[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 142 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7014-S7043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED 
          AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 98, 
H.R. 2029.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 98, H.R. 2029, a bill 
     making appropriations for military construction, the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 98, H.R. 2029, an act making 
     appropriations for military construction, the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Orrin G. Hatch, Thom Tillis, Tom Cotton, 
           James Lankford, Shelley Moore Capito, Deb Fischer, Thad 
           Cochran, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Richard C. Shelby, 
           Cory Gardner, Richard Burr, Jerry Moran, Jeff Flake, 
           Steve Daines.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum 
call for this cloture motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this morning I said the American people 
are ready to see Democrats start supporting, not blocking, the very 
bipartisan funding legislation they previously voted for and actually 
bragged about. I also said we would give our colleagues a chance to do 
so this week. So I have just set up a vote that will give them that 
opportunity.
  The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill is one of the 12 
pieces of appropriations legislation we must pass to properly fund our 
government. It is a bipartisan bill that does a lot of important things 
for our country, but here is the headline: It supports our veterans.
  This bipartisan bill passed committee with support from both 
Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have said nice things about it in 
press releases that were sent out to their various States. Now it is 
time to cooperate across the aisle to finally pass it and support our 
veterans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                             PTC Extension

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise on a subject of urgency and 
importance to our Nation's economy. The looming deadline for 
implementing a new railroad safety technology known as positive train 
control, or PTC, could soon wreak havoc on our Nation's transportation 
system. This havoc would not just affect the millions of Americans who 
board commuter trains every day but also Americans who depend on 
critical freight rail deliveries. These services could be interrupted 
because--despite years of warning--implementation of PTC has not kept 
pace with an overly ambitious schedule set by Congress.
  Let me explain how we got here. Seven years ago, following a deadly 
Metrolink passenger train collision in California caused by an engineer 
who was texting and failed to react to track signals, this body passed 
legislation mandating the installation of PTC, an innovative safety 
technology on over 60,000 miles of rail lines. Though a meaningful and 
important safety upgrade, PTC is not a panacea. It will not make a 
difference when rail tracks are damaged or in situations when people 
trespass on tracks or at highway rail crossings where the most 
accidents occur, but PTC can and will have an impact in preventing 
three specific accident scenarios; first, the technology will prevent 
train-on-train collisions when both trains and the track they are 
traveling on have fully functioning PTC systems installed; second, the 
system will prevent accidents or derailments caused by excessive train 
speeds like the deadly Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia earlier this 
year; and, third, the technology will help protect individuals working 
on railroad tracks from being hit by a train accidently routed onto the 
wrong track.
  PTC systems operate by relying on ground-based computer systems, 
equipment installed on train locomotives, satellites and wireless radio 
spectrum-based communications coming from a network of thousands of 
towers being built along rail tracks. A PTC system can help certain 
trains automatically communicate with one another and sense if operator 
instructions--namely speed--are appropriate for where the train is 
operating. Because it isn't effective unless all trains are linked 
together on a network, PTC will be required on all passenger and 
freight trains that travel on rail tracks that carry passengers or 
certain hazardous materials regardless of what an individual train 
might be hauling.
  Our colleague, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, 
championed the legislative provision that put this requirement in place 
back in 2008. The legislative mandate was forward-looking and set an 
aggressive schedule for fully implementing the technology.

[[Page S7015]]

  Seven years later, both freight and commuter railroads have made 
substantial progress in implementing positive train control, but there 
have been some unexpected delays in implementing the technology.
  The Federal Communications Commission halted the construction of 
necessary communications towers for over a year in 2013 over concerns 
about historic preservation and potential impacts on tribal lands. 
There have also been delays in regulatory approvals, problems in 
obtaining necessary communications spectrum, and many difficulties that 
come with building a new technology.
  The complexity of a positive train control system falls somewhere in 
between a new version of computer operating software and driverless 
cars. Any of us who have had a just-released version of software 
installed on our computer know about bugs that have to be worked out, 
and like driverless cars, when lives are at stake, you have to get the 
technology right before relying on a system as advanced as PTC.
  Over $5.5 billion in private funding has already been spent on 
implementing PTC. The debate on the need, costs, and benefits is long 
over. When this body voted in 2008 to mandate full and certified 
implementation of PTC by December 31, 2015, there were concerns that 
the timeline was too aggressive. Those concerns have steadily grown. 
Both the independent Government Accountability Office and the Federal 
Railroad Administration, which regulates railroad safety, have warned 
for years that the deadline set by Congress was unrealistic.
  Some saw great value in keeping this overly aggressive deadline in 
place. It was a way of maintaining pressure on freight and commuter 
railroads to move aggressively. At the end of the day, the thinking 
went that if railroads did not meet the deadline, they would be subject 
to financial fines, and these penalties would motivate to quickly 
finish work on PTC. If the pressure didn't work, these individuals 
assumed things could go on much as if the law hadn't been put in place 
at all, and freight railroads could just continue to haul critical 
shipments of products like chlorine and fertilizer, which would pose 
greater public hazard if hauled on highways.
  There was even a naive belief that commuter railroads run by State 
and local governments could get exempted from fines mandated under the 
law. Some believed commuter railroads could continue to move passengers 
instead of adding to the congestion and safety risks on our Nation's 
roads, but over the past month, these myths have been put to rest as 
the real consequences of failing to meet the legal deadline for 
positive train control implementation have come into focus.
  Both freight and commuter railroads have informed Congress, 
regulators, and even stockholders that an inability to comply with the 
PTC mandate could halt some freight and passenger services by January 
1, 2016. In fact, the effects would be felt weeks earlier when it comes 
to the shipment of hazardous materials such as anhydrous ammonia, a 
critical fertilizer for our Nation's crops, because it takes time to 
move tank car traffic off the rail network.
  The Obama administration--in testimony before the commerce committee 
this month--noted that the law leaves no possibility of exempting 
publicly owned commuter railroads that do not meet the PTC deadline 
from fines, but the threat of Federal fines is only one worry for 
railroads among other much larger consequences of missing the PTC 
deadline. Remember, the vast majority of passenger rail service relies 
on track owned by freight railroads. To run commuter rail service on 
freight lines in compliance with the PTC mandate, not only must 
commuter rail trains and tracks be fully equipped but all freight 
tracks and freight trains that run on them must also be properly 
equipped.
  There are approximately 40 railroads, mostly commuter railroads in 
the United States, that will be affected by the December 31, 2015, 
deadline for certified implementation of positive train control. I 
asked them to tell us about their situations in dealing with the 
upcoming mandate.
  I will tell you what we heard. Not one railroad said they have met 
the legal obligation for implementing PTC. I will repeat that. Not one 
railroad, commuter or freight, told us that after 7 years of work, and 
with 3 months to go before the legal deadline for full implementation 
of positive train control, that they have been certified by the Federal 
Railroad Administration as compliant with the requirement.
  We had one railroad, Metrolink in California, that would go so far as 
to express that they were ``cautiously optimistic'' that they could 
meet the end-of-the year deadline for implementing PTC, but neither 
Metrolink nor any other railroad advised us against the legal deadline 
for positive train control. Some commuter railroads bluntly told us 
they saw no option for continuing passenger service after December 31 
without action by Congress to extend the deadline.
  Last week, the board of directors of Metra in Chicago, with over 70 
million riders annually, voted in favor of a resolution to shut down on 
January 1, 2016, if the deadline is not extended.
  Our Nation does not have the transit bus capacity to move these 
displaced riders. This will dramatically increase the number of people 
who are stuck in traffic each day and decrease the safety of our 
transportation system.
  Sarah Feinberg, the Acting Administrator for the Federal Railroad 
Administration, testified last week that she had not recently spoken to 
a railroad that planned to continue operating on January 1, 2016.
  Why are railroads so concerned about running over the legal deadline 
for PTC? Railroads point out that, regardless of fines, their insurance 
would not cover an incident if the railroad had knowingly violated a 
safety law regulation like operating in noncompliance with the PTC 
mandate. They also point out that Federal law provides individual 
workers with the right to refuse instructions that are counter to 
Federal safety laws or regulations. In effect, railroad workers across 
the country would have an individual right, and protection from 
consequence, to refuse to participate in the operation of trains in 
noncompliance with the PTC mandate.
  Different railroads have different concerns. Freight railroads have 
expressed some varying ideas about how they interpret the law. But, 
remember, railroads are interconnected. Let me explain a common view we 
have heard and how it will affect the Nation's interconnected rail 
system and economy more broadly.
  The PTC mandate applies only to routes where there is passenger 
travel or shipment of certain hazardous materials, such as chlorine 
used for water reservoir purification. Under normal circumstances, 
freight railroads are bound by something called the common carrier 
requirement. This means that freight railroads can't refuse to haul a 
specific cargo such as chlorine simply because it is unprofitable or 
inconvenient, but railroads argue that this common carrier requirement 
cannot be reasonably interpreted as requiring them to haul cargo on 
tracks if doing so would violate Federal law.
  Dan Elliott, the Chairman of the Federal Surface Transportation 
Board, which regulates railroad business practices, added weight to 
these concerns. In a letter to me this month about the situation, Mr. 
Elliott stated to me that the ``common carrier obligation is not 
absolute.'' He informed us that he ``cannot predict'' how regulators 
would rule on specific railroad decisions to exclude cargo or passenger 
traffic in order to comply with the PTC mandate.
  So how do we avert this safety and economic disaster? The independent 
experts at the Government Accountability Office who studied this issue 
and released a report told us that the railroads would need an 
additional 1 to 5 years to meet the requirements of the implementation. 
They documented the immensely complex technological challenges 
associated with new PTC components. This report and the letters I 
received from both railroads and regulators about the positive train 
control deadline are posted on the Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee Web site: commerce.senate.gov/ptc.
  The Senate acted in July by passing a provision on the multiyear 
highway reauthorization bill that would extend the deadline on a case-
by-case basis. The Senate's bill, which passed by a vote of 60 to 34, 
took the best parts of legislation to extend the deadline that

[[Page S7016]]

had been put forward by the Obama administration, by Senator Feinstein, 
who championed the PTC requirement, and by Senators Roy Blunt and 
Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who saw this problem coming some time ago 
and have worked with me to prevent it.
  Under the bipartisan Senate plan, the Secretary of Transportation 
gets the legal authority to approve or disapprove requests for 
extensions submitted in plans where railroads show how and when they 
will meet the full requirements of PTC implementation. If approved, 
this essentially becomes a contract, and railroads will face 
consequences if they do not adhere to it, including fines. Under no 
circumstance could the Secretary approve a date for full PTC 
installation that is later than 2018. The Secretary also has the 
authority to identify and require changes to deficient schedules that 
do not show safe and successful implementation as soon as practicable.
  The proposal is specifically designed to maintain pressure on 
railroads to install and implement PTC systems without undue delay. It 
also recognizes that review by regulators after installation, which is 
necessary to achieve legal certification of full PTC implementation, 
may take additional time. Of serious concern to the many commuters and 
shippers who rely on railroad transportation, the deadline for 
congressional action on the PTC mandate is actually well before 
December 31 of 2015. Without a legal extension, railroads will have to 
begin preparations weeks in advance to operate under the assumption 
that no change would be made. This will mean railroads will be 
contacting customers such as water treatment facilities by Thanksgiving 
to cancel critical shipments. It will mean contacting passenger and 
commuter rail customers to have tickets refunded because passenger 
railcars will have to be cleared off the rail system before January 1.
  To avoid this calamity, not to mention the other backups that such 
changes could have on a vast rail network, we need to pass an extension 
into law before these cancellations begin. Working on a bipartisan 
basis, we can help our constituents avert a transportation calamity 
that would have a much more serious impact on our economy than last 
year's west coast ports slowdown.
  This is about helping millions of Americans who are dependent on 
railroads for their livelihood and essential deliveries. We have a 
responsibility to act.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters that 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation have received 
from railroads and officials that I have with me here today, which I 
think explain very clearly what the consequences are if this body fails 
to act before these deadlines are upon us.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                        Metra,

                                  Chicago, IL, September 10, 2015.
     Hon. John Thune,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thune, Thank you for your letter requesting 
     information about Metra's positive train control (PTC) 
     installation and the impact on our system if Congress does 
     not extend the December 31, 2015 implementation deadline. As 
     the commuter rail service provider for the northeastern 
     Illinois region, our primary goal is the safe operation of 
     more than 750 trains that run daily throughout our system, 
     providing about 300,000 passenger trips each day and 83.4 
     million passenger trips per year. We remain committed to the 
     implementation of PTC in a safe and prudent manner. However, 
     many significant challenges prohibit our ability to meet the 
     federally-mandated deadline.


                             Metra Overview

       Metra is one of the largest and most complex commuter rail 
     systems in North America, serving Cook, DuPage, Will, Lake, 
     Kane and McHenry counties in Northeastern Illinois. The 
     agency provides service to and from downtown Chicago with 241 
     stations over 11 routes totaling nearly 500 route miles and 
     approximately 1,200 miles of track.
       Metra owns and operates four of its 11 lines, has trackage-
     rights or lease agreements to operate Metra trains over 
     freight railroads on three lines, and has purchase of service 
     agreements with two freight railroads which operate commuter 
     service on four other Metra lines.
       Metra's core business is to serve people traveling to 
     downtown Chicago to work. Approximately half of all work 
     trips made from suburban Chicago to downtown are made on 
     Metra. Our customers come from all parts of our region's 
     3,700 square miles.


