we 
treated Republican President Bush that way the new Republican Senate 
majority is treating Democratic President Obama only five judges would 
have been confirmed by today in 2007. Instead, we confirmed 25 district 
and circuit court judges by July 23, 2007.
  Let me say that again because I want to make it clear that we would 
not play politics with judges because they are supposed to be outside 
of politics. By this time in the last 2 years of President Bush's term, 
when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we had moved 25 judges 
through the process to confirmation. Today's Republican leadership has 
allowed only five of President Obama's judicial nominees to be 
confirmed.
  In the last 2 years of President Bush's tenure the Democratic 
majority moved 68 district and circuit judges through the process to 
confirmation. And today, we find Republicans objecting to even 
considering highly qualified men and women to these judgeships. In the 
last 2 years of the Reagan term a Democratic majority confirmed 85 
judges.
  Twenty-five by this time in 2007, 68 in all during the last 2 years 
of President Bush's term. Only five for President Obama. Seventeen by 
this time in the last 2 years of President Reagan's term, 85 in all. 
Only five for President Obama.
  You know all this does is politicize the Federal judiciary. They are 
an independent branch of government. The Senate ought to be confirming 
them. Let's not have a double standard. We made it clear we would not 
do

[[Page S5488]]

that with President Reagan and President Bush. We shouldn't do it with 
President Obama.
  It is up to the majority leader and the Senate Republicans to 
demonstrate that they are not applying a double standard that is solely 
driven by who occupies the White House. The Senate should be confirming 
these long delayed U.S. Court of Federal Claims nominees and then 
proceeding to nine other judicial nominees pending on the Senate 
Executive Calendar.
  I see my good friend on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a very important 
amendment that Senator Feinstein and I will be offering to the 
transportation bill when we move to consideration. That vote may be 
around 2 a.m., and then the clock will tick. But then at some point on 
Sunday, I am hoping that we will begin the process of considering 
amendments and, chief among them, should be the Feinstein-Wicker 
amendment to the bill regarding truck-length increases. Our amendment 
would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to require a truck 
size-and-weight study before promulgating a rule to increase the 
minimum length limitation for trucks.
  Now I show to my colleagues and I show to the Presiding Officer a 
poster. What I am showing is a picture, a drawing of what we call twin 
33's. This is the tractor trailer. Here is a 33-foot trailer, and here 
is another 33-foot trailer tacked on to the back of that. So twin 33's 
are long trucks--longer than is allowed in 39 States.
  So far we have let the States make the decision about whether to 
accept these, and some 39 of our Federal States have decided: No, we 
don't want trucks this long with the twin 33 trailers on them in our 
States.
  Our amendment would accept that decision on the part of the States. 
Our decision would allow those 39 States to continue to make that 
decision. Of course, the States that want trucks that long can make 
that decision themselves.
  Why are we having to offer such an amendment on this highway and 
transportation bill? Because the Appropriations Committee, by a very 
close margin of some 16 yeses and 14 noes, has decided otherwise. 
Unless we act as a Senate, that legislation on the appropriations side 
of things will go forward and will become the law of the land, telling 
39 States that they cannot make their own decisions on twin 33's.
  So we would allow the States to continue to make this decision while 
the Secretary of Transportation promulgates a full rule to increase the 
minimum length limitation.
  I will tell you that preliminary information from the U.S. Department 
of Transportation indicates that we don't need to go to mandatory twin 
33's. The U.S. Department of Transportation has concluded there should 
be no change to the current maximum truck length limit allowed on 
Federal highways.
  Their preliminary report goes on to say: ``The Department finds that 
the current data limitations are so profound that no changes in the 
relevant laws and regulations should be considered until these data 
limitations are overcome.'' So that is the counsel of the U.S. 
Department of Transportation.
  I will say that I am not always bound by what the Federal departments 
say. As a matter of fact, I would stress that decisions are better made 
by the States and State legislators, Governors, and transportation 
commissions, but I do think it is instructive that even these people at 
the Federal level are counseling against this idea of a Federal mandate 
to all 50 States that they must move to the twin 33's. So that is the 
U.S. Department of Transportation.
  Why is Roger Wicker from Mississippi on the floor advocating for 
federalism and advocating for States making their own decisions, 
basically advocating against a Federal mandate for these long trucks?
  I will tell you. I started hearing from folks. When this issue came 
before the Appropriations Committee, a group of people rose up and 
said: What are you doing? What are you thinking, mandating this to all 
50 States without their consent?
  So who is for the Feinstein-Wicker amendment and opposed to mandatory 
twin 33 trucks in all of our States? I will tell you who is opposed to 
it--advocates for highway and auto safety. AAA knows a little something 
about getting around the United States of America. AAA is for the 
Feinstein-Wicker amendment. The National Troopers Coalition knows a 
little something about safety on the highways. They are opposed to 
mandatory twin 33's.
  I will also tell you it is very interesting that as for the 
Mississippi Trucking Association, you would think every trucker would 
want to be for this, make more money, and get to haul more stuff. The 
Mississippi Trucking Association contacted our office and said: We 
don't want this. Senator Wicker, other Members of the Senate and the 
House, oppose this Federal mandate that is about to come out of the 
Appropriations Committee and pass the Feinstein-Wicker amendment. The 
Mississippi Trucking Association is for our amendment and against twin 
33's, along with a host of other trucking associations from east to 
west and from north to south.
  I will tell you who else is opposed to mandatory twin 33's: the 
Mississippi Sheriffs' Association and a host of other States' sheriffs 
associations and the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police and a 
host of other State associations of chiefs of police.
  Did I mention that the Illinois State Senate unanimously passed a 
resolution in support of what the Feinstein-Wicker amendment would do 
and opposed mandatory twin 33's. The Illinois State Senate unanimously 
passed this resolution saying to the Congress: Leave it up to the State 
of Illinois. We know what is best for our State when it comes to 
infrastructure. We know what is best for our State when it comes to the 
safety of our citizens.
  So it is people such as them. The Mississippi Transportation 
Commission, or MDOT, has passed a unanimous resolution asking us to 
oppose twin 33's on a mandatory basis.
  Why are people so opposed to these? They haul a whole lot more. 
Obviously, some people would make a lot more money if they could have 
this much area in their trailers to haul things. So why are people 
opposed to it?
  Well, they are concerned about--for one thing--wear and tear on our 
Nation's infrastructure. We are going to pass a bill, I hope, in a few 
days and send it over to the House. We hope we get it sent to the 
President on a bipartisan basis, and we want to build some more 
highways. We want to strengthen our bridges. Everyone within the sound 
of my voice knows we need to do that. It is a question of how to come 
up with the money, but the last thing we need to do is to authorize--
not authorize, mandate--something that is going to cause more wear and 
tear and that 39 States don't want because of the wear and tear.
  Also, estimates are that this forced mandate, if it comes from 
Washington, DC--if the Feinstein-Wicker amendment or something like it 
doesn't pass--will cost about $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion per year in 
additional funding because of the pavement damage. It just doesn't 
stand to reason that you can mandate this sort of additional truck 
length on the highways without more damage to the highways. It makes 
sense, and we have statistics to prove it.
  Also, it is a matter of public safety. I will tell you that not every 
interstate in my State of Mississippi is exactly straight and narrow. 
We have some hills, and we have places where the curves are less 
desirable than I would like them to be. We are told that stopping 
distances are going to increase if we mandate this sort of thing on the 
50 States. There are longer stopping distances for double 33's than the 
truck configuration we currently have on the roads in the United States 
of America. The double 33 trailers in some studies took 22 feet longer 
to stop than the current double 28's with normal operating brakes.
  I have four grandchildren in Mississippi. I have two daughters with 
small children, two sons-in-law in Mississippi, and they are driving up 
and down these highways. I would just as soon they not have to compete 
on the roads, on those curves.
  On Waterworks Curve in Jackson, MS, I would rather my three 
grandchildren not be in a van with a twin 33

[[Page S5489]]

trying to pass them. I just don't think it is safe for my children and 
my grandchildren, and the State governments in 39 States apparently 
agree. If they decide they disagree, they have that right.
  Also, I think that Senator Feinstein and I, with our amendment, are 
standing up for small business. Do you know who can afford a twin 33 
tractor-trailer rig, double 33's? The big guys. The big companies. You 
know their names. They can afford to do this. And certainly one can 
understand why they would think it would be better for their business.

  But I will tell you there is a reason why the Mississippi Trucking 
Association is opposed to this. They do not have the money to convert 
to a bunch of twin 33 double trailers. They would rather not do this. 
As a matter of fact, this Federal mandate--if Congress decides to do 
this, and I certainly hope we don't; I hope we don't think we are so 
smart we can mandate this on 50 States--is going to put some small 
truckers out of business. That is why the Mississippi Truckers 
Association passed a resolution. That is why they have contacted me.
  And I will tell you this, Mr. President. While the American Trucking 
Association says they are for these twin 33's, the individual members 
of the ATA--the American Trucking Association--have come to me and 
said: Thank you, Senator Wicker, for standing up for our interests 
because we are small businesses and we can't afford to get in this 
competition. It will run us out of business to have to go out and make 
a capital investment.
  I would also make an argument just in the name of federalism. There 
is a reason we have 50 States. And, you know, my Republican Party won 
an election in November and we won control of this body. One of the 
things we have said as Republicans is that we don't think all the 
wisdom resides here in Washington, DC. We don't like a lot of Federal 
mandates; we like States making decisions.
  We made a bold statement last week that States should make their own 
decisions and school boards locally should make their own decisions 
with regard to education. I voted for that. I applaud that. It didn't 
go as far as many on this side would have perhaps wanted, but we made a 
strong statement that we wouldn't have a national education school 
board policy; we would move more of the decisionmaking back to the 
States. So why on Earth, a week and a half or 2 weeks later, would we 
make a decision here in Washington, DC, that we know more about how to 
take care of infrastructure; that we know more about truck lengths and 
more about safety for our children and grandchildren here in 
Washington, DC, than State legislatures do? I just don't think we will 
do that.
  I urge my colleagues, while we have some time to debate, to get down 
to the floor. Let's talk about this issue. We will be standing in 
quorum calls and recesses subject to the call of the Chair for perhaps 
most of this weekend. We have time to debate this issue now and for the 
few moments it takes Sunday or Monday or Tuesday or whenever we 
actually vote on this. We are entitled to a vote, Mr. President, on 
this germane amendment. And this is germane. It is not something 
extraneous, dealing with social issues or Planned Parenthood or any 
number of nongermane issues that I am sympathetic with. This is a 
transportation issue. It is germane to the bill. The Senate needs to 
work its will on this issue. It needs to go over to the House and they 
need to work their will.
  I think that once we think about this, I would say to the Presiding 
Officer and to the rest of my colleagues, we will make the decision 
that we ought to leave this issue up to the States. There is a reason 
39 States don't want to do this, in their considered opinion. We ought 
to respect that decision. We ought to do it in the name of federalism, 
in the name of the States having the right to do things a little 
differently in each State if they want to, in the name of safety, in 
the name of infrastructure, and in the name of fairness.
  I thank Senator Feinstein for joining with me on this bipartisan 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues, when the time comes--after the 
brief debate on the floor on this issue has occurred--to vote yes in 
favor of the Feinstein-Wicker amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  (The remarks of Mr. Merkley pertaining to the introduction of S. 1858 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I call up the Roberts amendment for 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on a motion to proceed. 
Amendments are not in order.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, when it is in order and I call up the 
Roberts amendment for consideration, I will thank my colleagues 
Senators Alexander, Burr, Cornyn, Cotton, Gardner, Risch, Sasse, 
Boozman, and Tillis for joining me on this amendment.
  Today we ask our fellow colleagues to stand with us to protect the 
U.S. economy from $3.2 billion in retaliatory tariffs being applied to 
our exports to Canada and Mexico every year--every year.
  A recent ruling from the World Trade Organization found, for the 
fourth and final time, that our Country of Origin Labeling Program for 
meat--or what the acronym says is COOL, to which it is often referred--
that this labeling program violates our trade agreements with our two 
closest trading partners.
  This debate isn't about the merits of a particular labeling program 
or our opinions about how our beef or pork or chicken should be sold. 
No, this debate is about a simple fact, and facts are stubborn things.
  Whether you support COOL or whether you oppose COOL, the fact is that 
retaliation is coming unless the Senate acts to stop this program that 
the WTO has found to be discriminatory.
  Over the years, this body has attempted many times to craft a 
workable COOL Program for all stakeholders while still living up to our 
international trade obligations. Congress, through directives in the 
2002 farm bill and the 2008 farm bill, required the establishment of 
COOL for meat. Through regulations issued in 2009 and revised in 2013, 
the Department of Agriculture made several attempts to implement a 
workable and WTO-compliant COOL Program. However, as I mentioned 
earlier, again and again the WTO ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico. 
On four occasions--four--our trade regulator ruled that the U.S. policy 
did not live up to our international trade obligations and 
disadvantaged our best trading partners, Canada and Mexico.
  Some have suggested we should salvage this labeling program by once 
again making more changes. However, simply changing certain aspects of 
the program will not prevent the $3.2 billion in retaliation from 
damaging our economy. Don't take my word for it. Here is a statement, 
issued just today, from the Canadian Government, which will determine 
whether retaliation on U.S. products will take effect in the near 
future: ``The only acceptable outcome remains for the United States to 
repeal COOL or face $3 billion in annual retaliation.''
  I have worked with many of my colleagues over the years and over the 
last few weeks to craft a solution that meets the needs of all 
stakeholders. However, after all of our work, it is clear that to 
protect our economy--to ensure Canada and Mexico drop their pursuit of 
retaliation on U.S. exports--we must first take up the House-passed 
bill repealing COOL, a bipartisan bill that received 300 votes in the 
House of Representatives.
  The damages Canada and Mexico are seeking are immense--over $3.2 
billion in sanctions on U.S. products is probable if we do not repeal 
COOL--and these are not just agriculture products in the crosshairs. 
Products including beef, pork, cherries, and ethanol--repeat, and 
ethanol--wine, orange juice, jewelry, even mattresses, furniture, and 
parts for heating appliances are just some of the targets of Canadian 
retaliation. Mexico has yet to finalize their list, but we expect it to 
be just as damaging.
  California alone has $4 billion in exports to Canada at risk. 
Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New

[[Page S5490]]

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin each 
have roughly $1 billion in exports from their State at risk from the 
Canadian retaliation alone.
  I remind my colleagues that again today Canada released a statement 
in response to legislation authored by others that reaffirmed their 
position: ``The U.S. Senate must follow the lead of the House of 
Representatives and put forward legislation that repeals COOL once and 
for all.''
  Now, I must emphasize to my colleagues that retaliation is fast 
approaching and the responsibility sits squarely on our shoulders to 
avoid it. Regardless of what farm groups, the Department of 
Agriculture, or the USTR say or regardless of what some Members would 
like, Canada and Mexico--and only Canada and Mexico--have the ability 
to halt retaliation.
  So this takes me back to the beginning of my statement: It doesn't 
matter if you support COOL or if you oppose COOL, you cannot ignore the 
fact that retaliation is imminent and that we must avoid it.
  Repeal of mandatory COOL is necessary to protect the U.S. economy 
from damaging sanctions, and our amendment will accomplish just that.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
``Statement from Ministers Ritz and Fast on Senator Stabenow's Proposed 
Bill to amend U.S. Country of Origin Labelling (COOL)'' be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         (From Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, July 23, 2015]

 Statement From Ministers Ritz and Fast on Senator Stabenow's Proposed 
          Bill To Amend U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

(By Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and International Trade Minister Ed 
                                 Fast)

       Senator Stabenow's (COOL) 2.0 fails to address Canada's 
     concerns and would continue to undermine our integrated North 
     American supply chains. By continuing the segregation of and 
     discrimination against Canadian cattle and hogs, Senator 
     Stabenow's measure will harm farmers, ranchers, packers, 
     retailers and consumers on both sides of the border. This is 
     contrary to successive World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     decisions that have clearly ruled in Canada's favor.
       The U.S. Senate must follow the lead of the House of 
     Representatives and put forward legislation that repeals COOL 
     once and for all.
       The only acceptable outcome remains for the United States 
     to repeal COOL or face $3B in annual retaliation.
       Canada will continue to stand up for the rights of our 
     cattle and hog producers to ensure this harm is ended and to 
     restore the value of our highly integrated North American 
     livestock market.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the DRIVE 
Act. I commend Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer for their 
bipartisan work on this bill that passed out of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee with a unanimous vote.
  A long-term highway solution such as the DRIVE Act will provide our 
States with the certainty they need to advance major road and bridge 
projects. Passing a 6-year bill would be a great achievement for this 
Congress, especially in the context of our recent history, and I am 
hopeful we will seize this opportunity.
  Several years ago, as a member of the House Transportation Committee, 
I strongly supported the last long-term highway bill that helped 
support major roads in West Virginia and around the country.
  The 2005 highway bill was extended 10 separate times--10 times--
between 2009 and 2012. During that period, States were only assured 
Federal funding for a period of weeks or months, making lasting 
improvements to our highway infrastructure difficult, and it shows.
  As we saw between 2009 and 2012, several short-term extensions 
resulted in fewer and more costly fixes. In 2012, we passed MAP-21 to 
reauthorize the highway program for 2 years. I served as a conferee on 
that legislation.
  MAP-21 was a strong bipartisan achievement that included a number of 
important reforms to streamline project delivery and help States 
complete their projects more efficiently and economically, but 
ultimately MAP-21 was a 2-year bill.
  Since MAP-21, we have had more of the same: short-term extension 
after short-term extension. The recent history shows how significant 
this opportunity we have is. We have before us a bipartisan, fiscally 
responsible bill that will provide the certainty our States need to 
improve the Nation's highway system for several years.
  I am encouraged by the bipartisan vote we saw last night to move to 
debate, and I hope my colleagues will continue to work together to 
drive that DRIVE Act into law.
  West Virginians rely heavily, as do most people around the country, 
on roads, bridges, and highways to fuel our economy, to access hard-to-
reach places in our State, to get to and from work, and to transport 
goods and services. West Virginians understand the need for a long-term 
highway bill. Nearly one-third of our State's major roads are currently 
in poor condition.
  The Federal Highway Administration has listed 960 West Virginia 
bridges as structurally deficient. We have quite a few bridges in our 
State because of our beautiful mountains.
  The DRIVE Act will increase funding for maintaining and repairing 
these bridges. The bill prioritizes maintenance of our major roads, 
helping to address the current state of disrepair on highways across 
this country.
  This is a statistic of which, quite frankly, I was jarred by the 
number. Each West Virginia motorist pays an average of $575 a year in 
extra maintenance costs due to the poor road conditions. The DRIVE Act 
will help our States address maintenance and repair, meaning safer and 
less costly trips for our drivers, but the biggest thing is the 
certainty that comes from a long-term highway bill. It is important for 
not only the maintenance aspect, but it is most important to advance 
new projects. Large highway projects are expensive multiyear endeavors.
  States can't plan for the future based on funding commitments for a 
week or a month. Whether the issue is relieving congestion and 
improving access to rural communities to fuel economic development or 
moving freight across the country, the DRIVE Act will help the most 
important projects move forward.
  In West Virginia, U.S. Route 35 in Putnam and Mason Counties is one 
of our most critical projects. It is an important freight link for the 
goods moving from the Southeast to the Midwest, but it has been two 
lanes for a very long time. It was one of the most dangerous roads that 
interstate truck traffic shared.
  Thanks in part to the 2005 bill I talked about, the majority of Route 
35 is now a four-lane highway, and our State efforts to complete the 
remaining 14 miles are well underway, but the DRIVE Act will aid 
efforts to get that project across the finish line. It will also help 
us build Corridor H for residents in Central and Eastern West Virginia, 
an important part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. When 
this road is completed, it will link counties in Central West Virginia 
with the Interstate 81 corridor, improving safety and providing 
economic development opportunities for our communities.
  Whether it is Route 35, Corridor H, the King Coal Highway, Coal 
Fields Expressway or other high-priority projects across our State, 
States need that certainty that is going to come from a dedicated 
Federal investment to move forward. That is what a long-term highway 
bill does while creating jobs for our construction workers.
  According to the Contractors Association of West Virginia, 
construction and employment in my State fell by 11.3 percent between 
November of 2013 and November of 2014. That is 1 year.

[[Page S5491]]

Passing a highway bill that supports investment in our roads and 
bridges will put these men and women back to work.
  Reauthorizing our highway program for 6 years would be reason enough, 
in my opinion, to strongly support the DRIVE Act. I want to highlight 
another part of this bill that is important to my State. It 
reauthorizes the Appalachian Regional Commission through 2021. West 
Virginia is the only State whose boundaries fall entirely within the 
commission's boundaries.
  Earlier this year, the commission marked its 50th anniversary of 
leading efforts to fight poverty and improve the quality of life in the 
Appalachian region. Over that period, poverty in the Appalachian region 
has been cut in half, and the percentage of residents over 25 with 
college degrees has nearly tripled, but there is much more work to be 
done.
  The DRIVE Act authorizes a broadband deployment initiative through 
the ARC to help increase access to high-speed internet--a problem in 
rural America--in support of distance learning, telemedicine, and 
business development.
  Reauthorizing the ARC and bringing broadband to small, economically 
distressed communities will help bring jobs to West Virginia. The ARC 
provides important support for health care, education, and 
infrastructure programs, and I am pleased the DRIVE Act will allow the 
commission to continue its efforts for the next 6 years.
  Now is the time to move our transportation system forward and meet 
the needs of our growing population, ensure safety for travelers, and 
promote growth in areas that struggle economically. The Senate has the 
opportunity to make a real and positive difference for all Americans by 
passing the DRIVE Act.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
important legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, as we have been talking about fixing our 
Nation's infrastructure, I want to raise a concern I had with one of 
the potential ways in which we are talking about paying for it. That is 
by using funds out of what is called the Hardest Hit Fund.
  Over the years, I have worked in my State of Ohio and around the 
country to help deal with this issue of abandoned homes. We are all 
concerned about communities that have blighted properties because they 
tend to be magnets for crime, for drugs, and for other illegal 
activity. It turns out that one of the best ways to increase home 
values in some of the blighted neighborhoods around our country and in 
my home State of Ohio is to actually take these abandoned homes, tear 
them down, and have that property be used for other purposes, whether 
it is new development, a community garden or whether it is simply 
razing the property to ensure that homes in the neighborhood are not 
affected negatively by those home values going down.
  There is a lot of information out there about this now because many 
States have become active in doing it, and it appears it is working. In 
other words, home values are increasing, sometimes dramatically, by 
taking down these blighted properties. I think, perhaps inadvertently, 
Members of this body who are looking at ways to pay for the highway 
trust fund extension decided that the Hardest Hit Fund was the place to 
look. There is no question there has been a GAO report about some 
aspects of this fund and how it has been used, where there might be 
need for reform, maybe significant reform, but this one area of dealing 
with blighted properties is one we need to be very careful with.
  Main Streets across our country are looking to us right now in the 
U.S. Senate to ensure that we don't overreach, and trying to find 
funding for infrastructure, in effect, creates more problems in those 
neighborhoods. In my home State of Ohio, we have nearly 80,000 
dangerous abandoned homes. One of the best things that you can do to 
address public safety in tumbling home values in those neighborhoods is 
to demolish these structures. By the way, some of the data that we have 
from cities in my home State of Ohio says they cost neighbors up to 80 
percent of their value.
  We have also seen that first responders sometimes are at risk when 
these homes are subject to arson and other crimes. Sadly, we lost a 
firefighter in one of these homes in Ohio because of arson.
  I remember touring some of these abandoned homes in Toledo, OH, where 
I got to witness one of the homes being torn down. I have done the same 
thing in Warren, OH, and I have done the same thing in other 
communities around our State. I have done the same thing in Toledo with 
the mayor. As we were talking to neighbors, I asked the neighbor who 
was right next to one of the homes being torn down, how do you feel 
about this? She said what other neighbors have told me on other 
opportunities that I have had to go into these communities and talk 
about abandoned homes. She said: Well, it will be better because there 
is less blight and there is less crime. We have a concern because this 
abandoned home is being used by drug dealers. But she also said: You 
know, Rob, I live right next to this home. There are only a few feet 
that separated these two homes. She said: I have three kids at home. 
Every night when I went to bed, I was worried about what might happen, 
that an arsonist would light this home on fire, as has been done 
throughout the city of Toledo and other cities with abandoned homes, 
and that my kids would be at risk.

  This is something that is working. I am concerned that if we do not 
take this into account as we look at how to pay for this infrastructure 
bill, we will make the situation worse rather than better.
  One way we are getting at this in my home State of Ohio and around 
the country is land banks. In some of the hardest hit States, 
manufacturing States like Ohio and Michigan got to work attacking this 
issue. The resources they need to demolish these properties in order to 
help struggling neighborhoods recover come in part from the Hardest Hit 
Fund.
  In Ohio we now have 24 land banks. I think there are six more in 
formation. By the end of the year, we expect to have at least 30 county 
land banks in Ohio.
  After visiting some of these neighborhoods that are impacted by these 
homes and walking the streets with local officials in 2013, I authored 
a bill called the Neighborhood Safety Act. It was a companion bill to a 
bipartisan House effort that was led by some Ohio Members of Congress, 
including Dave Joyce, Marcy Kaptur, and Marcia Fudge. Our legislation 
called for the Hardest Hit Fund to be used for demolition purposes.
  After we pushed for this and pushed aggressively, this important 
change was made. It provided nearly $66 million to my State of Ohio to 
deal with these thousands of abandoned homes we talked about. I know 
the State of Michigan also received a significant part of the Hardest 
Hit Fund for these purposes, as did other States. Again, I am concerned 
about this potential pay-for in the legislation that could take away 
some of these funds, which are critical for doing this important work. 
I have been in touch with the land banks in Ohio. I am talking to the 
Ohio Housing Finance Agency to determine what is the best path forward 
to protect these funds. We are working right now with the committee 
leadership to see if we can modify the language in the underlying bill. 
I know it is something that is a concern to Senator Stabenow because I 
spoke to her about it earlier today, as well as my colleague from Ohio 
Senator Brown.
  I don't know what we are going to do going forward. We may need to 
offer an amendment to change the language. I am hopeful we can have 
this be part of a managers' amendment. Again, dealing with these 
abandoned, blighted homes is a public safety concern. It is a huge 
concern for local officials, local officials in my home State whom I 
have talked to, been on the streets with, but also local officials 
across our country. We have to protect these funds for the communities 
that so desperately need them.

  I wish to particularly thank a friend back home, Jim Rokakis, 
director of the Thriving Communities Initiative at the Western Reserve 
Land Conservancy. He has done excellent work highlighting issues in 
Ohio and has helped to bring people together.
  I hope we will be able to resolve this issue in a managers' 
amendment, but if

[[Page S5492]]

not, I do intend to offer an amendment, and I hope that amendment can 
be supported on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we are not, perhaps 
inadvertently, taking away this tool that we are using every day to 
make our neighborhoods safer and to improve home values for the people 
we represent.
  The final point I wish to make about the underlying legislation is 
that it also includes very important language that reforms our 
regulatory system--specifically, our permitting system. For years now, 
people have been talking about the fact that America is a place where 
it is hard to building something. In fact, it has gotten to the point 
that one international survey that is widely respected has said that 
America has fallen to No. 41 in the world in terms of the ease of doing 
business as it relates to green-lighting a project. Think of a 
commercial building, road or bridge being built or an energy project, 
whether it is solar, wind or oil and gas.
  What we are finding out is that it is so hard to build something in 
America, that some of these funds are going somewhere else. Sometimes 
in foreign capitals, as we visit as congressional delegations, we see a 
lot of cranes and a lot of activity. Part of that is because these 
funds are not coming to this country because it takes so long to build 
something and to get the permits, and there is so much uncertainty and 
the capital is not patient enough. There is more legal liability here 
than in so many other countries. So being No. 41 in the world has led 
to our having fewer good-paying construction jobs here in this country.
  As a result of this concern, over the last 3 years, I worked with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to draft commonsense legislation 
to speed up the permitting process, while still ensuring that we go 
through a regulatory process that includes an environmental review and 
other reviews. This legislation streamlines the process and requires 
one Federal agency to be accountable, which is not the case now. It 
deals with some of the issues that we have now. For instance, you may 
have as many as 35 different Federal permits on an energy project just 
to get the project going.
  It also helps with regard to legal liability. With regard to the 
statute of limitations, instead of having it run 6 years after the 
final environmental review, we limited that to 2 years, which is plenty 
of time to bring a lawsuit. Some have found that the 6-year statute of 
limitations makes it very difficult to find investors.
  This is an important part of the legislation that we are dealing with 
as part of the highway trust fund. It is part of this infrastructure 
bill and will not only provide more funding for our highways and roads 
but will also ensure that we can move forward with more of these 
projects more quickly and use the money for efficiently.
  This legislation has been supported broadly across the aisle. It was 
reported out of our committee--the governmental affairs committee--
earlier this year with a strong bipartisan vote. I believe the vote was 
12 to 1. It is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and also by 
the AFL-CIO Building Trades Council. They feel strongly about it for 
all the right reasons. They want to bring back some jobs. A lot of 
construction jobs that were lost during the financial crisis have yet 
to come back. This will help.
  I commend the authors of the underlying legislation for including my 
bill as part of the underlying bill. I sure hope it stays in the bill 
because it is the right thing to do for taxpayers, it is the right 
thing to do to get projects moving, and, of course, it is the right 
thing to do to create more jobs at a time when all of us continue to be 
disappointed by the recovery, which is one of the weakest recoveries we 
have ever seen in the history of our country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to talk about an issue 
that is of concern; that is, that the Hardest Hit Fund does an 
excellent job in our communities with regard to abandoned homes. We 
have to be careful that we not pull the rug out from under these 
organizations that are doing a terrific job helping to make our 
communities safer and helping to increase home values.
  Again, I wish to commend those who have included in this legislation 
our permitting bill. Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri and I have 
worked on this for 3 years. It is good bipartisan legislation. It makes 
sense in order to get America back to work and building things again. 
It will help in terms of the highway funding by making sure that 
funding goes further, and it will also help in terms of all sorts of 
construction of other projects, such as energy projects, commercial 
buildings, and other infrastructure.
  With that, I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Overtime Pay

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Department 
of Labor's proposal to provide overtime pay to more Americans, a step 
that could affect as many as 90,000 middle-class workers in Minnesota 
and nearly 5 million around the country.
  Right now, if someone makes more than $450 a week, or about $24,000 a 
year, there is a very good chance they don't qualify for overtime pay, 
and that is below the current poverty line for a family of four. The 
newly proposed regulations would raise that level to $970 a week, or 
about $50,000 annually. That means that a salaried worker earning less 
than that amount will be able to benefit from overtime pay regardless 
of the duties that he or she performs. This change would benefit an 
enormous number of Americans whose wages have remained virtually 
unchanged while the cost of education, childcare, and retirement have 
risen steadily over the past decade.
  Last month, we saw the 64th straight month of private sector job 
growth since the Great Depression. Our economy overall is getting 
stronger, but too much of that prosperity is going to people at the 
top. Middle-class families and those aspiring to be in the middle class 
simply are not reaping the benefits. In fact, America's wealth gap 
between middle-income and upper-income families is at its highest 
level--the gap--since 1983. The gap between the highest and lowest 
earners is at its greatest since before the Great Depression. This kind 
of inequality is not just bad for those workers. It is bad for our 
economy as a whole, which is strongest when we have a thriving middle 
class.
  Overtime protections were first passed as part of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938 in the midst of the Great Depression, when the 
economy was far worse off than it is now. It was passed as a way to 
protect workers from abusive employers and lay the groundwork to 
rebuild the middle class. While overtime protections have been a staple 
of the American economy, they no longer reach many of the workers they 
were intended to help.
  Just look at the trends. In 1975, overtime covered 62 percent of 
full-time salaried workers, including a majority of people with college 
degrees. Today only 8 percent of workers are eligible for overtime, 
which is an especially alarming statistic since hourly wages for the 
average worker have remained flat in real dollars since 1979. That is 
why in January of this year I joined several of my colleagues in 
pushing President Obama to update these outdated overtime rules. We 
asked the President to allow more working people to qualify for 
overtime and to index those earnings, that threshold, to keep up with 
inflation so that future generations of American workers could reap the 
benefits of their hard work. I am glad the administration agreed. These 
proposed rules will help put more money in the pockets of those who 
work longer hours or provide incentive to employers to hire more 
workers or increase the hours of part-time workers and help strengthen 
the economy. These rules will allow workers to spend their new-found 
earnings and spur further economic growth. They will help grow our 
shrinking middle class, which is the backbone of our economy, and help 
create a pathway for those who want to become a part of the middle 
class. It is vital that we support this proposal to guarantee overtime 
pay to millions of more Americans.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S5493]]

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 1844 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HOEVEN. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as I watch this great deliberative 
body move toward a transportation bill, I sometimes feel as though I am 
watching an impending train wreck or a car crash because on the issue 
of safety this bill reflects a tragic, unfortunate, unforgivable missed 
opportunity. If we authorize this transportation measure, which is 
vitally important to the future of our Nation and will help drive 
economic growth and create jobs, we will miss the opportunity to make 
our roads and rails safer, more reliable, and more resilient for our 
economy and quality of life. We are missing an opportunity to, in 
effect, save lives.
  Anyone who has opened the morning newspaper and read about a 
derailment--whether in Bridgeport, Rikers Island, the Bronx, NY, or 
Philadelphia--causing injuries, deaths, loss of both life and property, 
can ask, understandably, why can't they do something? Anybody who 
discovers a used car bought by a friend or a relative or oneself rife 
with recalls and the need for repairs can justifiably ask, why can't 
they do something? Anybody who has had a near miss on the highway with 
an 80,000-pound truck going 75 miles an hour because there is a tired 
truckdriver under pressure from an owner or because there are two 33-
length rigs can justifiably ask, why haven't they done something? The 
answer is because the Senate is missing an opportunity now, this year, 
on this bill.
  I spend a lot of time driving Connecticut's roads and seeing 
firsthand how all of these vital forms of transportation--railroad, 
bridges, ports, and airports--are in need of investment.
  The latest example and evidence is from a report released today--it 
is called the ``TRIP report''--in New Haven finding that 45 percent of 
roads there are in poor condition and that the cost to drivers is $707 
a year in repairs. That is real money. The roads are in very bad 
condition--45 percent of them--in the New Haven area alone. And the 
``TRIP report'' ought to be a powerful reminder of the need for robust 
and enduring investment.
  I wrote to the writers and drafters of the bill before us asking for 
a good bill that makes the kind of investment we need to respond to the 
needs that are reflected in the ``TRIP report,'' which is in the range 
of billions of dollars a year, but this measure provides to Connecticut 
only about $500 million a year--a pittance compared to what the need is 
in Connecticut.
  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal 
Highway Administration, keeping roads and rail reliable and safe means 
investment. Creating jobs means investment. Driving the economy forward 
means investment. All of those goals can be served by a robust and 
adequate investment.
  I urged that the bill cover the full 6 years. Instead, this bill 
really is a mirage of what is necessary. The bill before us fails to 
provide a long-term and robust plan to meet the priorities for our 
Nation's transportation infrastructure. Major construction projects, 
such as building the I-84/Route 8 highway interchange in Waterbury, 
known as the Mixmaster, and replacing the Aetna Viaduct portions of I-
84 in Hartford, will take years to complete. This bill provides only 
the illusion of a long-term authorization, backed only by 3 years of 
dedicated funding for highways and no--let me repeat--no dedicated 
funding for critical infrastructure investment in our Nation's commuter 
railroads.
  When the American people discover what is in this bill, they are 
going to again say: Why can't they do something? Why can't they do 
something better than this train wreck and car collision of a bill?
  I voted against the motion to proceed to this bill because of its 
failure to provide a path forward and this bill's failure to provide a 
reliable funding source for the commuter rail systems millions of 
Americans depend on every day and its failure to address our country's 
ongoing crisis in transportation safety.
  We have seen the evidence of safety failure in a variety of tragic 
instances--in Philadelphia, in Westchester County, where a collision at 
a grade crossing killed six people; a derailment in the Bronx that 
killed four; a train on the wrong track that struck and killed a worker 
in West Haven; and, of course, the derailment in Bridgeport that 
injured more than 70 people.
  Positive train control would help prevent these kinds of tragedies. 
It is a technology similar to GPS--not much more complicated--that 
monitors track conditions and speeds and helps trains slow or stop 
before there is a collision or derailment. It is not a new or novel or 
original, untested technology; it has been around for years. This bill 
fails to bring our railroads into the latest 20th-century technology, 
not to mention the 21st-century technology that positive train control 
offers.
  The Northeast Corridor is in urgent need of at least $570 million per 
year to enable a decent and adequate state of repair, to give railroads 
a realistic chance of implementing lifesaving positive train control 
technology, and to improve safety at rail grade crossings. That is 
money which can't be created by a mirage or an illusion in a bill like 
this one. The national infrastructure safety and investment grants 
program was designed to provide this level of support. If Congress were 
to dedicate the necessary funding from the highway trust fund, it could 
be done, but Congress is ignoring this fundamental need.
  On our roads, American bus and truck drivers perform an essential 
service and they work hard at it, but their industry also has well-
documented safety issues. Unfortunately, this legislation creates 
additional hurdles for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
to promulgate rules and to address safety issues. Rather than making 
the world safer, it actually enables more danger.
  The bill before us allows 18-year-olds to sit behind the wheel of an 
80,000-pound truck going 75 miles an hour--with no requirement to get 
rest--to drive 75 miles an hour not only within the State but across 
State lines.
  The bill allows giant twin 33's--new to our roads--to be driven 
across State lines, putting drivers at risk and further degrading our 
highway system.
  The bill eviscerates rules on how much rest truckdrivers must take. 
That rest is essential to safety.
  I sought to strike and modify these damaging provisions in committee, 
and I urged my colleagues to support essential safety reforms, but 
unfortunately those calls went unheeded.
  Over the last 2 years, the commerce committee has had a tragic front-
row seat--a unique insight into the tragedies that pile up when safety 
is ignored. Our national safety regulators all too commonly look the 
other way when auto companies, for example, conceal information to 
protect profits over human life.
  I appreciate the work of Senator Boxer, who has stripped the most 
offensive provisions out of the title governing the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. That title no longer limits grants for 
the prevention of drunk driving, for example. Unfortunately, it still 
contains unacceptable loopholes.
  Due to the GM ignition coverup and the Takata airbag crisis, there 
are currently an unprecedented 64 million cars on the road today that 
are under safety recall. Let me repeat that number. There are 64 
million cars on the road today that are under safety recall.

[[Page S5494]]

That is 25 percent of the total 250 million cars in America. To say 
this number is unprecedented fails to do it justice.
  Along with a number of my colleagues, particularly Senator Markey, I 
advocated numerous policy changes to ensure accountability for these 
problems and make them less likely in the future--not just to punish 
but to protect. I would like to focus on two that are particularly 
urgent.