                    Metra PTC Implementation Update

       Metra faces unique challenges implementing PTC as a result 
     of Chicago's complex railroad infrastructure and role as the 
     nation's busiest transportation hub. In fact, Chicago handles 
     one-fourth of the nation's freight rail traffic each day, 
     handling 37,500 rail cars.
       More than 1,300 trains operate in the Chicago area each 
     weekday, including 750 Metra trains, 500 freight trains and 
     the remainder Amtrak trains. Metra must interact and 
     coordinate its railroad operations on a daily basis with all 
     railroads operating in Chicago--including six of the seven 
     Class 1 railroads. PTC implementation must be closely and 
     carefully coordinated with each of them. As a result, Metra 
     has directed much of its initial resources toward our 
     contract carriers, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and BNSF 
     Railway (BNSF).
       Despite these challenges, we have made steady and 
     consistent progress in implementing PTC. We currently expect 
     to have on-board equipment completely installed on BNSF by 
     the end of this year and on UP by the second quarter of 2016. 
     After those systems are tested and become operational, more 
     than 40 percent of Metra's train fleet will be PTC-compliant.
       Metra has also made significant progress toward 
     implementing PTC on the lines we own. To date, that includes:
       Allocating $153 million in capital funding from federal 
     formula funds and state sources toward PTC.
       Installing PTC equipment on half of our 530 locomotives and 
     cab cars.
       Continuing signal upgrades at 12 interlocking locations--
     half the all signal locations on our system.
       Installing 118 wayside interface units.
       Hiring a system integration team to design Metra's PTC 
     system.
       Awarding contracts to engineering firms to design necessary 
     upgrades to our signal system and to draft specifications for 
     other tasks.
       Filling key leadership positions on the PTC project, as 
     well as hiring more than 50 full-time employees to install 
     PTC in the field and on our trains.


                       Continuing PTC Challenges

       However, despite our progress, many significant challenges 
     remain, including cost and funding. PTC implementation is an 
     unfunded mandate and expected to cost Metra more than $350 
     million. Our agency receives approximately $150 million each 
     year in federal formula funding for all of our capital needs, 
     such as bridges, track and signals. Thus, to fully fund PTC, 
     Metra would need to spend 100 percent of its federal funding 
     for two and one-half years. Nationwide, the American Public 
     Transportation Association (APTA) estimates that it will cost 
     more than $3.48 billion to fully implement PTC on all 
     commuter railroads.
       In addition, Metra, like all other railroads, has been 
     constrained by the limited number of firms that can provide 
     signal design services and the limited expertise available to 
     accelerate design and deployment. Those firms and expertise 
     are needed by most railroads to help redesign and renew 
     existing signals and install trackside components--a tough 
     job made even more so by the sheer volume and complexity of 
     the task. We have also been limited by the availability of 
     the needed equipment.
       Another challenge has been the deployment of a national 
     220MHz communications network for PTC among U.S. railroads. 
     The network is critical. The onboard, trackside and back 
     office components of every railroad's PTC system have to be 
     able to communicate via a radio network. In Chicago, it is 
     undetermined if we have enough spectrum available for the PTC 
     needs of the region's railroads until a spectrum study is 
     completed by Transportation Technology Center, Inc.
       Another challenge is that the initial technology continues 
     to be revised. A major prerequisite for the PTC system is the 
     creation of a detailed database of every route on the 
     system--a time-consuming and extremely labor-intensive 
     process. A process will be needed to document and update GPS 
     coordinates every time a critical PTC asset is moved more 
     than one foot. These processes are dependent upon the final 
     onboard software. A final production release date is not 
     known at this time.
       Other challenges include expected issues with components 
     and software as full system testing continues this year. So 
     far, only partial testing of individual segments of the 
     system has taken place. And, the fear of component failure is 
     driving designs with more redundancy, which is further 
     lengthening the design process. In addition, the Federal 
     Railroad Administration (FRA) must review and certify every 
     railroad's plans.
       Metra's current timeline for full PTC implementation is 
     2019, although we expect several lines to be completed before 
     then.


           Consequences of Failure to Extend the PTC Deadline

       Metra has been tirelessly advocating for an extension of 
     the PTC deadline due to numerous technical, regulatory and 
     operational challenges. The railroad industry and the FRA 
     have also known that the 2015 deadline is unattainable. In 
     our view, the time has come to adjust the implementation 
     schedule to reflect reality.

[[Page S7017]]

       Working with the American Public Transportation Association 
     and the American Association of Railroads, we have asked 
     Congress to allow the FRA to give waivers to agencies that 
     have made a good faith effort to meet the 2015 deadline. We 
     remain hopeful that we can work with Congress and the FRA on 
     a solution that will allow us to safely implement PTC on our 
     system and continue to provide 300,000 daily passenger trips.
       Time is now running out. It is with great concern and 
     trepidation that we must begin to prepare contingency plans 
     in the event that the December 31, 2015 PTC implementation 
     deadline passes. In addition, our plan is to fully brief our 
     Board of Directors at its September 21st meeting to discuss 
     the path forward.
       In addition, we are currently working with the FRA to 
     obtain further clarification on the legality of our ability 
     to operate past the December 31, 2015 deadline. Metra along 
     with other APTA members will be meeting with the FRA to 
     discuss these concerns at the end of the month.
       In the absence of an extension, there is a strong 
     possibility that Metra will not be able to operate our trains 
     beginning January 1, 2016. Additionally, the two railroads 
     with which we have purchase of service agreements--UP and 
     BNSF--have stated that they do not plan to operate passenger 
     rail until PTC is fully implemented and operational. Both 
     have stated that they will not have PTC fully operational by 
     the December 31, 2015 deadline. These lines are our busiest 
     and carry more than 50 percent of our customers.
       While it will be a limited option, we have already reached 
     out to our transit partners at CTA and Pace to learn if any 
     operational changes can be made to accommodate an increase in 
     passengers on their systems. However, we recognize that there 
     is no way our transit partners can accommodate any but a 
     small fraction of our 300,000 riders. We are also developing 
     communication plans to alert our customers of a decision 
     before October 31 so that they can begin to consider and 
     prepare for alternate transportation.
       As background, under federal regulations all qualified 
     maintenance personnel must ensure locomotive and cab cars 
     have the required safety systems and that they are 
     functioning properly. After December 31, 2015, procedures for 
     pre-service inspections will include PTC as a legal 
     requirement. To be clear, Metra does not and will not support 
     any action that would cause our employees to operate our 
     trains in violation of any regulation.
       This is not a decision we plan to make without thoughtful 
     consideration of all of our options and the impact this would 
     have on our customers and our employees. Operating in 
     violation of regulations poses serious consequences. Our 
     employees could face a personal civil fine of $25,000 per 
     violation as well as loss of their certifications. We place a 
     tremendous value on our employees and will not put them at 
     risk in this way. If these fines were to be paid by Metra, we 
     anticipate they could cost our agency nearly $19 million per 
     day.
       The potential impacts of a shutdown of Metra service on our 
     customers, employees, Chicago area residents and others are 
     severe and far-reaching.
       First, if Metra is unable to operate past the deadline and 
     we shut down our operations, our 300,000 weekday passenger 
     trips will have to be made by alternate means.
       The great majority of our riders will likely be forced onto 
     our region's already congested roads and highways. In fact, a 
     report by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute found that 
     five of the 20 most congested roads in the nation are in the 
     Chicago area. This resulted in 61 extra hours behind the 
     wheel on average in 2014 because of delays caused by 
     gridlock.
       A shutdown would result in an increase of vehicles on our 
     local roadways. Such action would be forcing our customers to 
     move from one of the safest modes of transportation to one 
     that is less safe, which was not the intent of the 2008 Rail 
     Safety Act. If Metra service did not exist, it would take 29 
     extra lanes of expressways to accommodate our riders. As you 
     know, mass transit also reduces the carbon footprint in an 
     already congested and polluted region.
       The shutdown would put many of our customers--those with 
     little or no other transit options--at risk at the beginning 
     of one of the historically coldest months in Chicago. This 
     includes seniors, students and low-income riders who depend 
     on Metra to get to work, school and doctors' appointments. 
     Metra is a lifeline for many in our region.
       The shutdown would impact our local economy by contributing 
     to roadway congestion that already costs our region $7.2 
     billion annually and by impacting communities whose residents 
     may not be able to go to work and collect their paychecks.
       In 2014, Metra experienced the second-highest ridership in 
     history. Clearly, at a time when customers and their families 
     need us the most, a shutdown would be devastating. At a time 
     when funding sources are scarce, now more than ever we depend 
     upon growing our ridership revenue.
       Further, if Metra shut down it could take several months to 
     restart our operations as a result of furloughs of train 
     crews and maintenance forces. This would place an enormous 
     financial burden on our employees, who would cease to collect 
     the wages they need to support their families. I want to 
     assure you that we take these matters seriously. We will do 
     all we can to prevent this crisis from happening within the 
     confines of the law as it exists today.
       I would like to thank you for your support for legislation 
     that would responsibly extend the PTC deadline. As always, 
     Metra remains committed to implementing PTC as quickly and as 
     safely as we can, but like most of the rest of the U.S. 
     railroad industry, we simply need more time. We remain 
     hopeful that with your leadership, Congress will take 
     appropriate action. Please do not hesitate to contact me 
     should you require any further information.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Don Orseno,
     Executive Director/CEO, Metra.
                                  ____



                                    Union Pacific Corporation,

                                     Omaha, NE, September 9, 2015.
     Hon. John Thune,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thune: Thank you for your letter requesting 
     information on positive train control (PTC) installation, and 
     the impacts if Congress does not extend the December 31, 
     2015, implementation deadline. This is an incredibly 
     important issue for the nation's rail shippers and 
     passengers, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
       Union Pacific is implementing PTC, and since the mandate in 
     2008, we have worked tirelessly to design, install, and test 
     the system. However, despite our best efforts, we will not 
     make the installation deadline. This is because PTC isn't a 
     simple and established off-the-shelf technology. Rather, PTC 
     is a complex new system comprised of several independent 
     technologies. Installing PTC requires integrating thousands 
     of components across the telecommunications spectrum along 
     tens of thousands of miles of track. The software must 
     continuously relay critical information such as speed limits, 
     train movement authorization, switch positions, work zone 
     locations, and other operational data. It must also factor in 
     locomotive and rail car mix, train length, weight, speed, 
     track conditions and terrain to determine safe stopping 
     distances. Based on this data, the system must calculate, 
     multiple times a second, all of these measurements to allow 
     the train to move safely. Finally, PTC must also be 
     interoperable, meaning that the Union Pacific system must 
     work with the systems of other railroads. Beyond these 
     formidable technical elements, we also face regulatory 
     obstacles to obtain the necessary spectrum and permits to 
     install wayside communication towers.
       While we will not make the deadline, I want you to know we 
     take our responsibilities seriously, and we have made 
     monumental efforts to implement PTC. These include:
       Investing $1.8 billion through June with another $200 
     million for the rest of this year.
       Hiring nearly a thousand workers to implement the 
     technology.
       Acquiring spectrum and developing custom radio equipment.
       Developing the software necessary to create an 
     interoperable PTC system.
       Working with more than 50 vendors to develop or acquire 
     components.
       We have made enormous strides toward implementation, and I 
     am very proud of the Union Pacific people who have gotten us 
     to this point.
       We have installed PTC hardware and software on 13,480 miles 
     out of approximately 20,000 miles. The 20,000 miles we need 
     to equip represents roughly two thirds of our network.
       We have installed 6,275 out of 10,000 wayside antennas.
       We have partially installed (phases one and two) PTC 
     hardware on 4,500 locomotives, out of 6,500. (Locomotive 
     hardware installations must be done in three phases due to 
     the need to design and build the necessary components. The 
     first phase takes the locomotive out of service for one week. 
     The second phase takes the locomotive out of service for a 
     couple of days, and the third phase will take the locomotive 
     out of service for several hours.)
       We expect to have PTC fully installed throughout our 
     network by the end of 2018. Then we will need time to test 
     the system before the FRA can certify it as implemented. PTC 
     is the largest and most complex technological undertaking 
     ever attempted by the freight rail industry. Without a period 
     to test the system to ensure that it works properly across 
     the estimated 63,000 miles of freight rail lines where it 
     will be installed, gridlock could occur as trains will simply 
     stop when they shouldn't. This could cause the entire 
     national rail network to meltdown, and the thousands of 
     customers and communities we serve would be significantly 
     impacted.
       What will happen if Congress does not extend the deadline? 
     As you know, we have been contemplating that question for 
     several months now. Because we would be operating in 
     violation of federal law, and because we would be potentially 
     subject to hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and 
     expose ourselves to untold liability should a toxic by 
     inhalation gas (TIH) or passenger accident occur on a line 
     that was supposed to be equipped with PTC, it is our plan to 
     embargo all TIH traffic as well as passenger traffic on our 
     railroad. TIH traffic would be embargoed several weeks prior 
     to January 1, 2016, to ensure an orderly shutdown and clear 
     our system of TIH carloads prior to the end of the year. We 
     expect to issue the TIH embargo notice prior to Thanksgiving. 
     Commuter operations would cease before midnight on December 
     31, 2015, and long distance passenger