  First, many of the cars that have been recalled are 10 or more years 
old and in the hands of their second or third owners. There needs to be 
a provision that says to these car dealers that when a car is in a 
recall, they have an obligation to notify a new owner and, in fact, to 
repair the car.
  Second, as we learned in the case of GM, Federal prosecutors simply 
lack legal tools to file criminal charges against companies for 
knowingly concealing information about defects that can kill. 
Deliberate coverup and concealment of deadly defects should be 
punishable criminally, as it is in other industries where the stakes 
are similar. We know that employees at GM were aware of dangerous 
safety defects but chose to remain silent or, in fact, mislead 
authorities, leading to hundreds of injuries and deaths.
  This measure and the DRIVE Act do nothing to hold manufacturers or 
their corporate officers criminally responsible when they knowingly 
fail to disclose those risks. Even after the defects are discovered, 
this bill lacks the teeth to ensure that wrongdoing is not repeated. 
Their civil penalty authority for safety violations is currently capped 
at $35 million. The DRIVE Act leaves these fines at just a pittance 
compared to the revenue of GM--less than the cost of doing business. 
Safety fines need to be meaningful rather than a pittance, less than 
the cost of doing business. Congress must remove this cap and ensure 
that safety penalties provide a meaningful deterrent to wrongdoing. 
Even at $70 million, it is a pittance compared to GM, which made $156 
billion in 2014.
  Americans deserve better than another 6 years of crashes, bridge 
collapses, accidents that are preventable, and they need protection to 
stop it. I hope my colleagues will join me to implement reforms now and 
take strong steps to build and maintain a transportation system worthy 
of the greatest, strongest country in the history of the world.
  For our economy, we can create jobs. For our quality of life, we can 
ensure quality and convenience. For our safety, we can prevent tragedy. 
We can do better with a transportation system that keeps people safe.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Nuclear Agreement with Iran

  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very 
important topic for our country, the future of our kids, and the future 
of our kids' kids.
  This morning I was in a Foreign Relations hearing about Iran. It is 
pretty obvious that the administration has decided once again that our 
democratic values and procedures are just too high of a hurdle to 
clear. Instead of keeping its promise to the American people and 
following the pledge it made to Congress just a few months ago to give 
everyone time to review the terms of this deal, the administration has 
instead undercut all of us again. This administration has effectively 
ignored 98 Senators--myself included--and 400 Representatives who voted 
for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act earlier this year. By 
advancing this vote at the U.N. Security Council, this administration 
has violated the very balance of power between our three branches of 
government.
  I am outraged that this administration continues to circumvent 
Congress at every turn, from regulations, to mandates, to foreign 
policy. This is an absolute failure of the administration to do what is 
best for the American people, our security, and indeed the security of 
the world.
  The precept for this deal with Iran simply doesn't make sense. This 
deal started off by ceding the right to enrich to Iran immediately, 
reversing decades of U.S. nonproliferation policy. In fact, Secretary 
Kerry said in 2013 that ``we do not recognize the right to enrich.''
  This deal reverses six United Nations Security Council resolutions 
and turns a pariah proliferator into a legitimate nuclear state.
  This agreement allows Iran to leapfrog over the 18 countries who have 
peaceful nuclear programs but no enrichment and to be treated like 
countries like Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, and Japan who 
have peaceful energy programs and domestic enrichment but who do not 
have a nuclear weapon. These five nations are upstanding members of the 
international community.
  This deal takes Iran--the largest state sponsor of terrorism and a 
violator of human rights as well as an international pariah--and treats 
Iran's nuclear program like Japan's.
  Secretary Kerry said at a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee 
in March that ``our negotiation is calculated to make sure that [Iran] 
can never have a nuclear weapon.'' But President Obama has said that 
``in year 13, 14, or 15 . . . the breakout times would have shrunk down 
to almost zero.''
  So this deal will not protect Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons 
state; it just delays it. As I have said all along, I cannot support 
any deal that allows Iran to become a nuclear weapons state--not now, 
not in 10 years, not ever.
  What is more, this deal provides Iran with billions of dollars of 
sanctions relief upfront, before the IAEA completes its assessment on 
whether Iran's nuclear program is indeed peaceful. It took the IAEA 19 
years to make this determination for South Africa's program. And this 
deal starts lifting United Nations and European Union sanctions this 
year, the arms embargo in 5 years, and the ballistic missile ban in 8 
short years. This deal will provide Iran with a windfall of sanctions 
relief of up to over $100 billion--funds that President Obama's 
National Security Advisor Susan Rice just recently conceded will go to 
terrorism, the Iranian military, the Houthis, and Assad.
  President Obama said that ``this deal is not built on trust, it is 
built on verification.'' But this deal doesn't require ``anytime, 
anywhere'' inspections of all nuclear and military sites. Instead, it 
empowers Iran to create lengthy delays when IAEA inspectors request 
access to suspicious nuclear sites that are indeed not declared by 
Iran. From what I understand, the IAEA will have two teams traveling a 
country twice the size of Texas. And let's not forget that Iran 
developed the Fordow facility and it operated for years despite having 
IAEA teams on the ground.
  And if we do find Iran to be in violation of this deal, our 
enforcement mechanism has no teeth. Snapback sanctions in fact are a 
fantasy. Paragraph 37 of the Iran deal states that Iran will cease 
performing all of its commitments to the deal in the event of a full or 
partial snapback. Iran will walk away if we try to hold it to the very 
deal it just signed off on.
  With this all-or-nothing nature of the snapback, will anyone try to 
punish Iran's cheating? History tells us that when Iran cheats, it does 
so incrementally, in small steps, so no single action in and of itself 
can be punished, but when you look at it over time, their cheating is 
egregious.
  Will any nation be willing to stake sinking the entire deal over 
minor cheating? Even if sanctions are indeed snapped back, Iran's 
sanctions relief is front-loaded. They will be able to so quickly pad 
their economy to make themselves more resistant to future sanctions. 
Most dangerously, this deal is predicated on the idea that the regime 
will change its dangerous behavior, when we have only seen proof that 
we will see more of the same--sponsorship of rogue regimes and 
terrorism worldwide.
  So I am curious, given what we know now about this deal, how the 
United States not only voted for this deal at

[[Page S5495]]

the United Nations Security Council but actually sponsored the 
resolution. Secretary Kerry claims that should Congress disapprove of 
this deal, we would be in noncompliance with all of the other countries 
in the world. He claims that there will be no nation standing with us 
on our sanctions or opposition to Iran.
  Well, I say we let the nations of the world decide for themselves. 
Let's give the world the option. We have stood alone before. Do you 
want to do business with Iran or the United States? We have stood alone 
many times in history when it meant doing the right thing.
  The American people and the fine people of Georgia who are calling 
and writing into my office every day are uncomfortable with this 
nuclear deal for Iran, and they are uncomfortable with our future under 
its provisions. So I say to this administration that you cannot 
circumvent the American people with this nuclear deal. Congress will 
have its say. We worked hard for this 60-day review period and I will 
do my part to muster the 67 votes required to disapprove a deal that 
leaves Iran as a nuclear threshold state in a little more than a 
decade.
  This 60-day oversight period is the result of a bipartisan effort in 
the House and Senate, protecting the balance of the three branches of 
government. Now we must act together to protect our country and our 
world from a very bad actor like Iran from ever becoming a nuclear 
weapons state.
  Mr. President, I rise also in the time remaining to speak very 
briefly of a current issue that we are going to vote on, possibly this 
weekend; that is, the highway trust fund. Georgia sent me to Washington 
to help solve our fiscal crisis, not make it worse. As a member of the 
Senate Budget Committee, I am working every day to find smarter ways to 
prioritize our spending. That way we can support critical functions of 
the Federal Government such as funding our National Highway System.
  Make no mistake--I support funding infrastructure, but we must do it 
responsibly. Transportation is a top priority as it supports a robust 
economy and is one of the responsibilities the Federal Government is 
charged with in executing under the Constitution. As we continue to 
debate the highway bill in the Senate, I am committed to finding the 
right funding and enough funding for our critical infrastructure needs.
  As proposed, the highway bill authorizes spending for the next 6 
years yet only funds these programs for the next 3 years. Passing 
responsibility over to the next Congress to find additional funding 
mechanisms for the remaining 3 years is unacceptable. It is what has 
gotten us in this debt crisis in the first place. Some of my colleagues 
have suggested this is simply the way the Senate has acted in the past. 
Yes, I got that. Again, it is what got us here. That may be true, but 
it does not make it right. I was not sent to Washington to accept this 
status quo.
  A serious long-term solution needs to be fully funded, not filled 
with half-empty promises that cannot be kept or could add to our 
national debt. I am working to find a responsible way forward in order 
to provide Georgia and other States with more certainty through a 
longer term solution, instead of settling for just another short-term 
fix. Today, I am introducing an amendment to simply match the 
authorization period with the available funding. That sounds basic; it 
sounds simple. It is what I have to do at home in my home budget. It is 
what most Americans have to do. If they don't have the money, they 
don't spend it. This amendment ensures that Congress is not authorizing 
spending programs beyond a point where there is no money to pay for 
them in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in breaking Washington of its chronic 
overspending problem. I urge my colleagues to support a fiscally 
responsible highway bill that matches the length of the authorization 
with the funding mechanism. That way we can continue to fund our 
critical infrastructure projects without compromising our conservative 
budget principles.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity to pass a 
multiyear transportation bill that ensures critical transportation 
projects move forward without disruption. As part of this 
bipartisanship bill, the DRIVE Act, we also have an opportunity to pass 
necessary policy changes that enhance safety and make our 
transportation system work better.
  Part of the DRIVE Act includes important work on transportation 
policy we have undertaken at the Senate Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee. We will lose an opportunity to pass 
bipartisan reforms if we do not approve this critical legislation.
  The last time we passed a multiyear transportation bill into law was 
2012. However, since 2009, we have passed 33 short-term extensions to 
avoid a funding gap that would stop much-needed transportation 
projects. Highway and transportation infrastructure projects--and in 
many urban areas, public transit projects--are important to our 
constituents and our Nation's economy.
  If we continue to do short-term extensions--again 33, literally 33 
short-term extensions since 2009--that is a terrible way to run a 
highway program. It does not allow State departments of transportation 
to plan. It does not allow those who are involved in the construction, 
the contractors who build our roads and bridges, an opportunity to 
plan. It creates all kinds of uncertainty out there.
  We need the certainty that comes with a long-term highway program 
instead of having these 33 short-term extensions. So this is a unique 
opportunity that we have to actually put in place policies that would 
guide us at least for the next 3 years and hopefully beyond. Our 
transportation system is one of our government's visible assets. Our 
constituents who sent us here notice when there is a problem with it.
  The Federal infrastructure investment that Senator Inhofe and Senator 
Boxer have taken the lead on in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and the transit projects for which the banking committee is 
responsible are not the only critical parts of our transportation 
system. There are policy decisions and advanced safety initiatives. We 
have rules governing how and when and where we build critical projects, 
as well as oversight of various regulations at the U.S. Department of 
Transportation regarding trucking, freight rail, passenger rail, and 
automobile safety requirements.
  These areas are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate commerce 
committee. I have the honor of chairing the Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee. I was pleased to see my friend from Florida, 
Senator Nelson, who is the ranking member of our committee, return last 
night following his surgery last week to help advance consideration of 
the DRIVE Act.
  Let's talk about some of the policies that I have worked on with 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle that will not become law if we 
fail to move forward with this bill. Keep in mind that Senators Wicker 
and Booker are the authors of the rail safety bill that the commerce 
committee passed by voice vote last month, and their bill is included 
in this legislation.
  Let's also recognize that commuter rail systems, including New Jersey 
Transit and Virginia Railway Express, have stated that they will not 
meet Federal deadlines for implementing positive train control 
technology. This legislation currently before the Senate would 
authorize grants and prioritize loan applications to help commuter 
railroads deploy this new technology to help address safety issues and 
to get positive train control up and running as soon as possible.
  The bill also includes numerous additional rail safety requirements, 
including the implementation of necessary automatic train control 
modifications and crew communication improvements, to improve 
operations while

[[Page S5496]]

positive train control is being implemented.
  The National Transportation Safety Board recommended requiring 
inward-facing cameras in all passenger railroads to create more 
accountability. This bill requires all passenger railroads to install 
such equipment in their locomotives. In fact, I have a letter here from 
the National Transportation Safety Board, in which Chairman Christopher 
Hart says:

       I applaud the recent passage of the passenger rail safety 
     bill. I was pleased to see the inclusion of our 
     recommendations regarding inward and outward audio and image 
     recorders.
       Thank you for your ongoing support of the NTSB.

  That is from the National Transportation Safety Board Chairman, Mr. 
Christopher Hart. So having these necessary improvements will make our 
passenger rail systems much safer as they travel across the country.
  The bill also streamlines the permitting process for improvements to 
existing railroad track and infrastructure and improves multimodal 
planning and permitting. The Secretary of Transportation will have new 
authority to speed up projects and to reduce paperwork burdens. Outside 
of improving rail safety, we include a proposal offered as an amendment 
during committee markup by Senator McCaskill to ban rental car 
companies from renting vehicles needing recall repair work.
  We also include several provisions to increase consumer awareness of 
recalls, increased corporate responsibility, and improved highway 
safety efforts in all the States. Following a harsh inspector general 
report criticizing the Federal Government's auto safety regulator, this 
bill requires the full implementation of reforms outlined in that 
report. Once these reforms are implemented, the agency's funding 
authorization will substantially increase to meet the GROW AMERICA 
requests for vehicle safety efforts. These are important safety 
provisions in this bill. They make our roads and our transportation 
system safer, and they deserve our support.
  At the committee level, some provisions of our title were the subject 
of constructive discussions that helped us improve this bill before it 
made its way to the floor. Here are a few things we did to broaden 
support for this proposal after our committee passed the bill last 
week.
  Senator Manchin raised concerns about a provision I authored that 
requires additional testing for a new train braking requirement known 
as ECP that will be required under law by 2021 and 2023. I worked with 
Senator Manchin. We came to an agreement that if new real-world tests 
show that the requirement isn't effective, it cannot proceed. If it is 
effective, there will be no delay in its implementation, and there will 
be no need for new rulemaking.
  We worked with Mothers Against Drunk Driving on another important 
issue to combat drunk driving. When we heard they had concerns with our 
24/7 sobriety program grant language, we worked with them to address 
those concerns and to assure that the dedicated grant program with 
ignition interlock laws continues.
  A pilot program our bill proposed that would allow licensed 
truckdrivers between the ages of 18 to 21 to cross short distances 
outside the borders of their home State now requires not only the 
approval of participating States but also the approval of the Secretary 
of Transportation. At the Commerce Committee we have worked on a 
bipartisan basis to change, drop or add provisions since we marked up 
the bill to earn the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  There are still some differences. I expect amendments where this body 
will have the opportunity to decide important issues that we have 
debated throughout the committee process. One such issue, which I heard 
a variety of opinions about, concerns the current $35 million cap on 
fines that the Department of Transportation can assess on manufacturers 
for auto safety violations. This bill would double the cap to $70 
million, provided that the Department first finishes a still undone 
rulemaking process on penalty assessment factors that was required in 
our last highway bill.
  I have heard arguments that this cap on fines for auto safety failure 
should be raised more or even set at an unlimited amount, but we are 
doubling this cap to $70 million and conditioning an additional 
increased authorization for vehicle safety on implementing needed 
reforms.
  This bill enhances safety. If we do not pass this bill, auto safety 
regulators don't get more funding, as called for by Secretary Foxx and 
various safety groups following the record 64 million auto safety 
recalls we have witnessed over the past 2 years. Penalties for auto 
safety violations will not go up if this bill doesn't pass, commuter 
railroads don't get new assistance to implement positive train control 
or the other critically important safety improvements that the NTSB, 
Amtrak, the FRA, and others have called for. None of that happens if 
this bill doesn't pass. Rental car companies don't face a Federal ban 
on renting vehicles that are subject to open recalls if this bill 
doesn't pass.
  Not passing the safety reforms in the DRIVE Act would be an 
incredible missed opportunity for addressing a host of key safety 
improvements. Some in this building believe it would be easier if we 
just passed another short-term extension. They are right. It would be 
much easier, but keeping highway and related transportation 
infrastructure projects funded for a few more months doesn't address 
safety and regulatory issues that we cannot afford to keep ignoring.
  Five months from now, if tax reform leaves us with new options, we 
can always decide to infuse additional funding into the bill before the 
Senate, but delaying action on transportation for 5 months could also 
compound our difficulties. Remember, there have already been 33 short-
term extensions passed by Congress since 2009.
  A silent part of every argument for a short-term extension is let's 
not address safety and other critical transportation needs. The right 
decision for the American people is to seize the opportunity to pass a 
bipartisan, multiyear transportation bill without delay.
  I wish to share with you some of the letters of support we have 
received from various organizations that have looked at the body of 
work that is included in these particular provisions that I have 
mentioned.
  The Governors Highway Safety Association says:

       GHSA congratulates the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on 
     releasing S. 1732. This six-year reauthorization bill will 
     provide needed stability and consistency for state highway 
     safety agencies to reduce the number of crashes, injuries and 
     fatalities on America's roads.

  This is from the American Public Transportation Association. It says:

       On behalf of the American Public Transportation Association 
     (APTA), our 1,500 member agencies, and the millions of 
     Americans that depend on public transportation, I write to 
     commend the Committee's hard work to advance comprehensive 
     rail legislation that attempts to address safety, funding 
     needs, Amtrak enhancements, improved project delivery, and 
     other important rail policy issues.
       We fully support the inclusion of a rail title within any 
     broader surface transportation authorization package 
     considered in the Senate.

  That was from the president and CEO of the American Public 
Transportation Association.
  The National Association of Railroad Passengers states that they are 
writing ``to endorse the inclusion of the Railroad Reform, Enhancement, 
and Efficiency Act (S. 1626) into the Comprehensive Transportation and 
Consumer Protection Act of 2015 (S. 1732).
  ``The move to include passenger rail authorizing language in a 
broader highway and transit bill is an important step in recognizing 
the critical role intercity trains play in a national transportation 
system.''
  This letter is from the States for Passenger Rail Coalition:

       On behalf of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, Inc., 
     (SPRC) I write in support of the actions taken by the 
     Commerce Committee to introduce sections of the highway bill. 
     I am particularly pleased that the Railroad Reform, 
     Enhancement, and Efficiency Act (R2E2)--as approved by the 
     Commerce Committee--was included as a title of the bill.

  These are just a few of the examples of letters we have received. The 
final one I will mention is from Transportation for America, and there 
again they say they appreciate the fact that we are authorizing ``the 
federal passenger rail program with the transportation safety and 
freight provisions

[[Page S5497]]

under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee through 2021,'' and 
that ``this proposal moves the federal transportation program in the 
right direction in addressing the nation's freight needs.''
  The point I wish to make is there have been some of our colleagues on 
the floor who have been finding fault with various provisions in the 
bill, and obviously there are going to be a lot of people who aren't 
going to support this in the end anyway, but we ought to at least be 
talking about the facts. We ought to be talking about what is actually 
in the bill, and we ought to be talking about the important reforms 
that were made in this legislation that addressed safety issues, safety 
on the highway, safety on our rail system, improvements and reforms in 
our passenger rail systems, and the commuter railroads we have 
traveling across this country. There are a number of needed safety 
improvements and reforms that will be lost if we fail to act.
  The letters I have mentioned are just a few examples of the 
organizations that rely upon those forms of transportation, that 
recognize this is an opportunity we should not miss.
  I hope we will take advantage of the opportunity and not do another 
short-term extension, which would be the 34th now since 2009, and not 
put in place the types of changes, reforms, and improvements that are 
needed in our transportation system across this country. If we fail to 
act now--the window that people think we have now for a short-term 
extension--the 34th short-term extension--we will be looking at this 
sometime later this year, and we will be right back where we are right 
now.
  We shouldn't miss this opportunity. We should take advantage of it 
and try, and as best we can as we move this across the Senate floor and 
debate some of these issues--if there are ideas about improving it, 
making it better, making it stronger, I think that is what this debate 
is all about. But I want to make sure that as we talk about these 
issues we are accurately characterizing and reflecting what is actually 
in the bill and all the work that has been done on both sides of the 
aisle by both Democrats and Republicans and Members who are interested 
in these issues.
  There are a number of committees that have jurisdiction over 
transportation issues. As I mentioned, the Commerce Committee is just 
one. The Environment and Public Works Committee has had the lead on 
writing the bill. The Finance Committee, on which I also serve, is 
responsible for--at least largely responsible for--trying to come up 
with the pay-fors the way that we are going to fund this, and the 
banking committee deals with many of the transit provisions of the 
bill.
  So there are multiple jurisdictional issues involved here. All the 
committees have been active. All the Members on those committees have 
been active. I can certainly say that on our committee, the commerce 
committee, we had great participation from both Republicans and 
Democrats on the committee. We had a lot of good input, which didn't 
end when we reported the bill out of the committee but continued on 
through the weekend and into this week. So we continue to look at ways 
we can make this bill stronger.
  But I have to say, all the things that are included in here, all the 
things I mentioned along with the components and features of this bill 
that have been worked on by other committees, are important changes. 
Probably, most important of all, is that we get something that puts in 
place a multiyear bill that creates the kinds of conditions that are 
conducive to jobs and to economic growth. We all know how important 
transportation infrastructure is to our economy.
  I come from a part of the country where we rely heavily--we drive 
long distances, we have a lot of geography that we have to cover. Our 
economy, because we are agriculturally based, relies very heavily upon 
getting our products to the marketplace. So we have to have good roads 
and bridges, we have to have a railroad system that works, and we 
believe that many of the things that are done in this bill contribute 
to, enhance, make stronger, better, and more efficient our 
transportation system. That is good for jobs, that is good for the 
economy in this country, and that is why it is so important that we 
move forward.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, after last night's cloture vote, we are one 
step closer to providing a long-term solution for the shortfalls in the 
highway trust fund. Soon we will begin debate on legislation that will 
provide more clarity and certainty to our States and to highway 
builders and workers throughout the country.
  Earlier this week, I was pleased to learn that our distinguished 
majority leader and the ranking member of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee were able to reach a bipartisan agreement to authorize 
and fund a long-term highway extension. I want to commend both of them 
and everyone who was involved in putting this bill together for their 
hard work and willingness to put partisanship aside in order to help 
the American people.
  Now the rest of us need to follow their example. I want to express my 
support for this bipartisan highway bill and urge all of my Senate 
colleagues to do the same.
  The legislation that we will soon be debating would authorize 
expenditures from the highway trust fund for 6 years and provide 3 
years of funding. It would do so without adding a dime to the deficit 
and without raising taxes.
  Over the last few months, we have all heard from the naysayers who 
claimed that such a feat was impossible, that there was no path forward 
to provide long-term highway funding without a massive tax increase. I 
am pleased to see our colleagues have provided us with such a path. All 
we have to do is be willing to walk down that path.
  This bipartisan bill provides us with a historic opportunity when it 
comes to highway funding. It would provide the longest extension of 
highway funding we have seen in over a decade.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--including some 
who will likely come out against this bill--like to point to the 2012 
MAP-21 legislation as a paragon for how Congress should consider and 
pass a long-term highway bill. Of course, MAP-21 extended highway 
funding for only 2 years. This legislation we will be debating this 
week will go for a significantly longer period of time.
  In short, passage of this bill would be a significant victory for 
good government, and, of course, it would provide a great example of 
what is possible when Members of both parties work together.
  Of course, we have seen a number of these types of examples in the 
Senate this year. For example, earlier this year we passed legislation 
to permanently repeal and replace the Medicare sustainable growth rate 
system, a problem that had plagued Congress and our health care system 
for years. Shortly thereafter, we passed a bipartisan bill to combat 
human trafficking. And, of course, after that, Members from both 
parties in both Chambers came together to renew trade promotion 
authority and update our trade laws for the 21st century.
  The Senate is working again, and I don't think it is going to stop 
any time soon. I think the highway bill will be the next item we add to 
the long list of bipartisan victories we have achieved in the Senate 
under the current leadership. We just need to keep moving this bill 
forward.
  Of course, this bill isn't perfect either. Anyone who is desperate to 
find a reason to vote against this legislation could likely scour 
through the text and find some frivolous reason.
  The pay-fors in the bill--at least as far as I am concerned--don't 
all represent ideal policy choices. But we shouldn't hold a good bill 
hostage while we search for perfection. Indeed, as I said a number of 
times here on the floor in recent months, I have been here in the 
Senate for 39 years, and in that time I don't remember voting on very 
many bills I thought were perfect.
  This is a good bill. It is not meant to be a partisan wish list or a 
political messaging vehicle. It provides a serious