[[Page S7018]]

     trains will stop originating several days earlier to ensure 
     that all passengers reach their destinations before the 
     deadline.
       I want you to know these decisions are not made lightly or 
     in haste. We carefully reviewed our options, which are 
     limited. Embargoing this traffic, which is the traffic that 
     necessitates PTC installation, is in the best interest of our 
     employees and shareholders. We simply don't see another 
     option.
       This will cause significant economic disruption for our 
     country. Chlorine and anhydrous ammonia (fertilizer) are the 
     two largest TIH commodities we carry. Chlorine is not only a 
     feedstock for many products, it is also critical for many 
     cities to purify their drinking water. The suspension of 
     anhydrous ammonia shipments will mean farmers will be unable 
     to get the fertilizer they need to ensure healthy crops. 
     Finally, millions of commuters will be forced onto already 
     congested highways and roads. Again, we did not make this 
     decision lightly. We are in the process of notifying our 
     customers of this decision, and within the next month, we 
     will be letting them (and you) know of the exact date we will 
     have to start embargoing TIH to clear the network by the end 
     of the year.
       Our decision to stop only the traffic that led to the 
     requirement to install PTC will be revisited if the Federal 
     Railroad Administration (FRA) imposes fines on freight trains 
     without TIH, as they are authorized to do. Should the FRA 
     take such a broad action, we will have to consider an embargo 
     on virtually all rail freight that we handle on lines that 
     are to be equipped with PTC despite its untold consequences 
     for the U.S. economy.
       Finally, you asked how this decision could impact safety. 
     Extending the deadline would not diminish safety in the rail 
     industry. We are a safe industry. In fact, last year was the 
     safest year on record as was the year before that. PTC, when 
     ready and fully implemented, will be another mechanism to 
     continue that improvement, but it is not the only one we 
     employ and are pursuing. Rail inspections, wheel testing, 
     innovative technologies that predict when something will fail 
     so that it can be repaired or replaced before failure, and 
     employee engagement are just some of the other tools we use 
     to ensure a safe and efficient rail system.
       However, failure to extend the deadline will increase 
     safety risks, not for the rail industry, but for the public 
     at large. Rail is the safest way to transport hazardous 
     chemicals. Overall 99.997% of all hazardous material 
     shipments by rail reach their destination without release 
     caused by train accident. However, if services cease, TIH 
     traffic will be forced to move by trucks on our nation's 
     highways. Union Pacific carries 27,000 carloads of TIH 
     traffic a year. If this commodity were to still move in 
     commerce, it would need to be carried by about 100,000 
     trucks. Moreover, people who currently use commuter trains 
     would be forced onto the highways, creating an even more 
     congested mixture in some of our country's most dense urban 
     environments.
       Chairman Thune, I thank you for your letter and your 
     leadership on this issue. We are committed to install PTC as 
     rapidly and safely as we can. I think our actions have shown 
     that. However, we will not make the end of the year deadline. 
     If Congress does not extend the deadline, we will embargo TIH 
     and passenger traffic on our network. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact me if you need additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Lance M. Fritz,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                 Surface Transportation Board,

                                Washington, DC, September 3, 2015.
     Hon. John Thune,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thune: Thank you for your letter dated August 
     28, 2015, concerning the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
     (RSIA). RSIA requires rail common carriers to install 
     positive train control (PTC) on lines that carry passengers 
     and toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials by December 31, 
     2015. In your letter, you observe that railroads are not 
     likely to meet that deadline, and you note that some 
     railroads have indicated that they may curtail service absent 
     an extension of the deadline. Given the likely disruptive 
     effect that a curtailment of service could have on the 
     economy, you requested that I respond to three questions. I 
     will answer each in turn.
       First, you ask what information we have sought or received 
     from freight and passenger railroads on the actions they 
     might take absent an extension. On July 13, I sent the 
     Nation's largest freight railroads, as well as short line 
     carriers, a ``fall peak letter'' requesting information about 
     their ability to meet forecasted freight rail demand and any 
     challenges they see for the upcoming season. Two carriers, 
     CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) and BNSF Railway Company 
     (BNSF), stated in their response letters that they foresaw 
     PTC compliance as a significant challenge. CSXT stated that 
     the industry would not make the current year-end PTC 
     installation deadline but indicated that it was ``premature 
     to anticipate what decisions might be necessary should an 
     extension not pass.'' BNSF confirmed that it would not meet 
     the deadline and offered the possibility that ``neither 
     passenger nor freight traffic would operate on BNSF lines 
     that are required by federal law and regulation to have an 
     interoperable PTC system'' after the current deadline. 
     Additionally, we have received information about the railroad 
     industry's concern with the potential repercussions of the 
     deadline from reviewing recent testimony before Congress.
       The Board has also obtained information about the status of 
     PTC compliance through informal meetings. These include 
     discussions at Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory 
     Council meetings and conversations that the Board's Office of 
     Public Assistance, Government Affairs and Compliance has had 
     with rail and shipper stakeholders. Based on these informal 
     channels, it appears that some railroads are considering 
     suspending all freight and passenger service on lines that 
     are required to be RSIA-compliant if an extension is not 
     authorized.
       Second, you ask what would be the primary legal or economic 
     factors that could cause freight and passenger railroads to 
     consider suspending or reducing service. I understand that 
     railroads are considering a broad array of legal and economic 
     factors in deciding whether to suspend or curtail service if 
     the PTC deadline is not extended. Without commenting on the 
     merits of any particular concern, it would seem that the 
     railroads would be considering how noncompliance would affect 
     them in matters such as: insurance coverage; exposure to tort 
     or other commercial liability; labor-relations issues; and 
     potential civil penalty assessments by the Federal Railroad 
     Administration (FRA)/USDOT. And I assume that railroads are 
     also considering whether a railroad that has not implemented 
     PTC may suspend or curtail service (in the event the PTC 
     deadline is not extended) without violating its common 
     carrier obligation and without incurring liability to its 
     shippers. Additionally, railroads would likely consider 
     competitive and commercial factors, such as relative market 
     share and the likelihood of permanent loss of traffic, 
     revenue, and goodwill.
       While many of the legal and economic factors identified 
     above are not directly within the Board's jurisdiction, 
     freight rail carriers do have a common carrier obligation to 
     provide service pursuant to a reasonable request. The common 
     carrier obligation includes service for hazardous materials 
     such as the toxic-by-inhalation commodities that partly 
     motivated RSIA's PTC requirement. At the same time, the 
     common carrier obligation is not absolute, and railroads can 
     lawfully suspend service for various reasons, including 
     safety. Prior agency cases assessing the reasonableness of 
     service embargos have been very fact-specific, examining the 
     reasons for the service suspension, the length of the 
     suspension, and the impacted traffic (among other factors). 
     Sometimes the Board has found that a railroad's actions in 
     initiating and maintaining an embargo were reasonable, but 
     other times the agency has concluded that a carrier acted 
     improperly by refusing to serve. Because prior safety-related 
     curtailment-of-service cases often involved services that 
     complied with comprehensive safety regimes administered by 
     FRA (and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
     Administration), a carrier-initiated curtailment of service 
     due to a failure to comply with RSIA would present a case of 
     first impression before the Board. I cannot predict the 
     outcome of such a case. My expectation is that the views of 
     the FRA, which has primary jurisdiction over rail safety in 
     general and over implementing RSIA in particular, would be a 
     critical consideration.
       Third, you ask how the Board plans to proactively monitor 
     and analyze potential service issues that could arise if the 
     current statutory deadline is not extended. As I noted during 
     my confirmation hearings, I will continue to ensure that 
     service quality for all shippers remains a primary focus of 
     the Board. I have been reaching out to railroads and to 
     shippers, and I have directed our Office of Public 
     Assistance, Government Affairs and Compliance (OPAGAC) to 
     continue its outreach to freight and passenger railroads, 
     shippers, and other stakeholders affected by issues related 
     to PTC compliance. OPAGAC has held informal conversations 
     with our stakeholders and will continue to do so in order to 
     keep the Board abreast of developments and informed on the 
     perspectives of the public. Indeed, the rail service problems 
     that occurred in 2013-14 made clear that obtaining timely 
     information is one of the keys to managing service issues. 
     The STB has continued to collect and analyze rail service 
     data, including Amtrak passenger service data, as part of the 
     interim initiative we began in 2014. We also continue to make 
     progress on a permanent data collection rulemaking. My staff 
     speaks regularly with railroads and shippers to hear about 
     any potential service issues in real time. We will continue 
     these efforts with regard to the impact of RSIA and other 
     service issues, using a fair and balanced approach.
       I recognize that PTC is an important tool to enhance the 
     safety of the Nation's freight and passenger rail network, 
     and that it needs to be deployed in a timely way. Following 
     up on our success in working closely with your Committee to 
     help resolve the service issues shippers faced in 2013-2014, 
     I look forward to the important dialogue about the issues 
     raised in your letter. Thank you for allowing me the 
     opportunity to express my views. If you have further 
     questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                            Daniel R. Elliott III,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S7019]]

  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.


                     Remembering Walter Dale Miller

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday South Dakotans were saddened to 
learn that former South Dakota Gov. Walter Dale Miller passed away on 
Monday evening.
  Governor Miller served as South Dakota Governor for just 20 months--
from April 1993 to January 1995--but during his brief tenure, he 
steered South Dakota through a number of challenges and provided a 
sense of stability and calm during a period of upheaval.
  In the wake of Governor Mickelson's tragic death, Governor Miller led 
the State in grieving and secured funding for a memorial to the 
Governor and the seven other South Dakotans who died when their plane 
crashed as it was returning to our State.
  When inmates at the State penitentiary rioted less than a month into 
his tenure, Governor Miller succeeded in ending the standoff without 
loss of life.
  When the Great Flood of 1993 struck the Midwest, he led South 
Dakota's response and worked tirelessly to help those who were 
affected.
  And when a Supreme Court decision shut down South Dakota's video 
lottery, resulting in a sudden revenue loss, Governor Miller ensured 
that South Dakota's most important needs were met.
  In all, Governor Miller spent nearly 30 years serving South Dakota in 
State government--first in the State legislature, then as Lieutenant 
Governor, and finally as Governor. In every office he held, he served 
with a commitment and integrity that were recognized by South Dakotans 
of all political persuasions.
  I always felt a particular kinship with Governor Miller since we both 
hailed from western South Dakota, which we in our State like to call 
West River. The Governor was from Meade County, and I grew up in a 
little town called Murdo.
  I think for many South Dakotans, Governor Miller embodied the West 
River cowboy: independent, self-reliant, and courageous, with a deep 
and abiding love of the wide open spaces that still characterize South 
Dakota's landscape. I know that is how I, along with many other South 
Dakotans, will remember him.
  I want to offer my deepest condolences to Governor Miller's wife Pat 
and to the Governor's children. You are all in South Dakotans' thoughts 
and prayers.
  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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
as in morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.


                       Russia and the Middle East

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we now have information that the Russians 
have now launched airstrikes in Syria, ostensibly against ISIS. In 
reality, it is not clear. In fact, there is information that some of 
those strikes were at Homs, and the latest information is that the 
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that at least 27 people 
were killed, and that 6 children were among the dead.
  These strikes near the city of Homs, which is not under control of 
ISIS, of the Islamic State--so already we are seeing the true 
intentions of Vladimir Putin, which are to maintain a strong position 
in Syria, his foothold in the Middle East, and his propping up of 
Bashar Assad--Bashar Assad, who has killed at least 250,000 of his own 
citizens through the horrible process of barrel bombing and has driven 
millions into refugee status with the full and complete support of Iran 
and Vladimir Putin.
  I say to my colleagues, over the past 6\1/2\ years President Obama 
has sounded retreat across the Middle East. In fact, it was 1 year ago 
at this time when the President of the United States said: Our strategy 
is to degrade and destroy ISIS. A report yesterday said some 28,000 
Europeans and some Americans have come into the fight on the side of 
ISIS. Mosul and Ramadi remain in the hands of ISIS. Of course, the 
continued advances of ISIS in Syria are well known.
  In short, a year after the President made that statement, there is no 
strategy, and there is no success. In fact, we now see the results of 
this failure, which is a flood of refugees out of Syria and Iraq 
because they have given up hope of ever returning to their homeland. 
Our hearts go out to those who are victims and have had to flee their 
homeland. We see these refugees. It breaks our hearts when we see a 
little baby's body washed up on the beach.
  It did not have to happen. It did not have to happen. Everybody knows 
that when the President of the United States said that we have drawn a 
redline in Syria and did not do it, it had a profound effect on the 
Middle East, including Sunni Arab States, as well as Shia. Everybody 
knows that when the President turned down the recommendations of his 
Secretary of Defense, his Secretary of State, which happened to be 
Secretary Clinton at the time, and his Secretary of Defense, to arm the 
Free Syrian Army--and he turned it down--that was another seminal 
moment.
  This is a series of decisions or nondecisions which has led to the 
situation we see today, where Vladimir Putin may have inserted Russia 
into the Middle East in a way that Russia has not enjoyed since 1973 
when Anwar Sadat threw the Russians out of Egypt. He is still on course 
to repeat this nightmare by withdrawing nearly all U.S. forces from 
Afghanistan as well.
  As we see in the last couple of days, the Taliban is capturing the 
strategic city of Kunduz. That is terrible in the respect that Kunduz 
is in the northern part of Afghanistan, where it was believed it was 
fairly stable, showing the ability of the Taliban and the effects of 
our withdrawal.
  But I come back to Syria and the Russian activities today. After 4 
years in Syria, the United States has stood by as Bashar Assad with his 
war on the Syrian people goes on and on and on.
  It is this slaughter that has been the single greatest contributor to 
the rise and continued success of ISIL. Have no doubt, it was Bashar 
Assad that gave birth to ISIL. The President has said for years--for 
years--that Assad must go. But he has done nothing that has brought us 
any closer to achieving that outcome. My friends, it is not that we 
have done nothing, but we have not done anything that would reverse the 
trend and in any way further the goal that the President articulated a 
year ago--that we would degrade and destroy ISIL.
  In short, this administration has confused our friends, encouraged 
our enemies, mistaken an excess of caution for prudence, and replaced 
the risks of action with the perils of inaction. Into the wreckage--
into the wreckage of this administration's Middle East policy--has now 
stepped Vladimir Putin. As in Ukraine, as elsewhere, he perceives the 
administration's inaction and caution as weakness, and he is taking 
full advantage.
  Over the past few weeks, Vladimir Putin has been engaged in a 
significant military buildup in western Syria, deploying strike 
aircraft--by the way, he is also deploying aircraft that are air-to-
air, not air-to-ground; my friends, ISIS has no air force--significant 
buildup of bombers, tanks, artillery, Russian military personnel.
  Meanwhile, our Secretary of State calls Lavrov frantically and asks 
him what is going on--not once, not twice, three times. My friends, it 
is obvious what Vladimir Putin is doing. These airstrikes are a logical 
follow-on to his ambition, which he is realizing to, one, play a major 
role in Syria, preserve the port of Latakia, prop up Bashar Assad, and 
play a major role in the Middle East.
  All of this is not lost on countries in the region. Today Vladimir 
Putin escalated his involvement as Russian pilots carried out their 
first airstrikes in

[[Page S7020]]