[[Page S5498]]

and workable solution to a legitimate problem, and it was designed to 
get support from Members of both parties.
  Once again, I want to commend my colleagues for getting us this close 
to a solution on highways.
  As we all know, the House has taken a different path with regard to 
highway funding. They have sent over a 6-month patch with the intention 
of using that time to work on a solution that would both fix problems 
in our Tax Code and provide for long-term highway funding.
  The idea of linking highways to tax reform has a lot of support here 
in Washington. Like I said, that is the path the House has opted to go 
down, and I know leaders in the Obama administration have a similar 
vision.
  I want to make one thing clear. I support tax reform. I have been and 
will continue to be the most outspoken Member of the Senate in favor of 
robust, bipartisan tax reform. I agree with many of my colleagues that 
linking that effort to the highway funding could make a lot of sense.
  Luckily, the Senate's highway bill will allow us to continue to 
pursue that path. Keep in mind, that under this bill, we will have 3 
years of additional authorized highway expenditures to pay for when all 
is said and done. This means that whenever we can agree on a tax reform 
package, whether it is 6 months from now or later, it will still be 
possible--and likely just as sensible--to tie the two efforts together.
  My colleagues also need to keep in mind that while this legislation 
addresses the immediate need for highway funding, the fundamental 
issues that fuel the need for tax reform will remain in place. We will 
still face an increasing number of corporate incursions and foreign 
takeovers. Our tax rates will still be too high, and our Tax Code will 
still be altogether too complicated and burdensome.
  In other words, if Congress passes this bipartisan, long-term highway 
bill, we will still be under enormous pressure to fix our Nation's 
broken Tax Code and to provide relief to struggling job creators and 
taxpayers throughout the country. No one should question that.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this bipartisan highway package. It provides a realistic path 
forward to a solution that all of us want to see. Traditionally, 
Members of both parties have been able to come together to deal with 
our Nation's infrastructure. For the sake of our citizens who need 
better roads and highways; for our builders, engineers, and job 
creators, who want to grow and expand; and for our workers who need 
good jobs, I hope we can do so with this important legislation.
  Now, having said that and having found good in what both the House 
and Senate are trying to do, I think it is important to point out that 
delaying this for 6 months is not going to work. I can see the same 
roadblocks thrown up every step of the way, and then you get to the end 
of that particular time and the leverage is going to be with those who 
want to stall this fight to begin with.
  So I am concerned about doing that, especially when we have what 
really is a very good highway bill here in the Senate and could solve 
at least these problems for a while, and we can still work on tax 
reform in the process.
  I have no illusions. I have been around here for a long time, and I 
know how difficult tax reform is going to be. I also know it takes 
Presidential leadership, which I hope will be there when the time 
comes. But we have no guarantee it is going to be there.
  I can remember many months ago that I said to the President: If you 
want tax reform, send us a well-thought-out bill, and we will see what 
we can do to put it through. I am still waiting, and I can say that to 
put all our apples in that particular basket may not be the smartest 
thing we can do, especially since we are going to be in an election 
year next year. That could make it very, very difficult by the end of 
this year to really do what we all know we should do.
  This bill answers that problem. It gets rid of one very important big 
problem, and that is our highway funding. It is no secret that we on 
the Finance Committee provided--and they didn't think we could do 
this--really around $82 billion, which we found in the code. We did not 
expect all $82 billion to be used, but they were there, and it would 
have given us approximately a 6-year highway bill.
  That is not going to happen now. But to have a 3-year highway bill, 
with some of the things we were able to come up with--even though some 
are difficult and controversial--is nothing short of a miracle. So I 
think we have to get this done. We need to show the House that the 
Senate is moving ahead, and we also need to cooperate with our friends 
in the House when it comes to tax reform.
  I hope we can bring both Houses together and do tax reform before the 
end of the year. It would be wonderful if we could. I don't have any 
illusions about it, however. But I think we ought to do what we should 
do, what we have to do, and what needs to be done at this particular 
time.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from 
Utah. Before Senator Hatch leaves the floor, I just want to say that we 
have worked very hard to put this bill together. It has been difficult. 
If I were writing it, I would have written it differently. If the 
Senator from Utah were writing it alone, he would have written it 
differently. But we have worked together long enough to know that we 
have to meet each other halfway.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Of course.
  Mr. HATCH. I want to thank her.
  Mrs. BOXER. Oh, that is nice. Thank you.
  Mr. HATCH. This has not been an easy thing to do, and she has taken 
some unnecessary and unjust criticism for trying to do the art of the 
doable here in the Senate.
  I just want to tell her it has been a privilege to work with her, and 
I want to make sure that together--and with the help of others--we get 
this bill through for the benefit of this country and for the benefit 
of our highways.
  I know how hard the Senator from California and the distinguished 
Senator from Oklahoma have worked on the highway bill. So I just want 
to say I have tremendous respect for the Senator and appreciate her 
efforts in this regard and want to give kudos to her. Keep it up. We 
have to get this done.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to Senator Hatch, that means a lot to me. I so 
remember that the Senator from Utah set the pace for bipartisan 
cooperation when he worked with the late great Senator Ted Kennedy. 
People looked at the two of you and said: This is impossible. But my 
colleague was able to find the common ground and build on it, and I 
watched that.
  Senator Inhofe and I have been able to do our best to also find the 
sweet spot where we could come together and work together. I just 
wanted my colleague to know that the teamwork I watched between himself 
and Senator Kennedy from time to time on very important issues made an 
impression on me and certainly on the Senate and on the whole country.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield again--
  Mrs. BOXER. Of course.
  Mr. HATCH. I remember when we finally got together. It was way back 
in 1980-1981.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is right.
  Mr. HATCH. From that point on we found ways of coming together and 
getting things done that are monumental and landmark pieces of 
legislation. There is no reason why we can't do that today.
  Let me just mention that on the Committee on Finance we have put out 
of the committee almost 40 bills that are bipartisan--not just one 
Democrat or one Republican, but bipartisan in nature--not the least of 
which is the highway bill--the funding, rather. And I just have to say 
that we are doing what we should do here.
  I think people feel good about it. I have had people come up and say 
it is wonderful we are having amendments again and working together and 
we are getting things done. And I certainly attribute some of that to 
the distinguished Senator from California and the work she is doing 
here in the Senate. I do personally appreciate working with her.

[[Page S5499]]

  Let's get this done. I will do everything in my power to help the 
Senator from California, and I thank her so much.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I say to Senator Hatch, we are going to have some 
tough votes coming up, and some people aren't going to like this 
amendment or that amendment, but all I want to say is this: Let's keep 
our eye on what the prize is.
  Before the Senator leaves the floor, I want to share with him a 
photo. Last week, on the California-Arizona border, a bridge collapsed. 
Now, this bridge had been rated as structurally obsolete because so 
much traffic was going between California and Arizona--so much more 
traffic than was anticipated. We are so fortunate there were no deaths 
involved.
  To me this is the reason why we are doing what we are doing. We just 
can't sit back and wait for some great, wonderful future promise to 
come down from the sky and say: We have solved the funding problems.
  We want to find that solution. It is not at hand. So what the Senator 
did, which was so important--working with all the members of the 
Committee on Finance and across party lines with leadership and 
everybody else--was to put together sources of funding that he felt the 
Senate could live with.
  As it turned out, there were a couple of things that were a bridge 
too far--talking about bridges--for a couple of Members, and we are 
fixing those. We are fixing those, and it is good. But none of these 
pay-fors are delightful. They are all hard. But this is what we are 
trying to turn around.
  So I say to my colleagues on both sides--and I have said it to my own 
caucus over and over--nobody is going to love every page of this bill 
because that is the nature of legislating. If we each could write our 
own bill, we would love every page. We would be thrilled. We would blow 
kisses at every page. But we don't write it ourselves. We have to step 
back, and we have to allow the process to work.
  Yesterday, that process worked. It was tough, but we got more than 60 
votes to begin work on a long-term surface transportation bill. That 
bill is going to give certainty to our States--3 years of certain 
funding and a 6-year authorization, with the hope that in the coming 
months we can figure out a good way to look at international tax reform 
and other ways to pay for the final 3 years.
  But let me be clear. It has been more than 10 years since we have had 
more than a 2-year extension. This is a 3-year bill, and it makes great 
improvements in the Environment and Public Works title.
  We really did compromise, Senator Inhofe and I, and he and I really 
worked well together in this area. This cloture vote was so key and so 
important to business and labor and all the people who know they don't 
want this to happen to them in their State, in their commute. How many 
more bridges have to fail before we recognize that we can't be patching 
up this highway trust fund little by little? It is just not working.
  I often say this--and I hope it doesn't bore people because I have 
said it a lot--if you wanted to buy a house and you found a house and 
you went to a good banker and he or she looked at you and said ``I have 
great news for you, Mr. or Mrs. America--we have checked your credit 
rating, your credit rating is great, and we are going to give you a 
mortgage'' and you said ``That is wonderful news'' and then they said 
``But it is only for 6 months or 5 months or 1 year,'' you are not 
going to buy that house. That is what we have been doing to our States 
and local entities. They can't build anything new. They can't make 
investments that are important because they don't have a guarantee that 
the funding will be there.
  The beautiful thing about our funding system is it is Federal, State, 
and local, and there is even sometimes some private money that comes 
in. So the Federal Government is the spark. I don't know what the 
Presiding Officer's ratio is in Louisiana, whether it is 50/50 or 60/
40. In my State, it is about 50/50. We have 50 percent local State 
dollars to 50 percent Federal dollars. Some of our States rely on the 
Federal Government for 90 percent of their transportation dollars, and 
one State, 100 percent. So this isn't a question of having the States 
do this by themselves; they really can't do it by themselves.
  It was President Eisenhower--a Republican President--so many years 
ago who said if we are going to have a strong country, if we are going 
to protect our national security, we have to be able to move people and 
move goods. He took a tour across this great Nation, and he came up 
with the notion of a highway trust fund and a national transportation 
infrastructure.
  Well, the EPW Committee--which I am the ranking member of and Senator 
Inhofe chairs--provides about 70 percent of the spending in this 
Transportation bill. We came together in a 20-to-0 vote and voted in 
favor of the DRIVE Act. This is going to support millions of jobs--not 
hundreds, not thousands, but millions of jobs across our great Nation--
and it will provide economic security. If we don't do this and we wind 
up with a patch, believe me when I tell you that our States will shut 
down their programs because they just can't move forward.
  It is imperative that we act now--I agree with Senator Hatch--because 
we have come so far. If we don't do this, we will be looking at another 
extension. Somebody told me it was the 34th extension--the 34th 
extension. That is not right. We need to do our work. The committees 
have done their work.
  I was happy to hear that Senator Brown now says that the transit 
funding is good. It is very good, as well as the highway funding.
  So I want people to keep in mind the picture of this bridge. It means 
that when there are goods moving through from Arizona to California or 
California to Arizona, the cars and trucks have to go 400 miles out of 
their way--the cost of that to our Nation's business, the difficulty of 
that to those who drive the trucks and the vans.
  I will say that this link is closed indefinitely. That is a terrible 
thing to say. They don't have a plan to fix this because it is so 
complex, and we need the funding so that they can. We have emergency 
funding in this bill--$100 million per year--to look at situations like 
this and come in and help.
  How many more bridges have to collapse before we do our job? We 
cannot be economically competitive when truckers delivering goods have 
to drive 400 miles out of the way to get goods from one State to 
another.
  Here are the facts: There are 61,300 bridges that are structurally 
deficient in America. Fifty 50 percent of our roads are in less than 
good condition. We have no excuses. We need to move forward.
  I will show a list of supporters of our work. I just implore those 38 
or so Members who voted no on going to this bill--I ask you to take a 
look at these groups and tell me in your heart of hearts how you can 
say no to them. These are hard-working people. They are Republicans. 
They are Democrats. They are Independents. They are people of every 
political stripe--the American Highway Users Alliance, the American 
Public Transportation Association, the American Road and Transportation 
Builders Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American 
Trucking Associations, equipment distributors, general contractors, 
equipment manufacturers, metropolitan planning organizations, the 
National Asphalt Pavement Association.
  I have four of these charts. These are the people who want us to vote 
yes: The National Association of Counties--I started off as a county 
supervisor--they know the bridges and roads are in disrepair; the 
National Association of Manufacturers; the National Association of 
Truck Stop Operators; the National Governors Association; the League of 
Cities; the ready mixed concrete people; the sand, stone, and gravel 
people; the independent drivers; the Portland Cement Association; the 
Retail Industry Leaders Association.
  Here is another one, the last one: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Now, 
I ask you, when do we see the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' International 
Union of North America, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters--when do 
we see all these on the same side? The answer: When we write a highway 
bill.
  America is coming together around our efforts. We should be unanimous 
even though there are parts of the bill I don't like and you don't 
like. Colleagues, we cannot have a perfect bill.

[[Page S5500]]

It is an imperfect bill in an imperfect world. But unless we wrote it 
ourselves, we would never be thrilled with every provision.
  I will finish. The AAA--remember those people we call when we break 
down? The AAA said: Pass a bill. They are tired of coming out to start 
up cars that aren't running well because they get caught in some kind 
of sinkhole.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors; the American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials; Mothers Against Drunk Driving--
and I want to say that at first Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposed 
this bill. Now they support it. There is also the American Council of 
Engineering Companies.
  This is a list of people who are begging us to pass this bill.
  Democrats stood here, and we called on the Republicans to please come 
up with a bill, and they did. There were reasons to say we didn't love 
it, and we sat down and we worked hard. I have to say that Senator 
McConnell and his staff, my staff, Senator Inhofe's staff, Senator 
Durbin and his staff--we have been working hard. We are still working 
to get more votes. We need more votes. We need this to happen.
  Today my plea is that the clock is ticking. We have 8 days, 
colleagues, until the highway trust fund goes bust. Guess what. We can 
solve this problem, get a strong bill that increases funding in the 
first year by 6 percent and after that a couple percent a year for 3 
years. It scores well. It doesn't add a penny to the deficit. I am so 
glad we are moving forward, but we need more support.
  Here is my last plea to everybody who might possibly be listening--
maybe my relatives, but in addition to that, anyone who might be 
listening: There are going to be amendments that I don't like and that 
you don't like. Could we try to keep our eye on the prize? This is the 
prize. We don't want this happening anyplace in this country. It brings 
devastation.
  We have a good bill before us. Is it perfect? No. Are the pay-fors 
perfect? No. Are we continuing to improve it? Yes. Can we always do 
more later? Yes.
  Let's say yes together, Republicans Democrats. Let's deliver this for 
the American people.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


 Honoring Vietnam Veterans and North Dakota's Soldiers Who Lost Their 
                            Lives in Vietnam

  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, as I do on many Thursdays, I rise again 
today to share about the lives of the men from my State, the North 
Dakotans who died during the Vietnam war. I have been talking about the 
189 men who didn't make it home, but that is not a complete accounting 
of the people we lost as a result of Vietnam.
  Many of our Vietnam veterans continue to feel the effects of their 
service long after they return home. Some developed medical conditions 
that, quite frankly, are hard to explain. I have worked with a number 
of these men, many of whom became my friends and one who is very 
special to me, a veteran by the name of Bill Broer, who was former 
director of the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation.


                         William ``Bill'' Broer

  William ``Bill'' Broer started his work in law enforcement as a 
security policeman in the U.S. Air Force. During the Vietnam war, Bill 
was stationed at a base that supported aircraft that was used in Agent 
Orange campaigns. Bill died in 2002, at the age of 53, from non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma.
  In 1989, Bill was appointed Director of the Bureau of Criminal 
Investigation and was an outstanding law enforcement official. He was 
awarded the Attorney General's Meritorious Service Award in 1991 and 
the North Dakota peace officers highest award, the Lone Eagle Award, in 
1996.
  Bill worked hard for North Dakota law enforcement both at his desk in 
our office and during his free time. He started a bowling tournament to 
bring together people involved in law enforcement from across our State 
so they could get to know each other and work together in an 
environment that took them away from their official duties. That 
tournament is now in its 30th year.
  Bill also was instrumental in creating the Peace Officers Memorial 
that stands on the capitol grounds today, recognizing that those who 
serve in law enforcement also take that risk every day that so many of 
our servicemen do in protection of our people.
  But I want to say something more than that about Bill. I am quite 
certain I probably would not have been attorney general without Bill's 
help, and I certainly don't believe I would have been a United States 
Senator without the lessons I learned from Bill Broer. He was a great 
friend and a trusted adviser to me.
  Quite honestly, I don't know anyone in law enforcement who didn't 
absolutely love him. His staff was devastated when Bill was taken ill. 
We were devastated when we lost Bill way too early--I know not as 
devastated as his wonderful wife and his two great daughters. I 
remember when he used to rush home so he could be at a basketball game, 
of course in his suit and tie, always cheering them on. His only fault 
probably was being an Atlanta Braves fan.


                             John Schneider

  Another friend of mine, John Schneider, died in 2001 from a brain 
tumor. He also was a Vietnam-era veteran and a true friend and public 
servant of the highest caliber.
  John served in the Peace Corps in Afghanistan in the 1960s and was 
tops in his language class, which was learning Pashto. He worked with 
farmers to introduce a hardier, more productive wheat variety to the 
region.
  While in law school, John was drafted. He entered the Marine Corps in 
1970 and was deployed to bases in Japan and the Philippines during the 
Vietnam war. John finished his law studies after he was discharged and 
joined a firm in Fargo, ND. He was elected to the North Dakota House of 
Representatives in 1982 and was known for his brilliant command of the 
legislative process. He was appointed U.S. attorney for North Dakota in 
1993. In fact, he served in that capacity because I begged him to join 
me. He served as our U.S. attorney during those same years that I 
served as attorney general, and we spent a lot of time together, 
especially in Indian Country, working on the law enforcement issues of 
the day.