Syria. Initial reports, as I mentioned, are that they are hitting 
targets that are not controlled by ISIL. That should fool no one 
because Vladimir Putin's primary authority and responsibility and 
ambition are to prop up Bashar Assad against all of his enemies.
  The White House has said: ``It's unclear exactly what Russia's 
intentions are.'' My friends, I am not making that up. The White House 
has said: ``It's unclear exactly what Russia's intentions are.'' If the 
White House is confused about Putin's intentions and plans in Syria, 
then the United States is in even worse trouble than many fear because 
it is not hard to discern what Vladimir Putin wants.
  In fact, from Russia's military buildup in Syria to its recently 
announced military and intelligence coalition with Syria, Iran, and 
Iraq--remember, Iraq is the country where we lost thousands of American 
lives. Now, the Iraqi Government announces sharing intelligence with 
Syria and Iran--amazing, amazing. Putin's ambitions are blindingly 
obvious, my friends. He wants to prop up Assad, play kingmaker in any 
transition, undermine U.S. policy and operations, and ultimately expand 
Russian power in the Middle East to a degree, as I mentioned, unseen 
since 1973.
  This week at the United Nations, President Obama said: ``The United 
States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and 
Iran,'' to resolve the Syrian conflict. It requires self-delusion of 
tremendous scale to believe that Russia and Iran have any interest in 
resolving the Syrian conflict. They seek only to keep the murderous 
Assad regime in power. Russia's intervention in Syria will prolong and 
complicate this horrific war. The main beneficiary will be ISIL, which 
has fed off the ethnic and sectarian divisions fostered by the Assad 
regime.
  It is tragic. It is tragic, my fellow Americans, that we have reached 
this point. It is a Syrian conflict that has killed more than 200,000 
people, created the worst refugee crisis in Europe since World War II, 
spawned a terrorist army of tens of thousands, and now created a 
platform for a Russian autocrat to join with an Iranian theocrat to 
prop up a Syrian dictator. It did not have to be this way. But this is 
the inevitable consequence of hollow words, redlines crossed, tarnished 
moral influence, leading from behind, and a total lack of American 
leadership.
  My friends, today in the Washington Post there is an article by David 
Ignatius, who quotes Ryan Crocker, one of the greatest diplomats I have 
ever had the honor and privilege to know.
  The article says:

       ``Russia has played a horrible hand brilliantly. We folded 
     what could have been a pretty good hand,'' argues Ryan 
     Crocker, a retired U.S. diplomat who has served in nearly 
     every hot spot in the Middle East and is among the nation's 
     wisest analysts of the region. ``The Russians were able to 
     turn a defensive position into an offensive one because we 
     were so completely absent.''

  Ryan Crocker is right.
  I would also remind my friends that because of American inaction, the 
countries in the region are making their own accommodations. Saudi 
Arabia, UAE, and Qatar have all been to Russia for arms deals. The 
Saudi Arabians have bought $17 billion worth of weapons from Russia; 
UAE, $7 billion; Qatar, $5 billion. Would that have ever happened 10 
years ago? Of course not. But they see America leaving, and they are 
accommodating. And we have, of course, refused in many respects to give 
the kinds of weapons particularly that the Kurds need.
  I won't go on too much longer. I will summarize by saying that this 
is a very sad day for America and the world. The world is watching. It 
is not confined to the Middle East. We see Vladimir Putin continue to 
dismember Ukraine, and now some phony separatist elections are going to 
be held in the area he now controls. The Chinese leader made some nice 
comments about how they would stop the hacking that allowed them to 
compromise our most important industrial, military, and other secrets. 
We will see if that happens, but they are also continuing their 
expansion in the islands in the South China Sea.
  An absence of American leadership is very visible and very understood 
by nations throughout the world.
  Today we see Vladimir Putin attacking with his airplanes not just 
ISIS but others who are enemies of Bashar al-Assad. I would like to add 
that these airstrikes are indiscriminate in nature, and there has been 
no attempt whatsoever to stop the horrible barrel bombing, as GEN David 
Petraeus recommended before the Armed Services Committee just a few 
days ago.
  So this is a bad day, and it is time for American leadership. It is 
time that President Obama woke up to the realities in the world and 
reassert American leadership. That does not mean we are going to send 
thousands of ground troops back into Iraq or Syria, but it does mean 
that we develop a policy.
  I am told that these bombings--that the American Government had said 
that American planes should not fly and that we have somehow approved 
of these airstrikes. I do not know if that is true. I hope that is not 
true. What we should be saying to Vladimir Putin is ``You fly, but we 
fly anywhere we want to when and how we want to, and you had better 
stay out of the way.'' That is the message that should be sent to 
Vladimir Putin.
  So I hope the American people understand how serious this is and that 
this rogue dictator named Vladimir Putin, who is a thug and a bully, 
can only understand a steadfast and strong American policy that brings 
America's strength back to bear. We are still the strongest Nation in 
the world. Now it is time for us to act like it.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Government Funding and Abortion

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate has now passed a continuing 
resolution to keep the lights on, to keep the government employees 
paid, to pay our military and make sure our veterans get the benefits 
they are entitled to from now until December 11.
  I think it is important to reflect on why it is we had to do this in 
this way, with all of the attendant drama and the suggestion that we 
were going to somehow shut down the government, which was never a 
likelihood. The main reason we find ourselves in this posture is 
because for the first time since 2009, the Senate has actually passed a 
budget. This new majority that was elected last November saw that one 
of the most important things we could do in terms of the basic 
fundamentals of good governance was to pass a budget--something that 
hadn't happened since 2009.
  There are many benefits, of course, of passing a budget, but one of 
the benefits was to allow the Appropriations Committee to begin to go 
to work and take up and pass 12 different appropriations bills that 
would keep the whole of the Federal Government funded.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, there is a lot of policy written in 
those Appropriations Committees. You can make a decision not to fund 
something because it is not working or maybe it is obsolete or outdated 
or perhaps to fund something else; say perhaps we need to reform the 
way this particular service is delivered and consolidate it in a way 
that it is cost-effective and more efficient.
  So it is important to pass a budget and to pass appropriations bills. 
Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues are trying to use the 
appropriations process to hold it hostage in order to force us to 
increase government spending. The way they try to do that is to 
filibuster the appropriations bills and to say: We are not even going 
to take up a defense appropriations bill, the one that actually pays 
our troops and takes care of their families. Well, they are going to 
have a chance to vote on a veterans appropriations bill very soon, and 
we will see whether they keep up this tactic of holding hostage our 
appropriations process, creating all this unnecessary drama associated 
with whether there is going to be a shutdown here or a shutdown there. 
It is very important that we get back to work and we do the basic work 
of governance--passing a budget, passing appropriations bills. I know 
the Presiding Officer agrees with that.
  I think lost in all of this debate over government shutdowns and over 
appropriations bills has been the shocking

[[Page S7021]]

videos we saw of Planned Parenthood, these Planned Parenthood videos 
that showed Planned Parenthood executives speaking callously about the 
unborn. These are late-term abortions. These are unborn babies who 
could well be viable outside of the womb, because after 20 weeks, give 
or take 2 weeks, it is amazing what neonatologists and what medical 
science can do. I know we have all seen babies as small as 1 pound or 
less who actually grow into thriving adults later on, and it is amazing 
what can be done even with these young babies as young as 20 weeks or 
more. But of course these videos I think have served one important 
role; that is, to be a wake-up call, to try to wake up the moral 
conscience of our Nation. Somehow we have trivialized this whole 
process and talked about choice and talked about the convenience of 
adults, when in fact there is another competing interest involved; that 
is, the potential life of a human being that is being overlooked.
  At different times in our Nation's history I think we have seen that 
somehow we became so desensitized, we became so self-focused on 
ourselves that we forgot the fact that this speaks about our humanity 
and who we are as a people. So I think these sorts of wake-up calls 
that these videos have provided have been useful if we make the most of 
them.
  I know that as we have talked about the continuing resolution and the 
so-called shutdown scenario--which is not going to happen--there has 
been concern that this might be the only way that we stop this horrific 
practice of late-term abortions and harvesting of fetal body parts for 
sale that were depicted in these videos. But I am thankful there are a 
number of pro-life groups in Texas and nationally who understand that 
we need to make sure this is a long-term agenda and not just a one-vote 
situation. As I mentioned yesterday, earlier this week two groups 
involved in the pro-life mission in my home State announced their 
support for efforts in Congress to hold Planned Parenthood accountable 
and to work toward long-term, meaningful change on the pro-life agenda. 
One of those groups, the Texas Alliance for Life, released a statement 
that affirmed actions taken last week--a vote to defund Planned 
Parenthood and to redirect funding to other providers of women's health 
services that are not involved in the abortion industry. If we are 
truly concerned about women's access to health care--and we all are--
then why can't we take the money that goes to pay the No. 1 abortion 
provider in America and redirect it to community health centers that 
actually do provide women's health services?
  The statement of the Texas Alliance for Life went on to say that the 
group was ``not asking for a government shutdown over the issue'' and 
that ``better options exist for achieving success.''
  I want to spend a moment or two focusing on ``better options [than a 
shutdown] exist for achieving success'' because the Senate continues to 
work on several measures, including key pieces of legislation that 
would advance the culture of life in this country--legislation such as 
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This would do what Texas 
has already done, which is to say there can be no elective abortions 
after 5 months of gestation. It is at this stage in development--just 
20 weeks--that many experts believe an unborn child can feel pain. I am 
still unclear why our Democratic friends across the aisle would block 
such a simple, moral imperative like protecting these young lives as 
they did last week, but I would like to also remind our friends across 
the aisle that this legislation is not going away, and we will not stop 
raising the visibility of this issue and making the point that a child 
at 5 months--a child with fingerprints and taste buds--deserves 
protection under the law.
  Our country also needs another piece of legislation that I 
cosponsored and that actually passed in the House. This is called the 
Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, which the Presiding Officer is the 
lead sponsor of. Quite simply, this bill would mandate that doctors 
provide infant care to newborns who survive an abortion procedure. This 
is different, I think, in kind from the defund Planned Parenthood 
debate. This is about the delivery of a born child and whether a 
physician or the abortion provider has any duty--which they should--to 
make sure that child gets the care they need so they can survive or 
whether they can, at their option, simply end that life as part of an 
abortion practice. It is a sad commentary on the conscience of America 
when we need a law like this to spell out the fact that doctors should 
care for babies once they are born.
  This legislation was introduced last week, and I hope we are 
successful--as I said, the Presiding Officer is the lead cosponsor--in 
getting broad support of cosponsors on this bill. Then we can go to 
Senator McConnell, the Senate majority leader, and ask him to schedule 
this legislation for a vote.
  So this bill, along with the pain-capable bill, will not only save 
thousands of unborn lives a year, but if enacted would be the biggest 
step forward for the pro-life movement since the Partial Birth Abortion 
Ban Act was signed into law a decade ago.
  Both of these bills are part of a long-term, proactive strategy to 
fight for the lives of the unborn and to make this country one that 
truly prizes the life of the unborn as a young life with limitless 
potential. It took time for the enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act. I was in the Senate when we passed that legislation. It is 
incredible to me it took as long as it did for that to pass, but it 
also took a commitment from leaders to stand up, time and time again, 
not to just have one vote and then call it quits, to say we tried and 
we were unsuccessful, but to stay after it until we actually achieved 
passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I believe, with the same 
sort of long-term commitment on the Pain-Capable bill and on the Born-
Alive bill, we can continue to make progress in this House, as well as 
the House of Representatives, and to be able to tell our constituents 
back home we have changed the culture of Washington, DC, and on a 
national level and shown the respect for unborn life it deserves.
  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. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Sea Level Rise In South Florida

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to talk about what is happening to 
our environment in South Florida as a result of sea level rise. We can 
put this into political terms of climate change, but that seems to be 
an issue some want to deny. So I want to talk about what you can't 
deny, and that is that the sea is rising, particularly as shown in 
South Florida.
  A year and a half ago, I brought the commerce committee to Miami 
Beach and brought a whole series of witnesses, one of whom was a NASA 
scientist who testified that measurements--now, this is not a forecast 
and this is not a projection; these are measurements of the level of 
the sea over the course of the last four decades--that the sea has 
risen in South Florida between 5 and 8 inches.
  The reason I am bringing this to the attention of the Senate today is 
that I just returned from Miami, where the latter part of September, 
the first part of October is the seasonal high tide, and the streets of 
Miami Beach are flooded. As a matter of fact, 2 years ago the mayor of 
Miami Beach, when he was campaigning for that position, did a campaign 
commercial in a kayak on Alton Road, which is on the westerly side of 
the barrier island, away from the ocean, and it was flooded. In the 
intervening 2 years, the city of Miami Beach, in cooperation with the 
local governments of all of the southeast Florida governments, has 
spent millions of dollars on big pumps so that when the tides come, 
they can get the water out of the streets.
  A year ago, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and I went down there at this 
time of year--the seasonal high tide--and lo and behold the pumps 
worked and the pumps got the water back into Biscayne Bay so that the 
roads stayed dry.
  But look what happened 2 days ago, as shown in this picture. This is 
downtown Miami Beach. Do you see the fellow? It is above his ankles, 
and he is up on the curb. Right here is the curb. He steps down, and it 
comes up to just

[[Page S7022]]

below his knees. You see the cars. You see the water. That is downtown 
Miami Beach. This is not just the phenomenon of the full Moon; this is 
the phenomenon of sea level rise.
  Let's take another view. Here is a lady who is trying to keep her 
feet dry, up on a wall. You can see that here is the sidewalk. Here is 
the curb. Here is the street. As you can see, this is a middle part of 
the barrier island of Miami Beach. This isn't right next to the beach. 
This isn't right next to Biscayne Bay, on either side, the east and the 
west, of the barrier island. This is in the middle where you have all 
of these--in this case, it is condominiums where people live.
  What is causing this? What is causing it is that planet Earth is 
heating up. The measurements are there. Why is it heating up? It is 
simply this: As the Sun's rays come in and hit the Earth, they reflect 
off of the Earth, and that heat radiates back out into space.
  It is the same principle, for example, on the space shuttle. When I 
participated in the space program 30 years ago, when we were in orbit--
in the early part of the space shuttle program, on the space shuttle 
Columbia, once we got in orbit, we opened those payload bay doors--and 
they served as radiators of all the heat that is generated onboard the 
spacecraft. We radiated it back out into space so that the spacecraft 
does not overheat. So, too, planet Earth.
  The natural phenomenon is that the Sun's rays hit the Earth and 
reflect back out. Some of the heat is retained, but most of that heat 
is radiated back out into space, until you start to create the effect 
of a ceiling high in the atmosphere of the greenhouse gases, such as 
carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Those gases start to create a 
ceiling effect, so that as the heat is radiating back towards space, it 
is trapped, and therefore the whole planet starts to heat up. What is 
most of the Earth covered with? The oceans. That is where most of that 
additional heat is absorbed. Ninety percent of the heat that is trapped 
in the Earth's greenhouse effect is absorbed into the oceans of the 
planet. As a result, when water is heated, water expands, and thus one 
of the phenomena of seeing the seas begin to rise. The melting of the 
glaciers, the melting of the polar ice caps, adding more--instead of 
frozen glaciers, that is going into the sea, displacing water. And 
those glaciers are melting. That adds to it as well, but it is the 
trapping of the heat that is causing this phenomenon.
  We have made projections as to what the heat is that we are trapping, 
but now we have an instrument out in space that can precisely measure 
because there is a spacecraft that was launched earlier this year, 
Discover, that has several instruments on it. One of the instruments, 
by the way--you can go to the NASA Web site and you can see in real 
time, every hour and a half, another picture of the entire Earth on the 
daylight side of the Earth. The spacecraft is placed 1 million miles 
away from planet Earth, between the Earth and the Sun. So the 
spacecraft, looking back at Earth, is always looking at the daylight 
side of the Earth as it revolves about its axis 365 days a year, as it 
revolves around the Sun. That is one instrument.
  There is another instrument, and that is the instrument which 
measures the amount of the Sun's heat that goes into the Earth and the 
amount of heat that is radiated back out. If you subtract the amount 
radiated back out into space from the amount of heat that goes into the 
Earth, you get a precise measurement of how much of the heat sent by 
the Sun is trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. Now we have a precise 
instrument that will tell us exactly what that is instead of the 
scientific projections that we have used, and that is as a result of 
this new satellite spacecraft called Discover that we just put up 
earlier this year.
  We can't keep denying what in fact is happening. The proof is in the 
pudding. The proof is right here. There is no other way you can explain 
this seasonal high tide when for the last two centuries this barrier 
island has basically been dry during the seasonal high tide but now we 
are seeing this.
  The consequences of this are quite severe. First of all, 75 percent 
of Florida's population is along the coast. Florida is now the third 
largest State. We have surpassed New York. We have 20 million people 
now, and 75 percent of that population is along the coast. As the sea 
level rises and people have to start dealing with this, what do you 
think is going to happen to the value of their property? What about 
their freshwater? Florida sits on a honeycomb of limestone that is 
filled with freshwater. Saltwater is heavier than freshwater. As the 
sea level rises, it starts to penetrate that honeycomb of freshwater. 
That is the substructure of the peninsula of Florida. That then causes 
saltwater intrusion into our drinking water, into the water we have to 
use to sustain life.
  There are no good results as a consequence of sea level rise.
  I once again bring up to the Senate that we have some who say this is 
not real. In fact, here is the proof. The proof is in the pudding. 
There is something we can do about it. What we can do about it is start 
adopting policies that will put less carbon dioxide into the 
atmosphere, and that means we have to be diligent in making sure we 
enact policies to do it.
  There are several different ways you can do that. One, of course, is 
the regulatory way, which is going on right now, which a lot of our 
colleagues don't like. You regulate smokestacks. You regulate the 
amount of pollutants that can be put out and so forth. There is another 
way, and that is to use the private marketplace of supply and demand by 
putting a price or a fee on the use of carbon, and therefore the market 
will dictate whether a person puts more CO2 into the air as 
a result of burning carbon. That will drive the marketplace to find 
alternative fuels that are a lot cleaner so that we can show the rest 
of the world what we are going to have to do.
  I think it was rather prophetic that last week the Pope continuously 
talked about climate change in all of his speeches. I think it was also 
prophetic that the Chinese President, in his visit to the United 
States--apparently they are so choked because of the pollutants in the 
air in major cities in China that they are finally coming to the altar, 
so to speak, and realizing that they have to do something about it. 
Otherwise, they are threatening the complete health of their people in 
China.
  With this newfound attention to this problem, let's do something 
about it by building bipartisan support for a solution. That is the 
right thing to do. And this is just another reminder that what is 
happening in Miami Beach right now is the wave of the future unless we 
change our policies.
  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. DAINES. 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. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with Senators Ayotte, Alexander, Burr, Collins, and Gardner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Land and Water Conservation Fund

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, Montana's national forests and public 
lands have been a pleasure and a part of our State's heritage for 
generations.
  As a fifth-generation Montanan and as someone who loves the outdoors, 
I recognize how valuable our public lands are and the importance of 
ensuring access for generations to come to hunting, backpacking and 
fishing--traditions that I, like many Montanans, have been thankful to 
pass along to my kids. I know firsthand the important role that the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund holds in protecting and increasing 
Montanans' access to our public lands.
  That is why since coming to Congress I have been actively working to 
secure funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund every year. In 
fact, through the appropriations process this summer, Senator Susan 
Collins and I successfully passed an amendment to increase the funding 
for the LWCF program by nearly $14 million. This brought the overall 
funding for LWCF to $306 million and ensured that LWCF did not lose out 
on work for permanent authorization.
  In Montana and throughout the country, the Land and Water 
Conservation

[[Page S7023]]

Fund plays a critical role in achieving the goal of increased access. 
Despite the tireless efforts and the work of Senators Burr, Collins, 
Ayotte, Alexander, and Gardner to move reauthorization forward, yet 
again today, the authorization for LWCF will expire tonight. The 
Continuing Resolution did not include a reauthorization for LWCF.
  Because LWCF is funded through royalties generated from offshore 
energy development, it is a fundamental tool to help preserve and 
protect Montanans' opportunity to enjoy hunting, fishing, and outdoor 
recreation. In fact, during the August recess while I was back home in 
Montana, this is where I was: On the public lands of Montana. This is 
the Beartooth Wilderness area. This is my wife Cindy and our dog Ruby. 
I have my fly rod on my back. This is, in fact, up near Granite Peak, 
Montana's highest peak. That is over 10,000 feet where that picture was 
taken. It was a chance to enjoy our public lands--something that is an 
absolute treasure for the people of Montana and the people of our great 
country.
  LWCF keeps family ranches in the family and working. It is a 
fundamental tool that preserves and protects our opportunities to enjoy 
hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. It keeps forests in 
productive use through the Forest Legacy Program, as in the Haskill 
Basin where my good friend Chuck Roady of Stoltz Land and Lumber works.
  That is why it is so disappointing that reauthorization was not 
included in the CR we voted on today.
  Under the current CR, LWCF will be funded, as will the rest of the 
Federal Government, through December 11. LWCF will be funded at fiscal 
year 2015 levels and all projects will continue as planned. However, 
any new deposits into the fund will stop tomorrow, on October 1.
  I have heard from many Montana businesses, outfitters, and guides who 
love the outdoors and are very concerned about the program's lapse in 
authorization. These small businesses rely on it for public access to 
Montana's treasured public lands for outdoor recreation which supports 
millions of dollars of revenue and hundreds of jobs for our State.
  Like Eric Grove of Great Divide Cyclery in Helena who has built his 
mountain bike business around the South Hills Trail System outside of 
Helena which was facilitated by LWCF. There are many other small 
businesses such as Eric's in Montana.
  Before being elected to the Senate, before coming to Congress, I 
spent more than 12 years growing a technology company in Bozeman. We 
were able to attract quality employees not only because we offered 
good-paying salaries, but also because of Montana's unparalleled 
quality of life. In fact, our slogan was ``work where you also like to 
play.'' The LWCF is a critical tool that facilitates recreation on our 
public lands, allowing Montana businesses to attract world class 
employees. We can't let it slip away.
  I remind the Members of the Senate, we passed the reauthorization of 
LWCF. We have that in the bipartisan energy bill that passed the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee this year. I hope for cooperation from 
our friends across the aisle to bring that to the floor for a vote and 
move it forward in regular order, which is the way the Senate should 
operate.
  Now I wish to pause and yield to my distinguished colleague from the 
great State of New Hampshire, Senator Kelly Ayotte, who is also a big 
supporter of LWCF. I am glad she has come to the floor today and is 
joining me in our fight to make sure we keep LWCF reauthorized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his 
incredible support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I love the 
picture showing the Senator from Montana and his wife because, just 
like Montana, in my home State of New Hampshire, there are so many 
beautiful places to hike. We have the White Mountain National Forest 
and places where the Land and Water Conservation Fund has made such a 
difference in giving anyone an opportunity to ensure the use of our 
public lands. In fact, having been born in New Hampshire and having 
grown up there, I have so many fond memories of my childhood of hikes 
in our beautiful forests in New Hampshire.
  Without the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we would not have been 
able to do--at this point there have been 650 individual acquisition 
projects in the State of New Hampshire that have been supported by this 
incredible fund. In fact, one of my favorite things to do--as we think 
about the important work that the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
does, it is in our forests such as the White Mountain National Forest, 
but it is also in our cities. I live in Nashua, NH. It is our second 
largest city. We have Mines Falls Park, which is a real jewel right in 
the middle of the city. In the mornings, when I am in New Hampshire, my 
favorite thing to do is get up early and go for a run through these 
parks that are beautiful with forested areas in the middle of the city 
that so many people in Nashua enjoy every single day, including myself 
and my children. As I am running along, I see so many Granite Staters 
who are taking a beautiful walk in the morning in the beautiful woods 
in the second largest city in New Hampshire.
  So as Senator Daines has said, I am very disappointed that we did not 
include the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 
the continuing resolution. Within hours, the authorization for LWCF 
expires, so I believe we should act immediately to reauthorize this 
program. We should be permanently reauthorizing this program. That is 
what I have supported in legislation so that we are not in this 
position and in this situation again in the future.
  It is important to understand that the funds that go to LWCF under 
the law were supposed to be there from leasing revenues from oil and 
gas leasing that were supposed to be specially dedicated for this 
purpose of giving the American people more access to public lands and 
preserving our natural beauty. Yet, historically, unfortunately, this 
money has been diverted, and not all of it has gone to the purpose for 
which it was collected, which is a classic Washington move. That is why 
I would like to see the funds go to where they were designated. I would 
like to see reauthorization of this important program because there is 
bipartisan support for reauthorizing it and for preserving our great 
outdoors for everyone to enjoy.
  There have been thousands and thousands of acres in New Hampshire 
that have been preserved and protected for people to be able to use for 
all kinds of outdoor recreation in our State. In New Hampshire, as in 
Montana, the outdoor industry is important to the economy and to who we 
are in the ``live free or die'' State. In fact, if we look at what the 
outdoor recreation industry generates, it is $4.2 billion in consumer 
spending in our State annually, which directly supports 49,000 New 
Hampshire jobs. In addition to that, the Outdoor Industry Association 
estimates that at least 76 percent of Granite Staters participate in 
outdoor recreation each year, but that doesn't surprise me. Having been 
born in New Hampshire, having grown up there, I love our State, and the 
great outdoors is such an important part of our State. People in New 
Hampshire love to go hiking, fishing, hunting, and use all types of 
recreation in enjoying the beauty of our great State.
  Protecting our outdoor spaces is not a partisan issue. We need to 
work together to ensure the preservation of our environment for future 
generations to enjoy. As the mother of a second grader and a fifth 
grader, a big part of my kids' life too is enjoying the beauty of New 
Hampshire. I know that if we reauthorize the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, not only in New Hampshire but across this country, 
we will continue to preserve the beauty of our country and the open 
spaces so that everyone can enjoy them and get the exercise and be 
healthy and enjoy the clean, fresh air they have an opportunity to 
breathe, as well as our beautiful forests and beautiful lands in this 
country.
  LWCF also has funds granted to the Forest Legacy Program, which has 
helped conserve New Hampshire's forests, supporting our forest products 
industry, and aiding wildlife preservation, to make sure we have 
healthy, working forests, which is so important to our forest industry.