  John was devoted to his wife Lois and their sons Jasper and Rocky. He 
loved cooking--cooking with way too much salt for them--and visiting 
with them for endless hours, even taking longer routes to school so he 
and his sons could talk.
  John organized the Schneider baseball games, family tennis matches, 
and other competitions. The boys have a love of baseball to this day 
because of John. He loved to sing, knew thousands of songs, had a 
beautiful voice, and wrote and produced original family Christmas plays 
for 15 years.
  John was thoughtful and kind. He loved life and he loved North Dakota 
and its people.
  Now I have the privilege of sharing about the lives and deaths of 
other North Dakotans, those men who did not come home from the war.


                        James ``Jimmy'' Levings

  James Levings was commonly called Jimmy. He was from New Town. He was 
born on October 18, 1948. He served in the Army's 503rd Infantry, 173rd 
Airborne Brigade. Jimmy was 19 years old when he was killed May 23, 
1968.
  His father James Conklin, Jr., served our country in the Army during 
the Korean war, and his grandfather Martin Levings also served in the 
Army in Europe during World War I.
  Jimmy grew up close to his grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. 
They said Jimmy thought the world of hunting, hiking, and riding 
horses.
  His family appreciates the letters he mailed them when he was serving 
in Vietnam. They remember the pictures he mailed them and how proud he 
looked to be serving his country.
  Jimmy's cousin Rex Mayer said he enjoyed when Jimmy stayed with his 
family when they were young because Jimmy was like an older brother who 
played with him and took him to the movies at the nearby theater. Rex 
said Jimmy was 17 years old when he enlisted in the Army and 
volunteered to return to Vietnam for his second tour. Rex remembers 
seeing Jimmy when he was home on leave between his tours and that Jimmy 
had a different look about him, that he was changed by what he 
experienced in Vietnam.

[[Page S5501]]

  Jimmy was shot and killed in Vietnam when he approached his base 
perimeter and was accidentally mistaken as a hostile force.
  Jimmy is buried in Snowbird Chapel Cemetery and his name is 
memorialized on the Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Fallen Soldiers Memorial 
near New Town.


                              Ward Walter

  Ward Walter was born October 13, 1917. Prior to serving in Vietnam, 
Ward had lived in McKenzie County and in Minot. He served in the Army's 
720th Military Police Battalion. Ward was 50 years old when he died on 
November 29, 1967.
  Ward spent most of his adult life working in law enforcement and 
serving in the Army. Based on Ward's time in the Army and experience in 
four countries, his fellow soldiers became like family to him. His 
camaraderie and guidance earned him the nickname of Pop.
  One month after arriving in Vietnam, Ward's team was tasked with 
setting up an ambush. Once in their ambush position, a U.S. Army jeep 
drove by and spotted movement. Thinking Ward's team members were 
opposing forces, the jeep opened fire, shooting Ward in the chest and 
killing him.
  To commemorate Ward, members of his battalion named the movie theater 
at their post in Vietnam the Sergeant Ward ``Pop'' Memorial Theater.
  The Army recognized Ward's service by issuing him the Bronze Star 
Medal for Valor, the Purple Heart, and the Good Conduct Medal.


                             Leon Lochthowe

  Leon Lochthowe was from Minot. He was born March 23, 1945. He served 
in the Marine Corps' Mike Company, 9th Marines, 3rd Marine Division. 
Leon died on September 22, 1967. He was 22 years old.
  Leon was the oldest of four children born to Don and Donna Lochthowe. 
His mother Donna said that growing up on the family farm, Leon was a 
free spirit and enjoyed riding his dirt bike in off-road races. He 
married Betty Berg, and they had a son Rickie and daughter Kimberly.
  On September 10, 1965, Leon, his wife, and two children were driving 
north of Minot and were hit head-on by a drunk driver. Leon's wife and 
both children were killed.
  After his wife and kids' deaths, Leon's draft number was changed to 
that of a single man. He chose to enlist in the Marines. A year after 
his family's death, he arrived in Vietnam.
  Leon's fellow marine Gerald Loretta credits Leon with saving his life 
by pulling him to safety after he was wounded so badly he could not 
move. Other fellow marines have also written about Leon's heroism 
during his service.
  On September 22, 1967, Leon received a letter from his mother stating 
that his parents were in California with his brother Gary, who was 
critically ill with spinal meningitis. Gary recently had enlisted in 
the Marines and was in his first days of basic training when he was 
hospitalized. That same afternoon, rockets and artillery began shelling 
the area that Leon was defending. Shrapnel struck him in the chest, and 
he was killed instantly.
  Leon's parents left California, where their son Gary was in a coma, 
to return to Minot to receive Leon's body and hold a funeral. Just 
hours after arriving home, Donna learned that her father had died in 
his home. The day after his funeral, they held Leon's funeral. During 
Leon's funeral reception, the family learned their son Gary had just 
died in California. This is a family who had held three funerals for 
the men they love in just 1 week.


                        Robert ``Bobby'' Storey

  Robert ``Bobby'' Storey was from Grand Forks, and he was born July 
22, 1946. He served in the Army Reserve's 17th Aviation Group, 1st 
Aviation Brigade as a helicopter pilot. Bobby was 22 years old when he 
died on November 21, 1968.
  He was the oldest of four children. His father Henry served in the 
Air Force and the family moved to different bases while the kids were 
young.
  Bobby's sister Debbie said that Bobby was kind and had a smile that 
would light up a room. She remembers that in high school he played 
quarterback for the high school football team and was nicknamed Bunny 
because of how fast he could run. Bobby's friends came to their house 
often, which meant a house full of boys and a refrigerator stocked with 
milk.
  Bobby attended college at the University of North Dakota. He joined 
the Sigma Nu Fraternity, and he and several of his fraternity brothers 
enlisted in the Army.
  Bobby became a Warrant Officer helicopter pilot, and about a month 
after arriving in Vietnam his helicopter was shot down and Bobby was 
killed. After his death, Bobby's father also went to Vietnam, serving 
our country in 1970 and 1971.
  After Bobby's death, both of Bobby's brothers chose to wear the 
number 22 on their sports jerseys, just like Bobby had in high school. 
In memory of Bobby, his youngest brother named their son Robert.


                        Deland ``Dennis'' Zubke

  Deland ``Dennis'' Zubke was from Grassy Butte, and he was born 
October 28, 1951. He served in the Army's 15th Artillery Regiment. 
Deland was just 19 years old when he went missing on March 1, 1971.
  He was one of five children born to Drusilla and Gerald Zubke.
  One of Deland's fellow soldiers, Ralph, wrote a remembrance 
describing how Deland volunteered to take Ralph's place on a dangerous 
mission the day Deland was last seen. His actions that day under 
intense enemy and friendly fire made Deland a hero. In Ralph's eyes, 
Deland should have been awarded a Silver Star for his courage under the 
most difficult combat conditions imaginable. Deland had arrived in 
Vietnam about 2 months earlier.
  In 1978, the Army changed Deland's status from Missing in Action to 
Died While Missing. Deland has never been found.


                              David Kline

  David Kline was born July 31, 1948, and was from Hurdsfield. He was 
in the Army's 1st Cavalry Division. David died July 2, 1967. He was 18 
years old.
  David's sister Faye remembers that David was liked by everyone in 
Hurdsfield. David was the envy of many because he owned a pink and 
white 1957 Chevy convertible.
  He played basketball for the high school team and liked playing his 
guitar for fun. ``Dancing in the Streets'' by Martha and the Vandellas 
was one of his favorite songs. He was senior class president and hoped 
to teach history someday.
  He had a younger brother Curtis, who was just 11 months younger than 
David. They were so close, folks around town told them they were like 
twins.
  Faye said that when she, David, and Curtis were young, they always 
participated in Memorial Day events, placing flags next to the 
headstones of our country's veterans. Faye recalls clearly that one 
time David noted that ``someday, I will have a flag just like that.''
  She remembers the words he said to her, his little sister, the last 
time he left for Vietnam: ``Don't grow up too fast.''


                         Robert ``Bob'' Fullmer

  Robert ``Bob'' Fullmer was from Grand Forks. He was born April 2, 
1948. He served in the Army's 25th Infantry Division. Bob died on June 
6, 1969. He was 21 years old.
  Bob had two brothers, Bud and Bill. They both served our country. Bud 
served in the Navy and Bill served in the Army Reserve.
  Bill said Bob was very social and enjoyed always having friends over. 
When Bob was killed in Vietnam, his parents donated his death gratuity 
to the Grand Forks Central High School to be used as a scholarship for 
students with average grades who wished to attend the University of 
North Dakota.
  Bob's high school friend Barb Colby wrote a poem about Bob shortly 
after he died, and the poem was published in 1987 in the first issue of 
a magazine entitled ``Reflecting on the Memories of War.'' This was her 
poem:

     Why didn't you say goodbye
     The January day,
     When that damn warring airplane
     Took you so far away?
     Maybe you knew before you left
     That you were going to die
     So your heart just wouldn't let you
     Come and say goodbye.
     Please try and understand
     I can't come to where you lie.
     I guess I feel like you did then.
     I just can't say goodbye.

  After learning that Bob's mother had read her poem, Barb visited his 
mother

[[Page S5502]]

on Memorial Day. After their visit, Barb wrote a letter to the editor 
of the magazine describing how she and Bob's mother reminisced about 
Bob's life and the people who have contacted his mother since his death 
describing the ways they have touched his mother's heart.
  Talking with Bob's mother and seeing her laughter, strength, and 
warmth made Barb realize, 17 years later, that her poem was not 
finished. Barb wrote this ending to her poem and dedicated it to Bob 
and his mother.

     Seventeen years have come and gone
     Again it's the month of May.
     I went back home and met your mom
     On this Memorial Day.
     She talked of you as a child and son
     I told her stories of our youth.
     And as we shared our memories and loss
     She taught me a simple truth.
     She showed me that your memory is alive
     So you'll never really die.
     She made me laugh--she let me cry
     She helped me to say goodbye.

  These are just some of the stories I am privileged to share, 
hopefully with the rest of the country, as we continue this 50-year 
remembrance of the Vietnam war and the people who took part. I think it 
is so critical and so important, especially in this time when we call 
on people to make sacrifices, that so many of the young people here, 
who would be the age of the grandchildren of many of the people who 
served, appreciate and understand the extent of the sacrifice and the 
disruption of family but the love of country that is an inherent part 
of each one of these stories.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
very brief remarks Senator Sullivan be allowed to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Montana Wildfires

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I want to bring attention to the serious 
wildfires going on in Montana as I speak. There are currently two large 
active fires burning in Montana, including 4,000 acres called the 
Reynolds Creek fire right in Glacier National Park, as well as the 
Cabin Gulch fire, 2,500 acres, near Townsend.
  Our fire crews are putting themselves in harm's way to protect our 
lands, our forests, and our communities. With lower-than-average 
snowpack, we have had less-than-average rains. It has created a 
situation. We have very low water levels in our rivers and our streams, 
and our firefighting teams are facing ripe conditions for wildfire.
  They are also being driven by high winds and dry fuels. So far this 
year, we are experiencing the second worst fire season in terms of 
impacted areas in a decade. The situation could only get more serious 
in the coming weeks and months.
  Our communities, our watersheds, our wildlife habitat, our access to 
recreation--all of these critical Montana treasures--are at risk for 
wildfire. Please join me in praying for the safety of our firefighters, 
and please thank them for a job and service well done for the State of 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to begin my remarks this 
afternoon by commending my colleague from North Dakota for her weekly 
tributes to our Vietnam veterans. I have watched her do that week after 
week. It is very moving. It speaks volumes to her character as well as 
the character of the veterans from North Dakota.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak about one 
of the important issues facing the Senate today, for weeks, months, and 
maybe even years, and that is the debate we are having over the Iran 
nuclear agreement.
  Many of my colleagues have already spoken very eloquently and very 
patiently about this agreement. I want to give one example. My 
colleague from Maine, Senator King, was on the floor the other day when 
I was presiding. He was imploring us to fully debate the issue. He 
stated: ``The truth emerges from the fire of an argument on an issue of 
this importance.'' I couldn't agree more. We should debate this issue. 
We should fully vet this issue. We should bring all of the voices of 
the people we represent into this body to debate this issue.
  Where to begin? There is so much here, so many issues. We have seen 
some of them: centrifuges, enrichment, inspections, sanctions, and 
anywhere, anytime inspections. We have to examine all of that.
  I thought it was important today to step back and take a look at some 
of the big issues. There are three issues that I believe are 
particularly important as we start this debate: first, the role of the 
American people and this body and the Congress with regard to this 
agreement; second, the basic underlying premise of this agreement--the 
driving force that in many ways is behind this agreement; and third, 
the main goal as has been agreed to by the President and by Members of 
this body on what we should be trying to achieve with regard to this 
agreement.
  First, the role of the American people in this body. There is 
confusion, which has been perpetuated by this administration, that 
those of us who are asking questions and are skeptical of the agreement 
are somehow being partisan. The President said that Republicans, no 
matter the deal, will disagree with him and not vote with him. In some 
ways he seems to be making this about his personal agenda. But with all 
due respect to the President, the Iranian nuclear agreement is much 
bigger than President Obama--much bigger. The President will be gone in 
18 months, and the American people will have to live with the 
consequences of this agreement for decades. That is why it is so 
important that the Congress debate and approve or disapprove this 
agreement. Yet, had the Obama administration had its way, we would not 
be doing this today--what we are doing right now--debating this 
agreement.
  In fact, throughout this process, from the very beginning, they have 
been dismissive of the role of the American people through their 
representatives in Congress to weigh in and bring clarity and wisdom to 
what this agreement is all about. Just a few months ago, the President 
said that he did not want the Congress to be involved at all. We 
started debating an act on this floor to provide this body with an 
opportunity to review and approve. He said he would veto it--no 
involvement from the American people. The administration only backed 
off when a bipartisan group of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, 
stood firm--a veto-proof majority--and said: No, the American people 
need to be read into this agreement. That was when we passed the Iran 
Nuclear Review Act. I personally would have preferred that this be 
viewed as a treaty by the administration, but we are reviewing it now 
under that law.
  The President and Secretary Kerry have taken the deal to the U.N. 
Security Council--again, before Congress and the American people even 
started to debate the issue. The Russians and Chinese were voting on 
this agreement before we had the opportunity to do so. Members of this 
body, Democrats and Republicans, implored the Secretary by saying: 
Don't do this; it is an affront to the American people. They didn't 
listen. Finally, the President is saying--even before we debate--if we 
are not in agreement with him, he is going to veto whatever we do in 
this body.
  This is not how the Federal Government is supposed to conduct foreign 
policy. Throughout the history of this great body, weighing in and 
voting on international agreements and international treaties of this 
magnitude have been the Senate's most important job, the heart and soul 
of what we do in this body. Sadly, two former Members of this body--the 
President and the Secretary of State--have actively fought against our 
involvement.
  But Alexander Hamilton knew better. In the Federalist Papers, he 
spoke about the critical role of the Senate in foreign affairs. He 
warned against the President having sole authority over issues of such 
a ``delicate and momentous kind.'' He argued vigorously for the Senate 
to have a say on critical foreign policy and national security issues. 
Our history and the Constitution reflect this, and that is where we 
come in, and that is why we are debating this.
  In examining the agreement, I think it is important to understand and 
look at the bigger picture. What is the driving force? What is the 
underlying premise? What is the philosophy that is

[[Page S5503]]

motivating this agreement? It is not hard to discern. From the 
beginning of the Obama administration, the President and his team have 
been focused on transforming our relationship with Iran to bring it 
into the community of respected nations, thereby transforming the 
Middle East. The President has talked about this a number of times. He 
highlighted this in a speech to the United Nations in 2013, and it is 
here again in the text of this agreement.
  The text of the agreement states that the P5+1 expresses its desire 
to build a new relationship with Iran. That is in the agreement. This 
is a bold and ambitious goal, no doubt, but it is also dangerously 
naive. Interestingly, there is no reciprocal statement in the agreement 
by Iran about Iran wanting to have a new relationship with the United 
States or the West. We want it; they don't seem to want it. In fact, 
with its leaders regularly still chanting ``death to America; death to 
Israel'' even after the signing of this agreement, it seems very clear 
that Iran does not want a new relationship, and this is the biggest 
flaw of the agreement. It amounts to a high-stakes bet--the highest of 
stakes: the security of the United States--that Iran will change its 
behavior.
  What I fear the most is if they don't change--and there is no sign 
that they are going to--within 10 years, by its own terms, this 
agreement will enable Iran to have a much stronger economy, a 
significant ballistic missile capability, to be on the verge of a 
nuclear bomb and still be the world's largest sponsor of state 
terrorism. This is a huge risk for the security of our country and our 
allies in the Middle East.
  It doesn't have to be this way. This agreement could have mitigated 
these risks. We do this all the time in diplomacy. We tell countries 
that we negotiate with: If you improve your behavior, you will get 
rewarded incrementally, step by step--step by difficult step. For 
example, during the debate we had on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review 
Act, I offered an amendment that was simple, but it was based on this 
issue: Sanctions would be lifted on Iran once Iran came off the list of 
countries that sponsored state terrorism. Simple. If you improve your 
behavior, you will get rewarded. This agreement does not do that. 
Instead, when you look at the structure of this agreement, it allows 
Iran to get almost all of the benefits up front.
  Almost half of this agreement is about our obligations to lift 
sanctions in very minute detail--our obligations to lift sanctions on 
Iran within the next several months. Think about that. We had the 
leverage. The countries that negotiated this are among the most 
powerful in the world. We had Iran on the ropes with strong, American-
led sanctions. We had the leverage, and we lost it with this agreement 
on the hope that Iran will change its behavior.
  So far, it is clear that their leaders did not get the memo on the 
change of behavior or on the new relationship. Iran is still 
destabilizing the Middle East, holding Americans hostage, threatening 
Israel, and supporting terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and others, 
throughout the world. In fact, Iran, which is a nation that has had 
imperial ambitions throughout the Middle East for centuries, could very 
well accelerate its destabilizing activities as a result of the power 
and prestige this agreement provides them.
  Supporters of this agreement, including the President, are arguing: 
Look, United States, we have done this before. We have negotiated with 
our enemies to a positive end. President Reagan did it with the Soviet 
Union. He got a constructive deal. But this is a flawed analogy both 
strategically and tactically. When we negotiated with the Soviet Union, 
it was a negotiation between the world's two superpowers that were 
armed with nuclear weapons, similar military strength--thousands of 
military weapons. Here, however, we are bringing a nuclear pariah into 
the club of nuclear powers. This is very different.
  Tactically, Team Obama has never demonstrated the desire to walk away 
from this deal. This wasn't the case with President Reagan. He famously 
walked away from the Soviets in Reykjavik, Iceland, over a verification 
issue on the INF agreement. ``This meeting is over,'' President Reagan 
said to George Shultz, his Secretary of State, when he thought we were 
giving away too much. ``Let's go, George. We're leaving,'' said the 
President. And they did. They left. A year later, Mikhail Gorbachev 
came back to the table and agreed to onsite inspections of their 
nuclear facilities. America and the USSR signed the INF treaty, and 
Soviet power began to unravel. Contrast that to the experience we have 
heard about in the last few months of these negotiations on the issue 
of conventional weapons and ballistic missiles.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, 
testified in front of the Armed Services Committee very recently. He 
said: ``Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran 
relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' That 
was said by the No. 1 military adviser to the President of the United 
States. But we did. Within 7 days of that statement, we did. The 
embargo on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles is going to be 
lifted as part of this agreement. When the Russians and the Chinese 
pushed this position at the very end of these negotiations, Secretary 
Kerry should have listened to General Dempsey's military advice and he 
should have done what Secretary Shultz did. He should have walked. He 
should have walked away to get a better deal.