[[Page S7024]]

  I call on my colleagues to act immediately to reauthorize this 
essential program, which has helped preserve the beauty of New 
Hampshire and our Nation. This is one that I hope, with pending 
legislation we bring to the floor, we will include a vote on 
reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Our country is 
beautiful, and this money was specially designated for this purpose. We 
should stop diverting it. We should continue to use it for this very 
purpose so that everyone can enjoy the great outdoors and the beauty of 
the United States of America.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Ayotte for her 
great comments and for speaking as well about her heritage that has 
been passed down in New Hampshire.
  In this picture, this is not a selfie that was taken with a selfie 
stick. The reason we happened to have this picture is that we had our 
son along. Our son took that picture of my wife Cindy, our dog Ruby, 
and me.
  These are lands that I hiked in when I was a little boy, when my 
parents introduced me to the public lands of Montana wilderness areas. 
Outdoor heritage is an important part of who we are as Americans, as is 
the importance of preserving and protecting our clean water and our 
clean air.
  I know our States' Governors don't want this program to lapse either. 
In fact, in a letter sent yesterday from the National Governors 
Association, they stated that a lapse in authorization would create 
uncertainties for our States.
  We can still do the right thing. We can still reauthorize this 
important program.
  There was an appropriations bill that was passed which gave us 
funding at the same level we had from last year, at $306 million. It is 
short of where I would like to have it, and I know it is short of where 
Senator Ayotte would like to see it funded, but at least we held our 
funding consistent with where we were at last year.
  The energy committee, through the Energy Modernization Act, had the 
reauthorization provisions in it. That would permanently reauthorize 
the program.
  So there are a lot of options on the table to get this done. We can 
still do the right thing. We need to double down our efforts and 
reauthorize this most important program. I am a proud cosponsor of the 
multiple-piece legislation to make the LWCF permanent and the fight to 
reauthorize this program. In fact, I am the only Republican member on 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to cosponsor S. 338, 
Senator Burr's legislation, that will secure a permanent solution for 
LWCF.
  Permanent reauthorization of LWCF is also included in the Senate 
Energy Policy Modernization Act that we just talked about. It passed 
the committee on a large bipartisan vote. In the coming days I think 
the momentum behind reauthorization is only going to grow stronger. We 
have that evidenced here today as I am joined by a number of my 
colleagues who support the LWCF, and we are not going to let this 
conversation die. We are going to continue to fight for the permanent 
reauthorization of LWCF. It is a tool for public access. It is a tool 
to ensure that Montanans and the American people can have access to the 
public lands.
  I am hopeful the momentum will lead the House to prioritize 
reauthorization in the near future. It is vital that we permanently 
reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund and not allow 
reauthorization to lapse. We need to get this reauthorization passed 
and on the President's desk.
  I see that another supporter of LWCF, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. 
Lamar Alexander, has joined us in this colloquy. I am glad to have 
Senator Alexander here and look forward to his comments on LWCF.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I salute Senator Daines. Since his 
arrival in the Senate, he has been a strong fighter for the great 
American outdoors, which he enjoys so much in the beautiful State of 
Montana.
  He and I were talking not long ago about his next hunting trip. One 
thing that unites us on both sides of the aisle and unites Americans is 
the great American outdoors. I often say that Egypt has its pyramids 
and Italy has its art; England has its history and we have the great 
American outdoors.
  One of the best ideas we have had in the government to support, 
protect, and conserve the great American outdoors for the benefit of 
all Americans is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It was first 
proposed in the 1960s by the Commission headed by Laurance Rockefeller. 
The Commission recommended a number of conservation issues. The idea 
was very simple. It was to say that when we have an environmental 
burden, we should have an environmental benefit. If we are going to 
drill for oil offshore, for example, that is an environmental burden. 
Let's take some of those revenues and use it for an environmental 
benefit. So we have, since that time in the 1960s, money for the 
Federal Government and for State and local governments to conserve 
important parts of America.
  I know in our State of Tennessee we celebrated just in the last few 
weeks the final acquisition of the Rocky Fork tract, about 10,000 acres 
in Unicoi and Greene Counties, which was a national priority of the 
Forest Service. It provides great opportunities for Tennesseans to go 
hiking, to go hunting, and to go fishing. Those are the kinds of things 
we like to do in our State. We don't have a lot of protected land like 
they do in the Western States, and this was something the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund helped us to do.
  In the 1980s President Reagan asked me to chair the President's 
Commission on Americans Outdoors. I worked with Gil Grosvenor, Chairman 
of the National Geographic Society; Patrick Noonan, the founder of The 
Conservation Fund; and others. Our recommendation included full funding 
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and continuing to tie it to 
some of the proceeds from offshore oil drilling.
  In the Energy bill 9 years ago, when Senator Domenici was chairman of 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we actually made mandatory 
a little bit of funding from the offshore drilling in the Gulf of 
Mexico into the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
But, we need to recognize the broad support for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, pass Senator Burr's bill, the Senator from North 
Carolina who has fought tirelessly to permanently reauthorize the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, and then we need to appropriate $900 
million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and gradually set 
aside those special areas of our country that deserve to be protected.
  I am here to say that even though it expires today, I am very hopeful 
we can take some action very quickly to extend it at least temporarily 
and that soon we will have a chance to do what Senator Burr and Senator 
Daines proposed and something I proposed--and have supported during my 
entire adult life.
  I see the Senator from Maine. I know of her interest in conservation 
and the outdoors. We need to get this done. The American people expect 
us to do it, and I fully support it.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DAINES. I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee for his 
leadership and unwavering commitment to the LWCF through the many 
years.
  We are also joined by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. Senator 
Collins comes from the beautiful State of Maine and shares a passion 
for the outdoors. I am grateful to have Senator Collins speak on behalf 
of the LWCF.
  Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  It is such a pleasure to join my colleagues in supporting legislation 
that would provide a short-term extension for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, and I think you can see by the breadth of the number 
of Senators on the floor on the Republican side of the aisle supporting 
this extension that this program has widespread support from Montana to 
North Carolina, to Tennessee, to New Hampshire, to the great State of 
Maine. All of us have come together to urge the Senate not to allow 
this important conservation and recreational program to expire.

[[Page S7025]]

  It was 50 years ago that the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
established America's most successful conservation and recreation 
program. The fund was designed to assure that outdoor recreation lands 
would be secured on a pay-as-you-go basis for future generations. As we 
mark this anniversary, it is inconceivable to me that we would allow 
this successful and valuable program to expire.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is arguably our most important 
and successful program of this type. There is nothing else like it, and 
it has widespread bipartisan support. While the funding for this 
program could continue to be appropriated beyond the September 30 
expiration date, the authority to collect new revenue into the fund 
would expire. So we must act quickly today to reauthorize the LWCF so 
we do not lose the important connection between the funding stores for 
this conservation program and the program itself.
  Investments in this landmark conservation program expand assets to 
the outdoors to all Americans. We are living in a time where so many 
children and so many teenagers are spending all of their time inside 
before computer screens and tablets and iPhones. This is the program 
that helps ensure that they have access to recreational activities 
outside--the great American outdoors. The Land and Water Conservation 
Fund has created numerous outdoor recreational opportunities in every 
single State in the Nation and 98 percent of the counties across our 
great country. It is funding that will open key areas for hunting, 
fishing, and other recreational access to support our working forests 
and ranches, to acquire inholdings and protect critical lands in 
national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, Civil War 
battlefields, and other Federal areas that are so special to our 
heritage, and to support State and local projects from ball parks to 
recreational trails.
  If you have a bike trail, a ball park or a hiking path in your 
community, it may well have been constructed with funds from the Land 
and Water Conservation Program. I support the permanent reauthorization 
of the program that has been introduced by Senator Burr and believe 
that Congress has an obligation to make good on the promise that was 
made to the American people back in 1964 to take the proceeds from 
natural resource development and invest a portion in conservation and 
outdoor recreation.
  The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has favorably 
reported a bipartisan bill that would permanently extend the program. A 
short-term extension is needed now to provide the time over the next 
few weeks for us to work together to achieve that permanent 
authorization and consistent funding for this program and to help 
ensure that the fund plays the strongest possible role in helping to 
revitalize local communities for another 50 years.
  I remain committed to working with Senator Daines, Senator Burr, and 
the other leaders in this area, along with the bipartisan coalition 
that truly spans the country to support creating a more stable long-
term plan for the LWCF that allows landowners, States, local 
communities, and conservation partners to plan for the future 
recreational and conservation opportunities for our country. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support this 60-day extension.
  Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I thank the Senator from Montana for 
organizing this colloquy and the Senator from North Carolina for his 
leadership in this area.
  Mr. DAINES. I thank the Senator from Maine for those great remarks.
  It is important to get our young people outside--outdoors. In fact, 
this picture was taken about 5 weeks ago by my son with his smartphone. 
The good news is that the smartphone wasn't working because it was so 
far away from cell phone towers, but the camera did work, so he took 
the picture.
  It is important to get out and pass it on to the next generation to 
get our children out on the public lands. The LWCF has an important 
role in ensuring that access and preserving it for generations to come.
  We heard from the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte; from the 
Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander; and the Senator from Maine, Ms. 
Collins. I spoke from Montana. You can see the geographic diversity 
across our entire country to support this program.
  It is only fitting that the Senator from North Carolina is here now, 
Mr. Burr. He has been the leader in permanent reauthorization for LWCF. 
That is why both Senator Collins and I are proud cosponsors of S. 338, 
which would permanently reauthorize the LWCF. I thank the Senator from 
North Carolina, Mr. Burr, for his leadership and what he is doing to 
remove this uncertainty we have today in the LWCF and get it 
permanently reauthorized.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daines and my colleagues who 
have come to the floor and spoken.
  It was my intention to come and ask unanimous consent for the Senate 
to consider a 60-day extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
in terms of its configuration. I will not be doing that. I think we are 
making progress toward unanimous consent in the Senate, which is the 
best way to get things done. So I will refrain from asking for that UC 
at this time.
  If we don't act now, this program which has been successful for over 
50 years will expire today--tonight at midnight. This program has 
delivered on its promise to conserve and enhance our natural landscape.
  LWCF was set up for three reasons; No. 1, to protect areas within our 
national parks' and national forests' existing boundaries. Let me 
emphasize that--the existing boundaries. There are some who claim the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund is only to create new national parks 
or to expand our current national parks. In many cases we have in-
parcels that have been owned by individuals and we have waited for 
generational change for the opportunity to complete that footprint of 
our historic treasures. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is that 
seed money to go in and match it with private dollars to get that in-
parcel and buy it from a generation that also believes it should be 
protected.
  No. 2, it provides the buffers for national trails and parkways, 
wildlife refuges and military battlefield parks--and I would also add 
military bases, such as Fort Bragg.
  Fort Bragg--I call it the ``Pentagon of the Army''--in Fayetteville, 
NC, actually received conservation awards for the last several years 
for how they have treated the buffer zone around active military bases. 
Everybody is in conservation to some degree. It also was designed to 
provide matching grants to States and local governments for working 
forests, State and local parks, as well as recreation projects, what 
Senator Collins talked about.
  A lot of my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol have said: We 
don't want to reauthorize this because it does not do anything. This 
ought to all go to State and local. Boy, I don't know how to do it any 
fairer than to let those who are really involved in conservation every 
day decide where the most valuable leverage of those dollars can go. As 
you notice, I am tongue-twisted because we always have a tendency here 
to say Federal dollars. These are not Federal dollars. These are 
dollars that were designed as royalties of the exploration of the Outer 
Continental Shelf. They should come to about $900 million a year. But 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, when they go through this 
gauntlet of appropriations in Washington, seems to only get somewhere 
between $300 and $400 million a year.
  On a continual basis, they have been cheated from what the American 
people embraced and said: We want you to have this. Imagine, what they 
could have done if they had the money. But that gets thrown into the 
general fund and dissipates. Some have said: You don't need to 
reauthorize this today. There is $20 billion in the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. No, I hate to tell you, America. It is sort of like 
Social Security. We have used that money for something else. There is 
an IOU in there, but it has been designated for general funding 
reasons.
  So, it is important that we not decouple the funding mechanism, which 
is the royalty, from the authorized program. Now, some have said: This 
is a land grab. Let me suggest to my colleagues that this is a land 
solution. This is actually one of the Federal Government programs that 
I can honestly say works. LWCF has supported

[[Page S7026]]

41,000 projects across the country in its life.
  In my State alone, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has protected 
over 900 sites, from the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge to 
Mount Mitchell State Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Pisgah National 
Forest. In North Carolina, outdoor recreation contributes $7.5 billion 
to our State's economy and supports 95,000 jobs. This is not just about 
conservation. It is about the economy.
  It is hard for me to say to somebody from the West that the most 
visited national park in America is the Great Smokies, in Tennessee and 
North Carolina, where most Americans would think it is out where you 
are. The most traveled national treasure, the Blue Ridge Parkway, is 
the entry point to North Carolinas from Virginia. More Americans travel 
that road than any road in our Federal park system.
  Now, let me just suggest that Senator Daines is not the only one that 
has pictures. This is from the Pisgah National Forest, where we have 
many spectacular sites. But without the LWCF, we would not have 
protected this piece--an unbelievable environmental component. Now, 
they get better. This is a recent one--Catawba Falls. It is an LWCF 
success story. It was acquired in 2010 through LWCF money. It made this 
fall open to the public. So for my detractors who say LWCF shuts it 
down, it becomes part of the Federal Government, and nobody can use it, 
no, LWCF's mission is to open up treasures such as this for the use of 
the American people.
  In the case that we put it to States, hopefully States convert that 
to access for hunters and to recreational use. As to the last one, I 
don't think Senator Daines has one that looks like this--Chimney Rock. 
How do you not protect something like this? Chimney Rock is in North 
Carolina. The site is a good example of a project that will be 
suspended if LWCF is not renewed. It is probably one of North 
Carolina's most loved monuments, but expansion of the site will halt 
eventually if LWCF does not receive support.
  You see, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is dollar-for-dollar 
the most effective government program that has ever existed. It is hard 
for me to believe, with as much support on both sides of the aisle as 
this fund has, that it would be so difficult to get a unanimous consent 
request. But I am committed to work with my colleagues who still have 
reservations for some reasons to try to work through those reservations 
and then to shorten our differences with our brethren on the House side 
who might not see this in the same light as I do.
  But I think when most Americans see a picture like this, they see 
something to save, something to protect, something that is enjoyed not 
by Federal bureaucrats but by average folks who travel there over the 
Blue Ridge Parkway and end up at Chimney Rock, who go on the Blue Ridge 
Parkway and end up at the Great Smokies. They were not acquired because 
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but they are protected, in 
many ways, because of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  So I urge my colleagues, let's have a unanimous consent request. 
Let's pass this and send it to the House, and let's at some point in 
the not-too-distant future talk about a permanent reauthorization of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This should not be an exercise 
that we have every predetermined number of years. It should last as 
long as the revenue source, which is our ability to explore our natural 
resources. Those natural resources fund the preservation of these 
historic and significant landmarks of America.
  I thank the Senator for his time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DAINES. I want to thank the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. 
Burr. I thank you for your leadership on the LWCF. Senator Burr has 
been truly out in front, working first to get the temporary 
reauthorization here as a bridge until we get the permanent 
reauthorization. I appreciate the comments. See, this is not about a 
land grab. This is about a land solution, as Senator Burr said. It 
allows us, in many cases, to provide access to public lands that we 
currently do not have access to because they might be landlocked 
through private holdings.
  So thank you, Senator Burr. In conclusion, I am hopeful that the 
momentum that we are seeing here in the Senate will lead the House to 
prioritize the LWCF reauthorization in the near future. It is vital 
that we permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
and do not allow authorization to lapse. We have less than 11 hours and 
this program will lapse. We need to get reauthorization passed, and get 
it on the President's desk, and get this signed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to join several Senators who have 
come to the floor to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I 
know Senator Burr and Senator Daines have spoken, and I think there 
were several others who spoke about this very worthwhile program that 
has been on the books for a very long time. I come to the floor to say 
I support their effort. I support the idea that we should be able to 
get a unanimous consent request so that we can extend the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  I thought I would talk first a little bit about the history because 
my father, Stewart Udall, was one of the people who actually worked 
with Congress to create the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the 
1960s. He worked with Wilbur Mills in the House of Representatives and 
a number of other Members of Congress. The idea at the time was, here 
we had this resource--offshore oil--and we were taking a resource that 
was irreplaceable--the idea that once you use it, it is gone--and we 
were saying: Why don't we dedicate some of those resources to the 
permanent protection of land, of parks, for the American people? So 
that was the idea behind it, and it was endorsed by a nationwide 
commission of very distinguished Americans who said: We aren't keeping 
up with the amount of parks and other public lands that our growing 
population needs. We all knew that the American people loved their 
parks, and the same is true today.
  So this outdoor commission recommended something along this line of, 
how do we make sure we are able to create these great national parks 
and create parks at the State and the city level? So the fund was 
designed in such a way that there was a State-fund side of the program, 
and on the State-fund side of the program, you could take dollars that 
were dedicated to the State program, which would be Federal dollars, 
and match them at the State and local level and create a Federal park. 
So in most of your communities today, if you drive around and you see a 
beautiful park, if you go and look at the plaque, most of the time that 
plaque will say: Done in cooperation with the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  What local people have told me many times is that in the planning 
they do to try to create a new park--they have an area that is growing 
or they have a housing development that has gone in--they say: How do 
we get the money? Well, if they know there is going to be a Federal 
match and they are able to get the Federal money, they can do the 
planning. They can go to their local taxpayers, raise some funds, and 
then pool the money together and get a city park or a State park, that 
kind of thing.
  As everybody knows well, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 
funded Federal purchases of land, from our national parks, to national 
wildlife refuges, to many other public lands. For example, in my home 
State of New Mexico, we have 14 national parks. We have a brandnew 
national park that was just put into place within the last year called 
the Valles Caldera National Preserve, which is one of the newest parks 
in the country. Here you have about 89,000 acres which is a collapsed 
volcano that has been used in many different ways in the past but now 
is available for hunting, fishing, camping, and all sorts of outdoor 
recreation. So this is something the people of New Mexico know.
  I think the crucial point to make here is the economic one. We don't 
have any doubt that investments in parks, wildlife refuges, and other 
Federal lands create many jobs outside those parks. They create jobs in 
the gateway communities, but they also create jobs in the outdoor 
industry. We have seen, with two new national

[[Page S7027]]

monuments that were just created in New Mexico, big economic growth 6 
months and a year after the creation of those monuments. So this is 
about the economic integrity of our communities.
  In less than 11 hours right now on the clock, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund could expire. It has been in place for decades, and 
we could let it expire because of the gridlock here. Well, we aren't 
going to do that. And why aren't we going to do that? Because we have 
Members on both sides of the aisle who care about this.
  I would like to say a word about Senator Burr. I have worked with him 
very well. He is a member of the International Conservation Caucus in 
the Senate, and he has taken a real interest in conservation around the 
world and has been a real leader. Senator Burr has been out front on 
this land and water conservation issue. He has led a letter to various 
officials that 53 Senators signed that said: We want the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund reauthorized before it expires. He has shown real 
leadership to make sure that as we approach this deadline, this doesn't 
happen.
  Senator Burr was on the floor just a few minutes ago. I want to say 
to him and the other Senators who worked with him that I think it is 
very important that we continue to work in these last 11 hours to make 
sure the Land and Water Conservation Fund is continued. Obviously, what 
we are trying to do right now is a 60-day period, but, as Senator Burr 
mentioned, the important thing is permanent reauthorization of the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. Then the big task we need to get these 
Presidential candidates to face is we have to have the funding for it. 
It always had a funding level that was reasonable and rational and 
supported, but unfortunately we don't ever meet the funding level. The 
money is there. The money is in the fund. It comes out every year from 
the offshore oil resources into the fund; it is just taken for other 
purposes. So we have to make sure we get a permanent Land and Water 
Conservation Fund reauthorization and the funds in that are going to 
really make a difference.
  Mr. President, I see my good friend Senator Casey from Pennsylvania. 
I know he is waiting in line, and I am sure you are going to hear some 
wise words from him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the American people have gotten used to 
hearing bad news about their health care ever since the Democrats 
passed ObamaCare. It seems that each and every day there is another 
headline about another way that the health care law is hurting people. 
Last Wednesday there was a remarkable amount of bad news in just 1 day. 
The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, September 23, had this headline: 
``Health Insurers Defend Deals.''
  If you flip the page over, the bottom half of that page has ``Cost of 
a family health plan tops $17,000'' with a chart of rising costs. The 
annual cost of an employer family health coverage, the portion paid by 
workers, continues to go up--1 day, one page. The top article is about 
a wave of health insurance company mergers which we have been seeing 
recently.
  Now, the President said that his health care law would actually 
increase competition among insurance companies. But just like a lot of 
the other predictions that President Obama made, this one has not come 
true. You know, back in June, the insurance company Aetna announced 
plans to buy Humana. Then the company Anthem decided to buy Cigna.
  Now, if these mergers are approved and continue to go through, it 
means that the five largest insurance companies in the United States 
will now be down to three. The President said there would be more 
competition. Well, Americans are about to have much less competition. 
It is not only because of the giant insurance company mergers. You 
know, ObamaCare also set up health co-ops in 24 States. Now, these co-
ops were supposed to add competition to help keep prices down.
  Taxpayers put up almost $2.5 billion to help these companies get 
started. Over the past few months, what has happened? These co-ops have 
been dropping like flies. Just the other day, regulators in New York 
shut down the largest ObamaCare co-op in the country. Why? Because it 
lost so much money. Now 215,000 New Yorkers have fewer options for 
where they can go to buy Washington-mandated insurance. This is the 
fourth co-op to fail in the past few months. Another one failed right 
before it. It had not even enrolled a single person. Think of that: 
Government loans set up a co-op that doesn't enroll anyone and closes 
shop. There is only one co-op of the original 24 that is actually 
making any money so it can stay in business.
  Look, the American people know they are not getting the increased 
competition the President has promised. They also know they are not 
getting the lower prices the President has promised.
  Another article came out last Wednesday that talked about how much 
more Americans are paying for their health care. This was a September 
23 New York Times headline: ``Health insurance deductibles rising 
faster than wages.'' ``Health insurance deductibles rising faster than 
wages.'' Here it is--unaffordable care. This is from 2010 to 2015. 
Wages are up 10 percent, premiums up 24 percent, deductibles up 67 
percent. The article describes a recent study by the Kaiser Family 
Foundation. According to Kaiser, health insurance premiums for a single 
person have gone up more than twice as fast as people's earnings since 
ObamaCare became law.
  We are talking about all of the people that get their health 
insurance through work, which is about 150 million Americans. This is 
not just a small group of people. This is all of the people that get 
their insurance through work. Deductibles have gone up almost seven 
times as much as earnings. It is an enormous hit to the finances of 
American families. The article talked about how these high deductibles 
are hurting a woman named Beth Landrum. She is 52. She is a teacher.
  The articles says that about 2 years ago, ``Beth saw the deductible 
on her family's plan increase to $3,300 a year.'' She is a teacher. She 
is 52--$3,300 a year for the deductible under Obama's health care law.
  So a couple years ago was when a lot of these ObamaCare mandates were 
really starting to bite. The woman survived a brain tumor 10 years ago. 
So here she is. She has insurance. She had a brain tumor 10 years ago, 
successfully treated, but she is putting off having the MRI that has 
been recommended by her doctor. She says: ``My doctor's mad at me 
because I haven't had the MRI.''
  They want to see if there is any recurrence of the tumor. She said 
that she and her husband need to save up money to pay for the test, to 
pay for the deductible--the $3,300 deductible. She has health insurance 
under ObamaCare, and she can no longer afford to get care--coverage 
without care. The President continues to ignore this fact about his 
unaffordable health care law. You cannot afford to get care, not under 
ObamaCare.
  Now, President Obama promised that people would save $2,500 per 
family per year under the health care law. But average premiums are up 
nearly $4,000 since the law passed. Does the President really believe 
it is affordable? The new study by Kaiser only looked at insurance that 
people get, as I say, through their jobs. It did not look at the 
deductibles people are paying when they buy their own insurance through 
the ObamaCare exchanges.
  President Obama said that these plans would be cheaper than a cell 
phone bill. That is what he said--cheaper than a cell phone--easier to 
use than Amazon for shopping on the web and cheaper than a cell phone. 
Well, let's take a look at the article in the New York Times. That is 
not how it has worked out for Rebecca Bullard.
  Now, Rebecca is 27. She purchased her plan through her State exchange 
for $129 a month. To get that plan, she had to accept a deductible of 
$6,000. But she has ObamaCare. Oh yeah, the President can say: I did 
her a favor--a $6,000 deductible.

  The article says that when she was worried that she had a cracked 
rib--do you know how she chose to take care of it? She chose to ask 
friends on social media about what to do rather than go to a doctor 
because of the ObamaCare that was actually not worth very much to her. 
That is how concerned she was

[[Page S7028]]

about paying the out-of-pocket costs that ObamaCare brought her. She 
said, ``Now I don't even want to go to the doctor.''
  Is that what the President promised the American people--deductibles 
so high that people don't even want to go to their doctor?
  People may have coverage, but they cannot afford care. It is 
unaffordable under the President's plan and mandates. People are paying 
more and they are getting less. So it is not surprising that this 
administration is starting to worry. They have to figure out how to 
convince people that it is worth signing up for this outrageously 
expensive ObamaCare insurance. That is what the Wall Street Journal 
said in another article on September 23. There is a picture of the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Sylvia Burwell. There is a 
picture of her right here on this page. It says: ``Insuring More People 
Seen as Tough.'' According to this article, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services says that ``this open enrollment is going to be tougher 
than last year.''
  We know it is going to be tough for families who are getting hit with 
higher premiums and other costs. Now, the Obama administration isn't 
worried about these people; what the Obama administration is now 
worried about is how tough it is going to be to sign up enough 
customers for this awful law. You know, by now they were supposed to 
have 21 million people signed up for ObamaCare by next year. Right now 
they have fewer than 10 million. They are not even halfway to where 
they need to be and where they said they would be. What this means is 
if they don't get more young, healthy customers to sign up, this whole 
system is likely to collapse. That is why the Obama administration is 
worried. They are worried about the impacts of their ability to sustain 
this law.
  There is a reason that people haven't signed up. The people who 
haven't signed up yet know this insurance is not a good deal for them. 
It is not good for them personally; it is not worth it. About half of 
the people who still don't have insurance have less than $100 in 
savings. How is someone with less than $100 in savings supposed to pay 
a $6,000 deductible?
  Why won't the President answer these questions? Why won't the 
Democrats come to this floor and answer these questions? I haven't seen 
a Democrat come to address these issues or any of these headlines.
  Look, President Obama promised the American people that his health 
care law would produce lower costs and produce more choice. Instead, he 
has given people fewer choices, more powerful insurance companies, 
higher deductibles, and higher premiums.
  We have had too many of these alarming headlines--and that is in just 
1 day alone--and too much bad news about ObamaCare. The American people 
get it. It is a bad deal for them personally.
  President Obama is a lameduck. He forced a terrible program through 
Congress. It is time for Democrats in Congress to sit down with 
Republicans and start talking about the kinds of health care reforms 
that the American people need, that the American people want, and that 
the American people deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. UDALL. 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. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Federal Perkins Loan Program

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the Perkins 
Loan Program, which we spent some time on yesterday and over the last 
couple of weeks. Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin, who is with us now on 
the floor, has worked so hard on this, as have many others. We have 
more than a quarter of the Senate working together to try and get an 
extension of the Perkins Loan Program.
  Many Americans are familiar with this program. It is one of the best 
ways to guarantee access to higher education for young people across 
the country. We have always said, and I have always said--and we will 
say it again--if young people can learn more now, they will earn more 
later. It is not just a rhyme. There is a direct connection between 
learning and earning in the context of early education as well as 
higher education.
  We need to make sure all students, regardless of their income or the 
circumstances of their birth, have a fair shot to go to college and 
have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Perkins allows 
those students to do just that. These are fixed-rate, low-interest 
loans meant for students with exceptional financial needs. Because 
these loans are part of a revolving fund, as one student pays them off, 
another student can use the dollars to receive a loan.
  By way of example in one State, in Pennsylvania, in the academic year 
2013-2014, some 40,000 students at some 100 colleges and universities 
were able to go to school because of these loans. That 40,000 student 
number in Pennsylvania is a much bigger number nationwide, of course--
almost 540,000. The actual number is 539,000 students.
  So for many students this is the choice between going to college and 
not going at all. It is that stark. For example, the Coalition of 
Higher Education Assistance Organizations tells us that one quarter of 
all loan recipients are from families with incomes less than $30,000 a 
year. Unfortunately, because of inaction here in the Congress, these 
students will be left high and dry if we don't take action.
  I shared a story yesterday of Nikki Ezzolo, who is going to school 
and is a recent graduate of Edinboro University in Northwestern 
Pennsylvania. I mentioned yesterday also Kayla McBride--she is from 
Temple--and I will refer back to her story in a moment. But when we 
consider Nikki's story or Kayla's or so many other young people in 
Pennsylvania or across the country, we have to focus on what our 
priorities are here in the Senate.
  We do have a bipartisan opportunity here. Democrats and Republicans 
are coming together to extend the Perkins Loan Program. By way of 
example, when you consider those students in Pennsylvania, here is what 
it breaks down to when you go institution by institution. This will not 
be a full recitation of all the institutions in Pennsylvania, but here 
are a few. In Pennsylvania, this is what this program could mean for 
individual students and schools: At Temple University, 6,200-some 
students; at Penn State, 3,100; at the University of Pittsburgh, 2,800; 
and at West Chester University, 1,000. So those are the kind of numbers 
just to give a few examples of the impact.
  We know Perkins has been part of our law and part of the life of our 
colleges and universities for decades. Some 30 million Americans have 
benefited. We have to consider what this means for those students, what 
this means for our States and, of course, what it means for the rest of 
the country.
  I know we are going to be having more of a discussion here and 
offering a consent request, so at this time I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, while it appears we will avert a 
government shutdown, another serious deadline with serious consequences 
looms over this body. Tonight, unless the Senate acts by midnight, the 
Federal Perkins Loan Program will expire, impacting the education of 
over one-half million students across America. I am here now to call on 
all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the extension of this 
critical investment in our Nation's students.
  I am not alone in my desire to see us take action instead of creating 
what I would consider another manufactured crisis--a crisis of our own 
making. In fact, we have already seen strong bipartisan support for 
this investment in our future. Senators Portman, Collins, Kirk, Ayotte, 
and Thune have joined with more than 20 Senate Democrats on a 
resolution urging the continuation of the Federal Perkins Loan Program 
supporting low-income students in their pursuit of a higher education.
  Yesterday Senators Collins, Portman, and Ayotte joined me and Senator 
Casey and Senator Murray here on the Senate floor in support of saving 
this program. I am pleased the junior Senator from New Hampshire and 
Senator Casey are here with me now, once again calling to protect this 
incredibly important investment.