  Finally, I wish to conclude by underscoring what everybody, from the 
President to Members of this body, has agreed should be the principal 
negotiation objective of this agreement, which has always been to keep 
Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and to dismantle its nuclear 
capability.
  In fact, this body weighed in last year--March of 2014--in a letter 
written by 81 U.S. Senators to the President of the United States about 
these negotiations. The letter had a number of benchmarks for the 
negotiators. One stated that sanctions ``must continue until Iran 
abandons its efforts to build a nuclear weapon.''
  The letter then goes on to cite another critical basic goal of the 
agreement. It states: ``We believe any agreement must dismantle Iran's 
nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a uranium or 
plutonium path to a nuclear bomb.'' Last year, 81 Senators stated that. 
Let me repeat that: ``We believe any agreement must dismantle Iran's 
nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a uranium or 
plutonium path to a nuclear bomb.'' I agree with the 81 Senators. Mr. 
President, 40 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and 1 Independent signed that 
letter, and 72 of those Senators are still Members of this body. But 
they need to ask themselves: Are they sure this goal has been achieved?
  I have read this entire agreement. I believe this goal has not been 
achieved, and that should deeply concern all Members of the U.S. 
Senate.
  Let me conclude by quoting someone I normally do not quote on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate--Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, 
who just this past Saturday stated the following: ``Even after this 
deal our policy towards the arrogant United States will not change,'' 
and then he led the crowd he was before into chanting ``Death to 
America.'' That is the country that we are hoping and risking our 
future on that will change, that we will have a ``new relationship'' 
with, as the agreement states.
  To the American people: We will continue to debate this critical 
issue.
  In the words of my colleague from Maine, we will bring the fire to 
the debate and a truth will emerge. Unfortunately, here is one truth 
that I find self-evident: Iran is not changing anytime soon. That is 
because this agreement didn't force it to.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                  For-Profit Colleges and Universities

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if we ask most people in America what is 
the most heavily subsidized industry in America, which industry, which 
sector of our economy receives the highest level of Federal subsidy in 
America, I guess they would get it wrong, because it turns out the 
sector that gets the highest degree of Federal subsidy is for-profit 
colleges and universities--for-profit colleges and universities.
  I wish to say a word or two about the current status of the largest 
of these

[[Page S5504]]

for-profit colleges and universities and the tactics they are using to 
become even fatter at the expense of the American taxpayers.
  I will read a quote about the for-profit college industry:

       They are not educators and they're looking to manipulate 
     this model to make money. There is nothing wrong with making 
     money, but I think anyone making money in an educational 
     activity has a higher standard of accountability.

  Some might think that was a quote from some speech I gave here. They 
would be wrong. That was a quote from John Murphy, a cofounder of the 
University of Phoenix, during a recent interview he gave to Deseret 
News National. As the article rightly observes, the University of 
Phoenix is the ``grand-daddy'' of the for-profit industry, but the 
enterprise has experienced a dramatic shift in priorities since it 
became a publicly traded company, according to Mr. Murphy, one of the 
cofounders. The reason for the change, according to Murphy, is the 
combination of the new corporate entity--for-profit University of 
Phoenix--chasing stock prices with the temptation of the open spigot of 
Federal funds. Mr. Murphy calls the Federal student loan money ``the 
juice'' of the for-profit college industry. And for its part, the 
University of Phoenix is swimming in the juice. They received 84 
percent of their revenue from Federal title IV funding in 2012 and 
2013. How much? It was $3.5 billion.
  According to law, for-profit colleges are prohibited--we don't want 
them to become too dependent on the Federal Government, so we prohibit 
them from receiving any more than 90 percent of their revenue from 
title IV Federal funding--90 percent.
  When I think of the outrage I hear from those in Washington who track 
Federal money, I can't believe they are overlooking this industry. A 
major loophole, however, allows the University of Phoenix to not 
include veterans' GI Bill benefits or Department of Defense tuition 
assistance programs in their Federal revenue calculation. So I joined 
with Senator Tom Carper of Delaware and others to fix this, to close 
this loophole, to hold the for-profit colleges to no more than 90 
percent of the revenue coming directly from the Federal Government.
  A recent article by Aaron Glantz published by the Center for 
Investigative Reporting provides a troubling look into the world of 
for-profit college recruitment of America's veterans and members of our 
military. The article details how the University of Phoenix has become 
a major sponsor of military events. In one instance, they paid $25,000 
to sponsor a concert for military members and their families. The 
company gave away Galaxy computer tablets and wrapped the stage in a 
giant University of Phoenix banner. In other instances, the Center for 
Investigative Reporting found that the University of Phoenix sponsored 
``resume workshops'' which essentially amounted to recruitment drives 
for their university. According to the article, the company sponsored 
hundreds of events on military bases, including rock concerts, Super 
Bowl parties, father-daughter dances, Easter egg hunts, chocolate 
festivals, fashion shows, and even brunch with Santa.
  University of Phoenix paid $250,000--a quarter of a million dollars--
to sponsor events over the last 3 years at Fort Campbell, KY. Private 
sponsorship of military events is not unusual, but it has to raise some 
eyebrows when the company whose profits depend on recruiting 
servicemembers are paying for these programs. Let's face it. That is 
what these events are for--recruitment events for the company.
  In the name of corporate sponsorship, the University of Phoenix could 
gain direct access to military bases with a nod and a wink to 
servicemembers: Come to Phoenix. We care about the military.
  Boy, has it paid off for Phoenix and what Mr. Murphy called ``the 
juice'' of Federal funds.
  The University of Phoenix is the fourth largest recipient of 
Department of Defense tuition assistance funds which help 
servicemembers continue their education. In fiscal year 2014, the 
University of Phoenix received more than $20 million of these benefits. 
But hold on tight. Here is where the juice gets deep. When it comes to 
veterans' GI Bill funding, the University of Phoenix is a top recipient 
in America of these funds--$272 million. In return, the company offers 
servicemembers and veterans degrees of questionable value, below-
average graduation rates, and--get this--a student loan default rate 
almost 40 percent higher than the national average. That is what we are 
offering to members of our military and veterans through the University 
of Phoenix and their programs.
  I don't think this type of behavior by the University of Phoenix is 
what the President had in mind when he signed Executive Order 13607, 
intended to prevent for-profit colleges from gaining preferential 
access to our military.
  I have written to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter about the outrage. 
If it is a matter of University of Phoenix not following DOD rules, I 
want the Department to take action. If the University of Phoenix's 
actions outlined in this report are within the rules, the rules need to 
be changed.
  I want to say a word about another story by the Center for 
Investigative Reporting last week. This is almost incredible. It is 
difficult for me--I can't--to recount the details of the story I am 
about to relate, and my colleagues will understand why in a moment.
  According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, nearly 2,000 
unaccredited institutions received more than $260 million in GI Bill 
benefits between 2009 and 2014. Some of them are for profit; all are 
totally unaccredited. When someone serves in our military, we offer 
them GI Bill benefits--once-in-a-lifetime benefits--for the betterment 
of themselves and their family. Once they have used the benefits, they 
are gone.
  One example of one of these unaccredited institutions that is 
receiving these benefits for our military--GI Bill benefits--is a 
sexual therapy school in San Francisco. The name of it is the Institute 
For Advanced Study of Human Sexuality--unaccredited. The activities 
that are described in the article about this school I cannot say on the 
floor of the Senate. The institute openly brags--this unaccredited 
institute receiving GI Bill benefits openly brags about its massive 
collection of pornography, and we sent this institution GI Bill 
funding. That is outrageous.
  Seven other Senators joined me in writing to Secretary McDonald of 
the VA last week asking him to investigate and explain. I also expect 
to speak with him by next week, and I hope to hear that the VA is 
taking action. The GI Bill is too important for our veterans to have 
these benefits ever questioned because of a scandal such as this.
  Stories such as these abuses by the for-profit college industry and 
these unaccredited so-called schools are appearing more frequently. In 
newspapers and other media outlets across America, this issue has never 
received so much attention. Unfortunately, here in the Halls of 
Congress, you can still hear the crickets when it comes to this issue. 
I hope this changes. If we are serious about really caring about our 
military and their families and our veterans, if we are serious about 
caring about taxpayers' dollars, if we are honest about this industry 
that is fleecing the American taxpayers and members of our military, 
this Congress should act on a bipartisan basis. But some of these 
schools have friends in high places. Every time I have tried to call 
them out, someone has stepped in to their defense, usually in a private 
manner so the public doesn't know.
  The day of reckoning is coming for these for-profit schools. The 
stock market is catching up with them. Stockholders are catching up 
with them. Students and their families are catching up with the fact 
that they are a waste of time and money. Now we have to make sure the 
taxpayers have their day and their attention directed toward this 
outrageous exploitation.


                     5th Anniversary of Dodd-Frank

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, July 21 marks the fifth anniversary of the 
enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act.
  Let's remember what was happening when the law was created. In 2008, 
we were staring in the face of the greatest economic meltdown since the 
Great Depression. Wall Street banks and financial companies had built a 
multi-trillion dollar house of cards. They built it out of subprime and 
predatory mortgage lending, mortgage-backed securities with inflated 
credit ratings,

[[Page S5505]]

and unregulated derivatives based on these mortgages. It was enormously 
complex and risky, and our financial regulatory system was ill-equipped 
to oversee it. It all started coming apart when several mortgage 
lenders went under, and Bear Stearns began wobbling.
  Then in March 2008 Bear Stearns went down. By September 2008 one 
giant financial company after another started collapsing: Lehman 
Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Washington Mutual, Wachovia. It was a 
time of panic. Credit markets froze. The stock market swung wildly. 
Congress had to take dramatic steps to stop the economy from going into 
free fall. Who suffered the most from Wall Street's misbehavior? Main 
Street Americans.
  As a result of the financial crisis, unemployment went up over 10 
percent. Nearly nine million Americans lost their jobs. Millions of 
families faced foreclosure on their homes. More than $19 trillion in 
household and retirement wealth was wiped away.
  It was clear we had to act to get out of this ``great recession,'' 
and we did. We saved the auto industry, passed the Recovery Act to 
boost the economy, and stabilized the economy. We have now had 64 
consecutive months of job growth, and the unemployment rate is down to 
5.3 percent. But it was clear to all of us who lived through that 
financial crisis that we needed to reform our financial regulatory 
system and curb risky and predatory financial practices.
  Five years ago, we did just that by enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It took months of 
legislating--dozens of hearings, extended debate and amendments in 
committees and on the floor, and a robust conference committee process. 
The result was a landmark reform law that reined in the worst abuses of 
Wall Street and provided critical new protections for consumers and 
Main Street businesses.
  One of those was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, or CFPB. I remember back in 2007 when a law professor named 
Elizabeth Warren told me about all the tricks and traps that banks and 
mortgage companies were using on consumers. She said we need an agency 
that is focused like a laser on making sure that there is transparency 
and fairness in consumer financial products. I agreed. So in 2008 I 
introduced the first bill that sought to create this consumer financial 
protection agency.
  I could not have been prouder when this agency was established by the 
Dodd-Frank Act. This was a landmark win not only for consumers but for 
our overall economy.
  When consumers have transparent and accurate information about 
financial products, they are empowered to make better choices. Senator 
Warren did an admirable job of getting the CFPB up and running. And 
now, under the leadership of Richard Cordray, the CFPB has achieved 
great success in protecting consumers, especially those most often 
targeted by wrongdoers--students; older Americans; servicemembers, 
veterans and their families; and the economically disadvantaged. To 
date, the CFPB has obtained over $10 billion in relief to consumers 
through its enforcement actions.
  The CFPB went after several of the Nation's largest credit card 
companies for targeting their customers with deceptive and fraudulent 
activities. This resulted in nearly $2 billion being paid back to more 
than 12 million customers nationwide. To further protect students and 
their families, the CFPB has brought action against for-profit colleges 
for their predatory lending practices.
  In November 2013, the CFPB announced its first enforcement action in 
the predatory payday lending industry. This led to $14 million in 
restitution from Cash America for targeting servicemembers and their 
families and violating the Military Lending Act in the process. Since 
then, the CFPB has continued to limit the ability of payday lenders to 
prey on vulnerable families across America.
  The CFPB is a tremendous success story. But the successes of Dodd-
Frank don't stop there.
  When the Dodd-Frank bill was on the Senate floor, I offered an 
amendment that dealt with the issue of debit card swipe fees. This 
amendment was adopted by the Senate with 64 votes--47 Democrats and 17 
Republicans--and it was enacted into law. My amendment marked the first 
time that Congress acted to rein in excessive swipe fees, which were 
lining the pockets of big banks and costing billions for merchants and 
their consumers. I am pleased to report this reform has achieved 
significant success.
  For those who don't remember, swipe fees are fees fixed by Visa and 
MasterCard, and are paid by merchants to card-issuing banks whenever a 
purchase is made with a card. Because Visa and MasterCard set the fees 
on behalf of all banks, there is no competition between banks on the 
fee rates--so the rates always went up. By 2009, the banks were 
collecting about $16 billion per year in debit swipe fees from 
merchants. And merchants had to pass that cost on to their customers in 
the form of higher prices. Of course, the banks didn't need all of this 
swipe fee money to conduct debit transactions. The actual cost to 
process a debit transaction is just a few cents. But the banks and card 
companies exploited the swipe fee system so they would receive far more 
than they would ever need--an average of 44 cents per transaction.
  It didn't have to be this way. Many other countries have thriving 
debit card systems with swipe fees strictly regulated or prohibited 
altogether. But in the U.S., swipe fees were spinning out of control. 
There were no market forces working to keep fees at a reasonable level. 
So I offered my amendment to bring some reasonable regulation to this 
system.
  My amendment said that if the Nation's biggest banks are going to let 
Visa and MasterCard fix swipe fee rates for them, then the rates must 
be reasonable and proportional to the cost of processing a transaction. 
And my amendment also said there needs to be a real choice of card 
networks available for each debit transaction. This reform cut the 
average debit swipe fee in half, from about 44 cents to about 24 cents.
  This is actually pretty modest reform. Most other countries have gone 
much further in regulating swipe fees. But boy, did the big banks 
scream about it. They said swipe fee regulation would be the end of the 
world. They claimed it would kill the debit card system, devastate 
small banks and credit unions, and cause banks to jack up other fees on 
consumers. Well, the law took effect in 2011, so we have had some time 
to see how it has worked. And as it turns out, the horror stories that 
the banks predicted turned out to be pure fiction.
  Let us look at the facts. First, swipe fee reform hasn't hurt the 
growth of the debit system. Debit card use continues to grow each year, 
according to the Federal Reserve. And it hasn't hurt small banks and 
credit unions, either. My amendment exempted all but the biggest one 
percent of card-issuing banks from fee regulation. The Fed announced in 
May 2013 that this small issuer exemption ``is working as intended.''
  Credit unions and small banks have thrived since the amendment took 
effect, because the amendment has enabled them to receive higher fees 
than their big bank competitors. It has helped level the playing field 
between the big banks and the little guys.
  Don't take it from me. Here is what press releases from the Credit 
Union National Association have said since my amendment took effect in 
2011:

       November 2012: ``Credit Unions Growing at Sustained, 
     Increasingly Strong Pace.''
       March 2013: ``The credit union movement is healthy, vibrant 
     and on the rise.''
       Last February: ``Credit unions experience fast growth on 
     all fronts in 2014 . . . 2015 expected to surpass banner 
     year.''

  I know the small banks and credit unions will never thank me for this 
reform. But the reality is they have gained a competitive advantage 
through this reform. It has helped them.
  And how about consumers? Well, the banks said my amendment would 
cause consumer checking fees to go through the roof--and they still try 
to pretend that is the case. But the facts say otherwise.
  Last September the Wall St. Journal reported that ``After peaking in 
2009, the annual account fees collected at U.S. commercial banks have 
declined markedly, even as the volume of bank deposits has swelled.'' 
Transparency

[[Page S5506]]

and competition is helping keep fees down.
  The American Bankers Association reported last year that 62 percent 
of Americans pay nothing at all for bank services. And this year 
Bankrate.com found that 72 percent of credit union checking accounts 
came with no maintenance fees.
  And what about savings to consumers? Well, noted economist Robert 
Shapiro did a study in 2013 and estimated that swipe fees overall were 
reduced by about $8.5 billion in 2012. He estimated that about $6 
billion of these reductions were passed along from merchants to 
consumers in the form of lower prices.
  While it may be hard to see those price reductions when you spread 
the savings across the entire economy, the fact is that the savings are 
real. Unfortunately, the savings should have been even greater. When 
the Federal Reserve drafted a proposed rule for my amendment, they 
planned for a fee cap of 7 to 12 cents--far closer to the actual cost 
of processing a debit transaction. But the banks lobbied the Fed hard 
to double the proposed cap, and the Fed gave in to the bank lobbyists. 
Of course, the banks and card companies promptly took advantage of the 
watered-down regulation and turned the fee cap into a fee floor. As a 
result, there are still excessive swipe fees begin charged in the debit 
system--not to mention credit card swipe fees, which have not been 
reformed at all.
  There is no doubt that swipe fees continue to distort the incentives 
in our payments system. Banks and card companies continue to shape the 
system to maximize fees instead of efficiency and security. Just look 
at the issue of card security technology. The banks ignored this for 
years--until my amendment made part of the debit swipe fee contingent 
on having effective fraud prevention technology in place.
  Just a few weeks after my amendment took effect in 2011, Visa finally 
announced a roadmap to promote adoption of smart-chip cards in the 
United States. MasterCard soon followed. That is good news, but 
unfortunately the banks and card networks are still steering away from 
using PINs on cards--even though the rest of the world uses a chip-and-
PIN system and PINs mean lower fraud. Why avoid PINs? Because several 
other card companies compete with Visa and MasterCard on PIN 
transactions, and the competition means the fees are lower. Further 
reform is needed to correct these skewed incentives.
  We have more work to do to make sure our credit and debit card 
systems are competitive, transparent and fair. I hope the Federal 
Reserve and my colleagues in both parties will work with me in this 
effort.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to Dodd-Frank, Republicans in Congress 
have spent the past 5 years trying to undermine this legislation. We 
must not forget the lessons we learned from the financial crisis. We 
can't go back to the system we had before Dodd-Frank. Instead let's 
work together to protect what works, make constructive improvements, 
and expand Dodd-Frank's reforms where needed.
  Remember, Wall Street used to get its way all the time around here, 
and they led us down a path that almost took our economy off a cliff. 
Let's not go back there. Let's promise the American people that never 
again will Congress allow financial tricks and traps to bring our 
economy to near-ruin.
  I see one of my colleagues on the floor, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                              Troop Safety

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the dangers our troops face extend beyond 
war zones and unfortunately to within our Nation's borders, and it is 
time our policies reflect their risks no matter where they are 
stationed.
  Just like the attack at the Little Rock Army recruiting station and 
the tragedy at Fort Hood, the recent senseless shootings in Chattanooga 
happened when our troops were unarmed, leaving them no way to defend 
themselves.
  I fully support the actions of Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson to do 
what is necessary to protect the Arkansas National Guard by allowing 
members to be armed at guard installations. However, the Governor only 
has authority over the Arkansas National Guard. While Governors of 
other States have issued similar directives, I urge Secretary of 
Defense Ashton Carter and President Obama to order protective measures 
at Department of Defense installations.


Honoring Marine Staff Sergeant David Wyatt and the other Servicemembers 
            Who Lost Their Lives in the Chattanooga Tragedy

  Mr. President, the vicious attack in Chattanooga changed the lives of 
the families of GySgt Thomas Sullivan, LCpl Squire Wells, Sgt Carson 
Holmquist, SSgt David Wyatt, and PO2 Randall Smith.
  The attack hit especially close to home for Arkansas, where SSgt 
David Wyatt grew up. While he no longer called Arkansas home, the State 
always had a fond place in Staff Sergeant Wyatt's heart. He often 
visited his family who still live in the Natural State and taught his 
children how to call the hogs.
  He was a 1998 graduate of Russellville High School. Staff Sergeant 
Wyatt was active in athletics and played in the school band. He also 
earned the Eagle Scout, the highest rank of the Boy Scouts. His 
Scoutmasters, classmates, and teachers fondly recalled David as a young 
man who was a natural leader with a lot of enthusiasm and a unique 
sense of humor.
  A career in the military was a natural fit for Staff Sergeant Wyatt, 
who came from a long line of military service. He enlisted in the 
Marines following the events of 9/11. During his 11 years in the 
military, Staff Sergeant Wyatt served in locations all over the world. 
He was well aware of the dangers of wearing the Nation's uniform, 
having served deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. His mom, Deborah 
Wyatt Boen, told the Russellville Courier that her son was proud to be 
a U.S. marine and called his fellow marines ``brothers.''
  No one could have predicted the violence that targeted his life while 
he was working to protect and defend our Nation with his band of 
brothers. But with the nature of the current threats we face and with 
increased calls from groups such as ISIS to attack U.S. servicemembers 
at home, it is vital that we reevaluate our security practices for all 
our military installations and fix any vulnerabilities that put our 
personnel at risk.
  On Thursday, July 16, 2015, SSgt David Wyatt made the ultimate 
sacrifice for his selfless service to our Nation. SSgt David Wyatt is a 
true American hero.
  I ask my colleagues to keep his wife Lorri, daughter Rebecca, son 
Heith, and the rest of his family and friends in their thoughts and 
prayers.
  On behalf of our grateful Nation, I humbly offer my appreciation and 
gratitude for his selfless service and sacrifice.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today the Senate has begun work on 
legislation that would provide our States and communities across this 
great land the resources and reliability they need to soundly invest in 
our transportation infrastructure. After a full stumble start when our 
friends across the aisle decided to block our ability to proceed, they 
reconsidered, thankfully, and I am glad to see them join us to move 
forward on this sensible, bipartisan bill.
  To this Senator, the most important part of the bill is that it 
doesn't kick the can down the road--at least not in the way we have 
done more than 30 different times. We have had more than 30 short-term 
transportation patches, which is a terrible way to do business, and 
frankly it should be embarrassing to us that we haven't been able to 
come up with a better solution.
  While a 3-year transportation bill is no panacea, it represents 
progress and avoids a lot of the unpredictability and wait-and-see 
problems our States have had when it comes to planning longer term 
projects. Fortunately, this multiyear bill restores some sanity by 
providing resources over a consistent and dependable period of time. It 
is actually a 6-year bill. We have come up with a bipartisan group of 
pay-fors to take us 3 years out, but then hopefully we will continue to 
work on trying to find a way to pay for the last 3 years without adding 
to the deficit and debt, as has happened in the past.

[[Page S5507]]

  This bill is really forward-looking, and this legislation provides 
the foundation for more commerce, more efficient travel, and more 
public safety by enhancing our transportation networks. In doing so, it 
provides for a more stable economic climate for the next generation, as 
our States plan to meet the needs of a continually growing population.
  I am thankful in Texas that with strong economic growth and a lot of 
people moving there--voting with their feet, as I like to say--from 
other parts of the country, we know the value of good infrastructure. 
And when the highway fights in Washington, DC, froze to a standstill, 
Texas stepped up to the plate and refused to wait.
  One example of that action that I mentioned earlier this week came 
last fall when Texans voted last November to overwhelmingly approve a 
measure that would provide an additional $1.7 billion to upgrade and 
maintain our vast transportation infrastructure. This came from a 
surplus in our rainy day fund. That proposal was approved with more 
than 80 percent of the vote, and in so doing, Texans clearly 
prioritized improved infrastructure and understood that by making our 
roads more efficient, we can decrease the 44 hours of car time that 
Texans spend stuck in traffic annually.
  The vote also showed that Texans realized that our State is poised to 
grow significantly. In fact, our economy, which grew 5.2 percent last 
year compared to 2.2 percent nationwide--one reason our economy is 
growing is because people are coming to Texas to pursue their dreams. 
We are going to need better roadways to absorb the estimated 18 million 
vehicles expected to be added to our roads by the year 2040. This bill 
will help Texas manage the influx of people and vehicles so that we 
will have the transportation infrastructure to support the millions of 
new people who will call Texas home in the not too distant future.
  Texas has long known that good transportation infrastructure is part 
of what has made us the economic powerhouse we are today. Take, for 
example, the farm-to-market roads that opened more than 70 years ago, 
with the idea that our farmers and ranchers needed a reliable 
transportation network to get their livestock and crops to town. So 
basically our farm-to-market roads gave our rural areas more access to 
the towns and cities that purchased those goods. This helped Texas 
agriculture--a substantial part of our economy--and made it even more 
competitive by providing a reliable method to transport our grown and 
raised goods to market--first around the local community, then around 
the State, and now around the country.
  Of course, I was pleased, along with a lot of folks in the 
agriculture sector in Texas, that we passed trade promotion authority 
with the promise of opening up even more markets around the world.
  Many generations have benefited from the investments we made in 
infrastructure to help them get efficiently from point A to point B.
  Just as the farm-to-market roads provided a more reliable 
transportation network throughout rural Texas, this legislation 
includes vital resources that will upgrade rural routes and freight 
corridors in addition to improving the overall safety and efficiency of 
nearly 20,000 miles of major roadways in Texas.
  While it is not perfect, as the Presiding Officer knows, this bill 
represents some progress. I wish I could say we have solved our 
transportation problems in perpetuity, but I don't think that is 
possible. But doing it for 3 years beats the dickens out of another 
short-term patch, as I mentioned a moment ago, and kicking this can 
down the road does nothing to support the next chapter of population 
and economic growth.
  As we continue to discuss and review this legislation, I am going to 
continue to encourage our colleagues to consider just how much our 
entire country needs to strengthen the infrastructure projects that 
will hopefully help that 2.2 percent growth which we experienced in 
2014 nationwide go upward and upward because that will create more jobs 
and more opportunity.
  We have also seen that under new leadership, starting this last 
January, we have been able to make incremental progress in a number of 
areas on a bipartisan basis. Frankly, given the response I heard from 
many of my constituents last year when they complained to me about the 
dysfunction here in Washington, DC--even though, again, they are not 
necessarily saying we have met the mark, they are seeing that we are 
trying to work hard on a bipartisan basis to meet their needs, and I 
think this bill represents that kind of progress.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Georgia.


                           VA Accountability

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee of the U.S. Senate, I am proud to be joined by other members 
of the committee for a colloquy and a report to the American people on 
the progress we are making to hold the VA accountable for our veterans 
and our taxpayers.
  As all will remember, there was a terrible tragedy at the VA hospital 
in Phoenix last year. Because of missed appointments, erased records, 
consults that were removed, veterans waiting for services never got 
them, and in three cases they died. That was malfeasance in office and 
brought a great scandal to the VA.
  In January, when our committee took hold, we decided to go to the 
Justice Department and the inspector general and say: Go into the VA, 
investigate these incidents that took place, and if we find criminal 
wrongdoing or civil wrongdoing, we should prosecute these people to 
make sure it doesn't happen again.
  I am never happy when anybody is indicted, but I was satisfied that 
last Friday the first indictment came down from the Justice Department 
against a VA hospital employee--unfortunately, in my State of Georgia 
at the VA hospital in Augusta--for 50 counts of falsifying medical 
records, the results of which ended up benefiting the employees and 
hurting veterans.
  I promise the American people and Members of the Senate that this is 
not going to be the last indictment. We are going to see to it that 
people are held accountable for their actions and that they do what is 
right morally and what is right legally. We owe nothing less and we owe 
nothing more to our veterans than that type of treatment.
  Yesterday the VA committee met, and we approved two great bills in 
our effort to bring about greater accountability. One of those bills 
was the Rubio-Johnson bill, which allows the firing and holding of 
accountability of VA employees for malfeasance and misconduct in office 
for cause.
  As many people know, the VA oftentimes in disciplining people just 
moved them to another job at the same pay because they can't move them 
out of the system. So the accountability never takes place, there is no 
sense of accountability, and veterans are not well served. Thanks to 
the Rubio-Johnson bill, people who for cause are terminated will have a 
brief hearing and a chance to justify their case, and if their case is 
not justified, they will be removed from the Veterans' Administration 
health services agency and they will be fired. That is the type of 
accountability every American who is employed at their job has, and we 
think that is the same accountability every employee ought to have at 
the VA.
  After that, we then passed the Cassidy-Ayotte bill, a bill that I was 
very proud of because Senator Cassidy and Senator Ayotte said the 
following: It is just not right for somebody who is not doing their job 
to get a bonus.
  As many people know, bonuses were paid in the VA last year to 
employees who were being reprimanded for misconduct and bad behavior. 
You cannot take a benefit away retroactively, and this bill does not do 
that, but it says to the VA prospectively that rewards and bonuses 
cannot be earned by those who are not conducting their job in the way 
they should.
  These are the types of accountability measures that people in the 
United States expect.
  As chairman of the committee, I always want to brag about the good 
things VA employees do, and they do a lot of good things. For every one 
scandal you hear about, there are hundreds of thousands of benefits 
veterans are receiving because of good, loyal employees. But the best 
employees in the world are brought down a notch when

[[Page S5508]]

those who are not good are allowed to continue to stay on the job even 
if they are not performing or get bonuses when they are not performing.
  I am so proud of the Cassidy-Ayotte bill and Johnson-Rubio bill, 
which say to the American people that we are going to have 
accountability; we are going to pay bonuses for good behavior, not bad 
behavior; and if somebody doesn't do their job, they will lose that job 
if that cause is justified. That is what the American people expect of 
the Senate, that is what they expect of our committee, and I am proud 
to report to the Senate today that started.
  I am also proud to yield to the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy, 
a physician, a doctor who understands health services and who brought 
one of these accountability issues to the committee yesterday.
  Senator Cassidy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
  This week, the VA committee passed out of committee S. 627, which 
establishes guidelines for the Secretary to deny bonuses to employees 
who have violated VA policy or law. It also ensures information on 
reprimands will be kept in the employee's permanent record. Our 
veterans deserve this bill.
  When the VA scandal erupted in Phoenix last year, then-VA Secretary 
Eric Shinseki rescinded the performance award given in 2013 to the 
career senior executive who ran this Phoenix VA health care hospital--a 
bonus that the Department said was awarded because of an administrative 
error. The employee appealed and a Federal judge directed the VA to 
repay the bonus despite the fact that the employee had improperly 
accepted more than $13,000 in gifts from a lobbyist and failed to 
report them and manipulated data to conceal excessive wait times for 
veterans seeking health care.
  The judge determined, however, that the VA did not have the authority 
to rescind her bonus. This is why many veterans do not trust the VA. 
Here is an administrator who, again, took $13,000 in gifts from a 
lobbyist, did not report them, manipulated data and, nonetheless, gets 
a bonus. This is, by the way, while veterans were allegedly dying 
prematurely because of the care not given at this facility.
  If we want to improve the VA system, we need to focus on the quality 
of the workforce. Workforce morale was seriously affected by those who 
abused their authority and nonetheless received bonuses or those who do 
not have information on reprimands retained in their permanent record, 
meaning it is that much harder to dismiss those employees who are not 
good.
  How does this incentivize honest workers to do a better job if we 
reward those who do not do good jobs? This is a commonsense solution 
that the American people will view as a signal that Congress is serious 
about improving veterans health care. In addition, S. 1082, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act, a bill introduced by 
Senators Rubio and Johnson, would give the VA Secretary more 
flexibility to remove corrupt or poor-performing employees, not just 
top officials. The bill would expand the authority of the 2014 Veterans 
Access, Choice, and Accountability Act to the entire workforce of the 
VA, which has made it easier to remove senior executives for 
wrongdoing.
  This bill would also extend the probationary period for new VA 
employees. A veteran once told me that his perception was that the VA 
system was run for the benefit of employees, not for the benefit of the 
veteran who is the patient. This is incredibly unfair to the dedicated 
VA employees. But on the other hand, giving bonuses to those such as 
this Phoenix VA supervisor makes it understandable why he has this 
perception.
  The legislation I have spoken of today helps restore accountability 
to the VA system so that all will know that the VA is run first, 
foremost, and always for the veterans seen there as patients.
  I yield the floor to my colleague Senator Rounds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today also to speak with regard to 
the work of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. The Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee yesterday passed some very critical legislation. It 
is great to see the chairman and the ranking member and how they worked 
together side by side--Republican and Democratic colleagues working 
together to improve the lives of our veterans and truly to begin the 
process of reforming a broken VA system.
  More than a year ago, the VA wait list scandal was made public. One 
of the biggest reasons the problem grew so large was the lack of 
accountability within the VA. Yesterday, with bipartisan support, we 
reported out five bills. Among those were two bills focused on bringing 
accountability to the VA. I would like to talk about that process and 
about what I learned as a freshman Senator, stepping in and watching--
after listening to all of the stories about how the Senate was 
dysfunctional and things were not working right; Republicans would not 
work with Democrats, and Democrats would not work with Republicans--how 
Chairman Isakson and Ranking Member Blumenthal worked their way through 
these bills and unanimously passed them out of committee.
  I also watched as some members offered amendments. The chairman 
suggested, strongly, that perhaps they should withdraw them because we 
did not have what we call pay-fors with them, where there might have 
been an expense, or we did not have a report saying whether it would 
add cost to a VA system that was also already short on funding in those 
particular areas.
  Rather than simply having votes and having acrimony, what those 
Members said was this: Would you work with us to see that our goals 
would be accomplished? I watched as our chairman, along with Ranking 
Member Blumenthal, work to get the job done to make things better for 
veterans. It was not acrimonious. It was a matter of members of this 
committee working side by side committing to help each other make the 
VA perform better than what they have in the past.
  That is the type of work that we need in the Senate. It is what our 
people want us to do. It is what veterans want to have happen. So I am 
here to say this can be done and it can be done correctly. I will also 
tell you that in talking with members of that committee afterwards, 
there was real interest. Republicans and Democrats side by side were 
saying: Look, there were some good ideas offered in that committee, and 
they would make good amendments to the bill, but we had to know what 
the costs were. The commitment on both sides of the aisle was to find a 
way to work together. I commend the chairman, and I commend the ranking 
member for their work and the way that they worked through some very 
serious issues.
  The first one of those bills that I wanted to talk about was S. 1082, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act. It was 
introduced by Senators Marco Rubio and Ron Johnson. Senator Johnson I 
am sure will be here to speak because he understands exactly from his 
constituents what the need is to reform the system.
  This bill would allow for the removal or the demotion of employees of 
the VA based on performance or misconduct. It also gives the employee 
ample time to appeal the removal or demotion. Finally, it extended the 
probationary period for Senior Executive Service employees to make sure 
the high-ups are doing their jobs correctly.
  The second one is S. 627, the Ayotte-Cassidy accountability bill. You 
have heard a little bit about it already. This bill would force VA 
employees who purposefully manipulated wait lists for veterans' health 
care to repay their bonus. It seems like only common sense--the kind of 
common sense we have in South Dakota and that we like to have. I know 
the Presiding Officer's home State in Nebraska has that kind of common 
sense. It says: If you are doing something wrong, you should not get 
paid a bonus and be allowed to continue on.
  This behavior of any VA employee should not be tolerated--let alone 
rewarded. I am happy to see that this passed the committee, and it 
sends a message to the other hard-working employees of the VA 
administration that their hard work is not going to be tainted by 
individuals who are not doing their job correctly. Let me just share 
this. I just have to share this

[[Page S5509]]

story. Some things you think you would not see, and yet, in South 
Dakota, I have a good friend who is 83 years old. He is a veteran.
  All he wanted to do was to get a new set of glasses. He has diabetes. 
He wanted to get it through the VA. He had gone to his own optometrist 
because in our part we don't have contracts yet in the central part of 
South Dakota through the VA for optometrists. So he had gone in and had 
separately paid for the work of the optometrist. The optometrist had 
written a prescription.
  This veteran only wanted the VA to take care of the cost of the 
glasses. They expected him to travel over 150 miles to get to a VA 
facility to go get glasses. We sure don't want him driving. Yet that 
was the expectation--to come up.
  Look, this is the kind of stuff that makes people irritated with the 
system that should be helping veterans. Our office got involved with 
it. In fact, I offered to go on out and meet with the VA in Sturgis, 
SD, to find out what the problem was and why they would not deliver 
this. My staff suggested that I should simply stop by if they could not 
take care of the problem.
  The VA indicated at that point they would get it taken care of. But 
later they came back and suggested: Well, you know, we don't know why 
this guy should get new glasses more than every 2 years. That is 
because their contract would not allow for it. That is not the type of 
attitude we want among VA officials. That is not the way we should be 
treating our veterans.
  This is the reason that we want accountability within the VA system. 
We found Republicans and Democrat side by side saying: We are going to 
fix it. Now, we have a long way to go. We have a man at the head of the 
VA right now that truly wants to fix it. He walked into the middle of a 
swamp, and he is up to his butt in alligators. But he is there to fix a 
problem. We want to do everything we can to give him the tools to get 
the job done right.
  Hopefully, next week we will start with fixing a budget problem they 
have by simply allowing them the flexibility to take the resources that 
are already there within the Department and move them into locations 
where they are more appropriate. That is what this is all about--using 
a little bit of common sense in Washington, DC, to fix a problem for 
veterans that has gone on way too long.
  Today I wish to say thank you to our veterans, to those men and women 
that wear the uniform of the United States of America. We cannot say 
enough about what they have done for the rest of us here. But we can 
continue to tell them thank you time and again and to send a message 
that we are not going to allow them to go without the services that 
they are entitled to, the services that we want to render to them in an 
appropriate fashion, and that we will work until we get it done and get 
it done correctly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise also to join my colleagues in 
support of a couple of bills that are supporting the finest among us. I 
certainly want to underscore the thanks that the Senator from South 
Dakota expressed to the men and women of our military, people to whom 
we owe a huge debt of gratitude for defending this Nation and fighting 
for our freedoms.
  I also really want to thank the good Senator from Georgia, the 
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, for in a very expeditious 
fashion taking up some very good pieces of legislation that will hold 
accountable those individuals who are caring for the finest among us in 
our veterans health care centers.
  But before I address those bills, let me make a couple of points 
about the vast majority of men and women who are working in those VA 
health care centers. They are dedicated individuals, and they are doing 
a great job providing health care to the men and women of our Armed 
Forces. Upon becoming a Senator for Wisconsin, I started visiting the 
VA medical facilities within our State and also in Minneapolis, a 
center that also serves veterans from Wisconsin.
  What I found did not surprise me at all. I found those dedicated 
individuals, and they are providing excellent health care. The veterans 
I spoke to in the halls and throughout the State were very satisfied 
with the health care they were getting. They were more than satisfied. 
They heaped praise upon their care providers.
  The wait times were pretty long. The parking lots were pretty full. 
But again, they underscored certainly what I saw--that the vast 
majority of those men and women--the nurses, the doctors, the 
administrators--in our VA health care facilities are really dedicated 
to the task, and they are doing a great job for our veterans. But the 
fact of the matter is that they are not all doing a good job. It is not 
a perfect system--not by a long shot. I give the press corps a great 
deal of credit for breaking stories, first in Arizona, where we saw 
those long wait times actually resulting in the deaths of some 
veterans.
  Then, in early January, I first became aware, because of a news 
report, of a real problem in the Tomah, WI, VA health care facility. I 
think maybe the best way to approach this is to provide a timeline that 
I provided in a field hearing that we held. It was a joint field 
hearing between my committee, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs, and the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the 
House raising the issue in the community.
  It was an excellent hearing. It afforded the surviving family members 
of some of the veterans who had died in the care of the Tomah VA center 
the ability to tell their stories, to make an impression, and to get 
the attention of the administrators of the VA to start correcting the 
problems. But in my opening statement, I laid out a timeline that I 
would like to repeat here.
  In April of 2003, Dr. David Houlihan was disciplined by the Iowa 
Board of Medicine for having an inappropriate relationship with a 
psychiatric patient. According to the executive director of the Iowa 
Board of Medicine, the sanctions should have been a serious concern for 
future employers.
  That was April of 2003. In 2004, Dr. Houlihan was hired as a 
psychiatrist by the Tomah VA Medical Center. In August of 2005, Dr. 
Houlihan became chief of staff of the Tomah Medical Center. In November 
2007, Kraig Ferrington, a veteran who sought treatment for medication 
management, died from a lethal mixture of drugs. Autopsy results showed 
Mr. Ferrington had seven drugs in his system. In April 2009, it was 
known and documented by employees of Tomah VA that many patients had 
called him the Candy Man and that veterans were ``prescribed large 
quantities of narcotics.'' Again, that was April of 2009.

  In June of 2009, Dr. Noelle Johnson was fired from Tomah for refusing 
to fill prescriptions she believed to be unsafe. Dr. Johnson had raised 
concerns to her superiors, had sought guidance from the Iowa medical 
licensing board, and later spoke with the Drug Enforcement 
Administration about Dr. Houlihan.
  In July of 2009, Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick was fired from Tomah. Dr. 
Kirkpatrick had raised concerns to his union about overmedication at 
Tomah. Tragically, later that day, on the day of his termination, Dr. 
Kirkpatrick committed suicide.
  In August of 2011, the VA Office of Inspector General received an 
anonymous complaint about overprescription and retaliation by Dr. 
Houlihan at Tomah.
  In March of 2012, a second anonymous complaint was filed with the IG 
against Dr. Houlihan. The OIG examined 32 separate examinations during 
his 2\1/2\-year-long inspection.
  In March of last year, 2014, the Office of Inspector General finished 
its inspection of Tomah and administratively closed the case without 
making it public.
  On August 30 of 2014, Jason Simcakoski died in the Tomah mental 
health wing as a result of a mixed drug toxicity. Simcakoski was a 
patient of Dr. Houlihan. His autopsy revealed he had over a dozen 
different medications in his system.
  In September 2014, Ryan Honl began lodging whistleblower complaints 
about patient safety and quality of care at Tomah.

[[Page S5510]]

  On January 8, 2015, the Center for Investigative Reporting published 
an article detailing overprescription and retaliation at Tomah. The 
article revealed that veterans and employees referred to the Tomah VA 
Medical Center as ``Candy Land.''
  On January 12, 2015, Candace Delis brought her father, Thomas Baer, 
to the Tomah VA Medical Center with stroke-like symptoms. Mr. Baer 
waited over 2 hours for attention. That day the facility's CT scanner 
was down for ``routine preventive maintenance.'' Mr. Baer passed away 2 
days later.
  On February 26, 2015, the Office of Inspector General finally posted 
its Tomah health care inspection report on its Web site.
  I called Candace Delis, the daughter of Thomas Baer, shortly after I 
heard of the tragic death of her father. I will never forget what she 
told me. She said: Ron, had I known the problems at the Tomah VA 
Medical Center, I never would have taken my father to the facility, and 
my father would be alive today.
  I believe that to be a true statement. Accountability is something 
that is crucial in any organization. I ran a manufacturing plant for 31 
years. I can't tell you how corrosive it is to an organization if 
individuals within that organization are not doing their job, not 
pulling their full weight, undermining the shared goals of the 
organization. It is corrosive.
  I was surprised when I offered a piece of legislation and the 
chairman of the VA committee allowed me to present that piece of 
legislation to the committee, the Ensuring Veterans Safety Through 
Accountability Act, and the VA representatives at that hearing were 
opposed to holding medical professionals accountable.
  Fortunately, the chairman, the Senator from Georgia, agreed with me 
that the only way we are going to reform this system, the only way we 
can make sure we honor promises through our VA health centers to the 
finest among us--the men and women of the military--is by holding 
individuals accountable, which is exactly how the bill was reported 
out, sponsored by the Senator from Florida.
  I truly thank him for his leadership on this issue, and I am pleased 
to join him as the lead sponsor of that bill. The Department of 
Veterans Affairs Accountability Act of 2015 will hold every employee 
within the VA accountable. That is crucial.
  Again, I thank our veterans, I thank the Senator from Florida, the 
Senator from Georgia, and I urge my colleagues to support this piece of 
legislation. Let's get it passed. Let's start holding those few bad 
apples--and I truly believe that. I think it is just a few people who 
need to be held accountable.
  A little postscript to my timeline, and I think one of the reasons 
this piece of legislation is so important is even with that record 
dating back to 2004--and by the way, our own committee's investigation 
shows there are employees of the Tomah VA who were referring to the 
Tomah VA back then as ``Candy Land.'' It is crucial we hold those 
people accountable. But to date, nobody--after multiple deaths caused 
by the overprescription of opiates, after the death of Thomas Baer, a 
veteran who basically died of neglect--has been held accountable by 
being fired, by being terminated.
  Again, there is not, from my perspective, any joy in terminating an 
employee, but for the good of the organization or to honor the promise 
of the finest among us, that type of accountability is absolutely 
necessary.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the west coast port 
slowdown and comments that were made by the administration as they 
relate to that slowdown, along with legislation I have introduced 
called the PORTS Act, legislation I hope to pursue during the 
transportation debate we are going to commence with over the next 
several days and also as it relates to that west coast port slowdown, 
the economic impact that slowdown had on our economy.
  On June 30 of last year, the labor contract that covered nearly 
20,000 workers at 29 west coast ports expired. Port management and the 
ILWU began negotiations a year before, but in September of 2014 those 
talks ground to a standstill. Instead of remaining at the table and 
trying to find a solution and negotiating in good faith, both parties 
decided to begin jockeying for leverage.
  The longshoremen purposefully slowed down their work and drastically 
decreased productivity while still taking home a full day's pay. In the 
real world, employees can't show up at work and not do their work or 
slow it down dramatically, not have the productivity they are expected 
to, and still get everything they want, but in the back worlds of labor 
union politics at the ports, that is business as usual. And business 
has been good at the ports.
  According to employer data, a full-time longshoreman earns about 
$130,000 a year, full-time employment $130,000 a year, while foremen 
earn about $210,000. That is a pretty good paycheck, and the contract 
raises these wages even higher.
  Workers pay nothing for health coverage that includes no premiums and 
$1 prescriptions. Providing this health care costs employers about 
$35,000 per employee per year. They are also eligible for a maximum 
pension of over $80,000 per year upon retirement, so $130,000 salary 
for a longshoreman, $210,000 if you are a foreman, $35,000 for health 
benefits, and $80,000 per year worth of pension upon retirement.

  But what happened for the rest of us this past year when the slowdown 
occurred on the 29 west coast ports, the effect of the slowdowns 
weren't just limited to the port owners. When the longshoremen decided 
to slow down their work, the goods flowing through these ports backed 
up and international trade ground to a halt.
  This has had devastating economic impacts in States far beyond the 
west coast and around the Nation as a whole. Nine excruciating months 
after the labor contract expired, the parties finally reached a deal 
but not before costing U.S. businesses and consumers billions upon 
billions of dollars and ruining the credibility of our exporters 
abroad.
  When it comes to the administration, though, the response was pretty 
alarming as well. Labor Secretary Perez was just asked about this 
economic disaster of the west coast ports slowdown when visiting the 
ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. His response: ``The collective 
bargaining process worked.''
  As a result of the west coast port slowdown, the administration's 
response was: ``The collective bargaining process worked.''
  The Labor Secretary made these comments while visiting Los Angeles, 
Long Beach, the two busiest ports of the country. So let's take a look 
at what the collective bargaining process did at those ports. This is a 
ship finder map of Los Angeles and Long Beach showing ships anchored 
offshore this week. This is recent data. These are ships that are 
anchored off the shore of Los Angeles and Long Beach just this past 
week. This is what it looks like when the ports are operating and 
functioning normally.
  You will notice there is a lot of blue ocean and not many ships 
anchored offshore. Ships can quickly unload imported products and load 
American-made exports for distribution around the world. There is no 
backup, no congestion, and no disruption to our country's economy.
  But this is what Los Angeles and Long Beach--the ports of Los Angeles 
and Long Beach--looked like during the slowdown during the crisis. 
Dozens upon dozens of ships anchored and idled waiting for ships in 
port to be unloaded.
  You can see all the ships that are backed up compared to the previous 
chart. The Journal of Commerce reported that there were 32 ships 
anchored off the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach at one point 
during the slowdown. There has been a lot of discussion recently about 
the need for a long-term surface transportation bill that invests in 
21st century infrastructure, but just take a look at the kind of 
dysfunction antiquated labor laws can cause.
  This is an aerial shot. You can see this is off the wing of an 
airplane where you can see all of the ships that are backed up waiting 
at these ports to be unloaded, ships that carry the goods for our 
economy, the goods that make our economy run. Congestion like this is a 
nightmare for American farmers, businesses, and consumers.

[[Page S5511]]

  Farm exporters were charged exorbitant fees for warehouse space to 
store their agricultural goods as they rotted and spoiled. Meat and 
poultry companies alone faced port charges in excess of $30 million per 
week. So if people were earning $130,000 a year and not doing their 
work unloading ships, American farmers, poultry, and meat producers 
were charged $30 million per week. Businesses further up the supply 
chain were also affected.
  One large U.S. base manufacturer has calculated the cost of lost 
sales, warehouse space, additional inventory, and transportation at 
$100 million in total as a result of the delays at the west coast 
ports. Those are just the direct costs.
  American businesses also lost credibility and future customers as the 
foreign buyers turned to other nations for more stable supplies.
  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the west coast port 
delays forced layoffs and downsizing in the U.S. leather 
industry. Chinese tanners are now turning to European and Brazilian 
producers to fill their orders. This is a $3 billion industry that had 
to lay off workers because of the dispute of the west coast ports.

  Apparently, the administration again thinks the process worked just 
as it was supposed to work. Efficient trade through U.S. ports is 
critical to maintaining and growing economic opportunity in States 
across this country. According to the American Association of Port 
Authorities, U.S. ports support 23 million jobs, and the value of 
related economic activity accounts for 26 percent of our national GDP. 
Twenty-six percent of our national GDP comes from our ports system. 
Contract negotiations related to labor disputes at our ports clog up 
these vital arteries and cause problems throughout our national supply 
chain.
  If you need further proof of whether this impacted our economy--that 
picture we just saw of all the ships stacked up at L.A. and the ports 
in California--according to Federal Reserve economists, the disruptions 
on the west coast were great enough to affect the entire economic 
output of the country.
  This chart shows the quarterly change in national GDP. Once 
negotiations stalled, you will notice GDP growth started to decline. So 
here we are in the third quarter of 2014. Remember, we started talking 
about September of 2014, when the slowdowns really started. By the time 
we get to the last quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2015, you 
can see the labor dispute contributing to the decline of our national 
GDP. Our economy shrank as a result of port slowdown.
  In the first quarter of this year, when the slowdowns were in full 
swing, the economy actually shrank by 0.2 percent. You can see it, in 
the third quarter--this is the last quarter--to the first quarter of 
this year. Twenty-six percent of our GDP depends on these ports.
  The Fed economists also found that disruptions disproportionately 
affected exporters sending American-made goods abroad for sale 
overseas. Exporters didn't have access to imported raw materials and 
parts they needed to build their products. This caused supply chains to 
back up and eventually reduced output and employment.
  So the Fed is telling us that the collective bargaining process at 
the ports measurably reduced economic growth and American jobs across 
the country by crippling American businesses, but only in the backward 
worlds of labor union politics could this economic disaster be 
considered everything is working just fine. Only in a union-dominated 
industry could this catastrophe be considered a success.
  That is why I have introduced the PORTS Act. Our legislation would 
discourage disruptions at U.S. ports and incentivize speedy resolution 
of disputes by strengthening and expanding the well-known Taft-Hartley 
process.
  Over 100 national agricultural, manufacturing, and retail 
organizations support the PORTS Act because they are fed up with the 
status quo. They disagree with the administration, which thinks 
shrinking our economy is everything working just fine.
  There are some who oppose the PORTS Act, and those are the labor 
unions. In fact, earlier this month, the AFL-CIO put out a statement 
saying legislation like the PORTS Act was not needed. You can see what 
has happened without the PORTS Act is economic decline, people being 
laid off, farmers losing millions of dollars, products rotting in 
warehouses because of the backups.
  In just 5 years--5 years from now--the labor contracts on both the 
east coast and the west coast will expire. Imagine what would happen if 
we had labor disputes occurring on the west coast and the east coast at 
the same time, people who were willing to threaten that 26 percent of 
our national GDP over a dispute, while the administration says 
everything is working just fine. It is critical we have the necessary 
tools in place to prevent another debilitating crisis.
  If we learned anything from this past dispute, it is that Labor 
Secretary Perez is wrong--the current process does not work. And the 
AFL-CIO is wrong--legislation like the PORTS Act is desperately needed.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this 
important legislation. Let us not pinch our economy in an economic vice 
from the east and the west. Let's find economic opportunity to grow our 
Nation together.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, 
regular order would have produced a vote on the motion to proceed at 2 
a.m. tonight. For the information of all Senators, that vote will 
actually occur at 9 a.m. tomorrow. So there will be no further votes 
tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, Senator Murkowski and I released a 
bipartisan energy bill. We hope to mark up that bill next week, but 
critical to that Energy bill is the modernization of the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve.
  Forty years ago, we created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 
prevent economic distress caused by oil disruption. People remember 
exactly what happened with the Arab oil embargo in 1973. The law that 
created the SPRO--the Energy Policy Conservation Act--was enacted in 
1975 specifically to help protect the U.S. economy from energy 
disruptions.
  The core policy reason for having the reserve really hasn't changed, 
nor should it. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an important asset to 
our energy security. We need it as much today as we did then. Perhaps 
even more so now that we have so much volatility.
  Clearly, we have seen dramatic changes in our energy policy 
landscape. Instead of importing a lot of oil, we have become a bigger 
producer in the United States, and our oil infrastructure and refining 
capacity has reduced our ability to make sure SPR is available in case 
of an emergency.
  In fact, the Department of Energy did a test sale in 2014 and 
identified a series of challenges associated with the way the SPR 
distribution works today. That is why I think it is so important. These 
very supplies that make us more secure in one respect are also 
stressing our national infrastructure and may actually lessen our 
ability to respond in an emergency. That is why it is so important to 
modernize the SPRO, to use the resources we have there, to make sure we 
make investments.
  Some may have seen the Quadrennial Energy Review recently produced 
and released. Its key findings--I am now reading from the report--show 
that multiple factors affect U.S. energy security. These include U.S. 
oil demand, the level of oil imports, the adequacy of emergency 
response systems, fuel inventory levels, fuel substitution capacity, 
energy system resilience, and the flexibility, transparency, and 
competitiveness of the global energy marketplace.
  The report goes on to say the United States is the world's largest 
producer of petroleum and natural gas. Combined with new clean energy 
technologies and improved fuel efficiency, U.S. energy security is 
stronger than it has been in over half a century.

[[Page S5512]]

  But the report goes on to say: Nonetheless, challenges remain in 
maximizing that energy security benefits of our resources in a way that 
enhances our competitiveness and minimizes our environmental impacts of 
their use. The network of the oil distribution has changed 
significantly.
  So the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's ability to offset future energy 
supply disruption has been adversely affected by global domestic and 
global market development, and so there is a need for an upgrade.
  I think people can all agree it needs an upgrade. So that is why we 
raise a question about a transportation bill on the floor that takes 
money out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve not to upgrade that energy 
security need but to put it into highways, which will do nothing to 
secure us if there is an energy supply disruption.
  The report goes on to say the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve to protect the U.S. economy from severe economic harm in the 
event of a supply emergency associated with spikes has been diminished. 
It has been diminished.
  Changes in U.S. energy production are stressing and transforming the 
way energy commodities are transported in the United States. Some of 
these commodities, the report goes on to say, such as coal and ethanol 
have traditionally relied on rail and barge transport to move these 
products. These transportation modes, such as rail, barge, and truck 
transport, are also shared by agriculture and other major commodities 
and are being joined by significant growth in the use of transport of 
oil and refined petroleum products.

  So it creates a limited infrastructure capacity among these 
commodities. The report goes on to say that those costs are being 
increased in shipping and then being passed on to the consumer. So 
literally, by taking money out of the SPR and not investing it in the 
modernization of our energy infrastructure and security--we are taking 
money and building highways--we are making it more expensive for 
consumers to get products and to secure our economy.
  The Department of Agriculture has indicated that disruptions to 
agricultural shipments--that is, agricultural products that can't get 
on the rails because we have so much oil, natural gas, coal, and all 
these other things or just sand for drilling--are basically causing a 
disruption so big that it is bigger than the disruption to agriculture 
caused by Katrina.
  So we have supply. But the economic challenge of having other 
products displaced or having the cost to consumers go up is what is 
threatening us. Even the ability to maintain adequate coal stockpiles 
at some electric powerplants has been affected by rail congestion. That 
comes directly from the report. Why is that so important? Because all 
these energy commodities are important to us. These agricultural 
commodities are important for us.
  The quadrennial review calls for an update to the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. The Department of Energy should make infrastructure 
investments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and its distribution 
systems to optimize the SPR's ability to protect the U.S. economy in an 
energy emergency. That is right from the report. The report calls for 
creating a multimodal freight program to make sure we improve 
investment in freight and to make sure there is Federal action on 
shared transportation infrastructure that makes sure we can move our 
energy products.
  It says we have to work on our waterways as well because the 
waterways are critical to moving our energy products around.
  The report goes on to say that the Federal facility that consists of 
a network of 62 salt caverns at four geographically dispersed storage 
sites need upgrading. A lot of this is happening in the south of our 
country, in Louisiana and Texas. We need to make sure our economy does 
not see another disruption or price spike without our ability to update 
the SPR and actually get the product out.
  The report called on DOE to make a $2 billion investment to increase 
the incremental distribution of SPR by adding a dedicated marine 
loading-dock capacity at a gulf coast terminus--my guess, again, is 
probably in Texas or Louisiana--and that Congress should update the SPR 
to be more effective in preventing serious economic hardships to the 
U.S. energy supply and making sure we optimize our capacity for 
infrastructure distribution. The report also calls for an additional 
$2.5 billion over 10 years to make sure we are making these connectors.
  So not only are we required to do this as a country--to make sure 
that our country is safe and secure and that we take advantage of the 
product we have--but we are also a member of the International Energy 
Program. As to members, they make sure every country is doing what they 
should to make sure there is an increase in supply and that we can 
withstand anything--a world event, a natural disaster, a hurricane or 
critical infrastructure destruction by some cyber event or by an actual 
attack. So the SPR is like a rainy day fund, an account that makes that 
infrastructure work.
  There are two things in particular we should consider when we are 
thinking about the drawdown of this product that is not specifically 
tied to an emergency.
  First, we should make sure this investment is an upgrade to the SPR's 
infrastructure and for its emergency capabilities. That is, if we are 
going to take money out, it should go to infrastructure in responding 
to emergencies and not just to the highway bill for highways. We need 
to make sure the SPR's critical systems and equipment, which are 
nearing their life-end operational capacity--that in fact there is the 
$2 billion that is needed to repair that. I am not even sure you can 
sell money out of the SPR now onto the marketplace because all of the 
apparatuses and the functioning capabilities for it don't work 
correctly now. I know we want to mark up a transportation bill that has 
this money in here, but we may not even be able to collect on it. Let's 
make sure we do our repairs.

  Secondly, let's make sure the receipts from the SPR sale should be 
used to improve the critical urgency and energy infrastructure 
investments that we need.
  Now, some of my colleagues talk about how expensive this oil was when 
we bought it and now what we are selling it for. I could say taxpayers 
are definitely not getting their fair share. But one way to make sure 
they get their fair share on this investment is to make sure it is 
invested in the energy security infrastructure that our Nation needs. 
Now would not be the time to damage our Nation's emergency preparedness 
by giving this money away in a transportation deal that is only about 
highways.
  I hope, my colleagues, if we are really serious about this effort, if 
we are going to sell SPR at any price and affect the American 
taxpayers, that we will follow the recommendations of the Department of 
Energy's Quadrennial Energy Review that found that many different areas 
of our energy infrastructure need investing. We could make investments 
in resiliency, reliability, and security, and focusing on hardening our 
infrastructure, particularly our transportation systems, which are 
going to be critical for how we move this product around in the future, 
and, also so that we have port connectors, which are challenged by the 
movement of critical freight in critical freight corridors.
  We want our country to continue to be self-reliant and to have the 
great products we are exporting through our ports, but they too need 
the infrastructure investment. Multiple commodities are competing, and 
they can't even get on the tracks or through our port corridors without 
making further investment.
  I believe the Secretary of Energy needs the flexibility to manage the 
SPR and the SPR assets. I believe, if the Secretary of Energy or the 
President of the United States thought it was such a great idea to sell 
money out of the SPR for highways only, we would hear them saying so. 
We don't.
  I think we need to provide the Secretary with the dependability to 
make these decisions about our energy security and make the right 
investments for our future. I hope we can get this right before this 
bill is done here in the Senate. Otherwise, we will not be doing 
ourselves any favor when it comes to energy or energy security.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S5513]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  (The remarks of Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1856 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________