[[Page S7029]]

  On Monday, our colleagues in the House of Representatives unanimously 
passed a measure that would extend this student loan program for 1 
year, and I am here to call on my colleagues in the Senate to do the 
same.
  While I look forward to a much broader conversation about improving 
Federal support for students as we look to reauthorize the Higher 
Education Act, we can't sit idly by and watch it expire as America's 
students are left with such uncertainty.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3594

  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3594, which is at the 
desk; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object, rather than making a 
statement, I hope it will be suitable to the Senator from Wisconsin for 
me to make my explanation of why I am objecting after I object. And I 
will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the goal here is to help students. The 
goal here is to find ways to help college students find easier ways to 
apply to a college and to avoid overborrowing. The goal would be to 
give them a year-round Pell grant. The goal would be to simplify the 
application form they have to complete. The goal would be to keep the 
interest rates as low as we can. The goal would be to make it easier to 
repay student loans. That is our goal.
  Our education committee, in which the Senator from Wisconsin and the 
Senator from Pennsylvania are very valuable members, is completing work 
on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act with just those 
goals. We have had eight hearings. We are considering a number of 
bipartisan proposals to, as I said, simplify the grants and loans for 
college, to provide for year-round Pell Grants, to make it easier to 
repay student loans and to discourage overborrowing, which is weighing 
down these students.
  One of the most important of those proposals, which was recommended 
to us by witnesses, is that we should simplify the process so there is 
one grant and one loan. That would be a Pell grant and a loan. In the 
last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2008, Congress 
agreed to sunset the Perkins Loan Program, and that is what is 
happening now. I support sunsetting this program, although students who 
currently receive a Perkins loan would continue to do so.
  As I said, our committee is hopefully finishing by the end of the 
year our work on reviewing our student loan programs, including Perkins 
loans. The Perkins loan has a higher interest rate than other 
undergraduate loans. It does not give students the advantage of 
participating in income-based repayment programs--this is available in 
the law for all students receiving Direct Loans which are not affected 
by this discussion--which allow students to pay back their student 
loans at no more than 10 to 15 percent of their disposable income every 
year, and if after 20 to 25 years it is not repaid, it is forgiven. You 
can't get that with a Perkins loan.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, reauthorizing the 
Perkins loan will cost nearly $5 billion over 10 years. Many witnesses 
before our committee have said that $5 billion would be better spent 
paying for more Pell grants, which will be necessary for simplifying 
the student aid application, from authorizing a year-round Pell grant 
and from simplifying the repayment process.
  So the question is, Do you spend the $5 billion for that or do you 
spend it for a program with a higher interest rate and without an 
income based repayment program, and which many of our witnesses said it 
is time for this program to expire? I am one of a bipartisan group of 
Senators who propose we replace the Perkins Loan program with student 
loans that are simpler, have a lower interest rate and more generous 
repayment opportunities.
  We will finish our review of higher education by the end of the year. 
It will be ready for the full Senate. We can look at all the various 
loan programs. We loan more than $100 billion a year. The Perkins Loan 
program is a very small part of that. All those other loan programs are 
still available at a lower rate with a better income based repayment 
program. In the meantime, as I said, students who currently have 
Perkins loans will continue to have them while we continue our work.
  So our goal is to simplify the system, make it easier for students to 
apply for grants and loans, allow them to have year-round Pell grants, 
allow them to not overborrow so much, and to allow them to repay their 
loans back easier. The Perkins loan is not as effective a loan in 
meeting those goals as the other loans that we have.
  So I object at least until we have a chance to further continue our 
review in the Senate education committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that my offer to 
extend the Federal Perkins Loan Program was just blocked by my 
Republican colleague from Tennessee. While I understand and, frankly, I 
share his desire to have a broader conversation about Federal student 
aid as part of the Higher Education Act's reauthorization effort, I do 
not think it is right or fair to end this program today with nothing to 
replace it to the detriment of thousands of students in need.
  I want to mention briefly the issue of the cost of its 
reauthorization because when the decision was made to sunset the 
program, a clawback provision was included that basically collects the 
loan funds back from the institutions that loan it out. It is actually 
a revolving fund--which I will return to later--which makes it such a 
fiscally responsible loan program.

  When I travel around my home State of Wisconsin, one of the things I 
hear the most about these days from my constituents is their 
frustration that Congress isn't doing enough to make higher education 
more affordable and more accessible. Yet, today, the fact that we just 
saw a single Senator stand up and reject a bipartisan and commonsense 
measure to do just that is, frankly, a perfect example of why my 
constituents and the American people are so upset with Washington.
  Since 1958 the Federal Perkins Loan Program has been successful in 
helping Americans access affordable higher education with low-interest 
loans for students who cannot borrow or afford more expensive private 
student loans. In Wisconsin, the program provides more than 20,000 low-
income students with more than $41 million in aid. But the impacts of 
this program aren't just isolated to the Badger State. In fact, the 
Federal Perkins Loan Program aids over half a million students with 
financial need each year, and it does that across 1,500 institutions of 
higher education.
  Schools originate, service, and collect the fixed-interest-rate 
loans. And what is more, institutions maintain loans available for 
future students because it is managed within a revolving fund. Since 
the program's creation, institutions have invested millions of their 
own dollars, their own funds, into the program. And in addition to 
making higher education accessible for low-income students, the program 
serves as an incentive for people who wish to go into public service by 
offering targeted loan cancellations for specific professions in areas 
of national need, such as teaching, nursing, and law enforcement.
  As a Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee and as a Senator representing a State with such a rich 
history of higher education, it is one of my top priorities to fight to 
ensure that the Federal Perkins Loan Program continues for generations 
to come. But, unfortunately, as we just saw, a single Senator stood up 
today and said no to students across America who ask for nothing more 
than an opportunity to pursue their dreams--students such as Benjamin 
Wooten, a 2004 UW-Madison graduate and small business owner from Genoa 
City. His family fell on really hard times when he was attending 
school. Ben told me:

       The fact that I didn't have to pay interest while I was in 
     school was a huge help to me.
       I was attending school full time, working and trying to 
     live on a meager budget. . . . I am a grateful and successful 
     small business owner.

[[Page S7030]]

       I paid my loan off in full about a year ago with pride and 
     excitement.
       I know that when I repaid my loan it was returned to a 
     revolving fund and will be lent back out to other students in 
     need.

  Today this body has stood up and said no to students such as Brittany 
McAdams, a medical school student with a passion for pediatrics and a 
passion for helping the most vulnerable among us--something that 
doesn't always yield a significant paycheck. Brittany said to me:

       I want to be able to treat patients from all socioeconomic 
     levels, despite their ability to pay.
       In other words, I want to do important work for less money 
     than most other physicians. . . . The Perkins Loan is so 
     valuable because it does not collect interest while we are in 
     school.
       To me, that says the government believes that what I am 
     doing with my life is important.
       That our country needs more doctors willing to tackle 
     primary care.
       That while we need to pay for our graduate degrees, that 
     they are going to do their part to make it just a bit easier.
       The Perkins Loan makes me feel valued and respected and 
     even more passionate about my work.

  Finally, I am disappointed that, because of this body's inaction here 
today, we are letting down students such as Nayeli Spahr. Nayeli was 
raised by a single immigrant mother who worked two full-time jobs. She 
attended ten different schools in three different States before she 
finished high school. Without the Federal Perkins Loan Program, Nayeli 
said her opportunity to get a college education would have been ``an 
illusionary dream.'' Today Nayeli is the first in her family to finish 
college and is now in her last year of medical school and is planning 
to work with those in underserved urban communities. She finished by 
telling me:

       The Perkins loan program helped me reach this point.
       And, its existence is essential to provide that opportunity 
     for other young adults wanting to believe in themselves and 
     to empower their communities to be better.
       Please save it!

  We don't have to look very far to find the very significant impact 
this investment has on American students. There are thousands of 
stories like the few I just shared, representing thousands of students 
who are still benefiting from the opportunities provided to them by 
this hugely successful program.
  I am disappointed that the bipartisan effort I have led has been 
obstructed. I will continue to fight to extend this support for 
America's students, and I hope the senior Senator from Tennessee will 
change his mind so we can find a way to show the half million students 
who depend on the Federal Perkins Loans that we stand with them and are 
committed to helping them build a stronger future for themselves and 
our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come today to the floor first to thank 
the Senator from Tennessee for taking my call last night as we 
discussed his objection to extending this, which, from my standpoint, 
for the many reasons my college from Wisconsin stated, I think is a 
reasonable proposal to extend the Perkins Loan Program for a 1-year 
time period. But I certainly understand some of the concerns my 
colleague from Tennessee has with this particular loan program--and, 
quite honestly, all the loan programs--often in terms of the 
affordability of college loans.
  But as the Senator from Tennessee stated, we share the same goal 
here. Everyone in this body really does want every American to have the 
opportunity to get a good education, to get the tools so they can lead 
a productive life and build a good life for themselves and their 
families. That is a goal we all share, and we understand the importance 
of education and the affordability of it--making it accessible to every 
American. But that is the point I want to make here.
  We held a pretty interesting hearing in our Senate Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and we really took a look 
at these student loan programs and the potential effect on the 
affordability of college. In testimony today, we certainly found out 
that the student loan program has exploded over the last 20 years, from 
a level of about $100 billion in 1994 to now $1.3 trillion. On average, 
students graduating with a 4-year degree are about $29,000 in debt. 
That is a concern. One of the reasons we are concerned about 
affordability is that the cost of college--again, in testimony--has 
increased somewhere between 2.5 and 2.8 times the rate of inflation 
over the last few number of decades. I think it is a legitimate 
question to ask: Why? What is so different about what colleges and 
universities spend their money on that the cost would increase 2.5 to 
2.8 times the rate of inflation?
  We had some explanation provided to our committee today, and it does 
involve Federal Government involvement, for example, in the 
accreditation process. We had one witness state that the supply of 
colleges since the mid-1970s has increased about 14 percent, and yet, 
because we want to have more access for college, the demand for college 
education has increased 111 percent. Part of the problem, in terms of 
the increasing cost of college, is the fact that we are creating 
barriers to entry through the accreditation process. So I think we have 
to take a very serious look at that.
  Another thing that was quite troubling during our hearing is that 
there have been a number of studies, including one from the Federal 
Reserve Bank in New York, one from Northeastern University, that show 
that 40 to 50 percent of recent college graduates are either unemployed 
or underemployed, which means they are getting these college degrees 
and are not being able to put them to good use. That is something we 
should really be taking a look at.
  Again, I think it was a reasonable proposal to extend the Perkins 
Loan Program for another year for many of the reasons my colleague from 
Wisconsin stated. A lot of people are counting on these. But I fully 
respect what the Senator from Tennessee is trying to do--to consolidate 
these programs, to make them more streamlined, to address the 
affordability issue--which really is something that we are really 
ignoring far too often in this body as we take the Federal Government 
and we involve it more and more in higher education. We really have to 
take a serious look at what the Federal Government's involvement has 
actually been in terms of the unintended consequence of making college 
less accessible because we have made it so much more unaffordable.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for taking my phone call 
and listening to my viewpoint. And I certainly appreciate his 
dedication to trying to achieve that same goal that we all share--
providing the accessibility for every American to have a good quality 
education so they can build a good life for themselves and their 
family.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I have great respect for the senior 
Senator from Tennessee, but I disagree with him on his objection to 
extending the Perkins Loan Program for 1 year. This is why I disagree. 
I very much appreciate the work he has laid out and the goals he has 
laid out in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. Certainly, I think 
we all want to make sure it is easier for students to repay their 
loans, and I share the goal of also making college more affordable and 
more accessible for everyone.
  But as I look at this timeframe of where we are with the work that 
will be done by the HELP Committee, which the Senator from Tennessee 
chairs, by the end of the year, this is, unfortunately, what happens 
too often in Washington. With the Perkins Loan Program, 5,000 of our 
students in New Hampshire receive a loan from this program. So it is 
important to 5,000 Granite Staters.
  If we wait until the end of the year and let it lapse, and then the 
Committee does its work, there are so many other pressing things that 
need to be addressed in the Senate--this is pressing too--and if we 
don't get to it, we are in the position where the Perkins loans lapse.
  I appreciate the work done by the HELP Committee--which I hope is 
bipartisan--to address this important issue of making it easier for 
students. But I don't think we should let this program lapse in the 
interim. I think there is a very reasonable position here

[[Page S7031]]

to say, let's extend this program and not leave people hanging out 
there.
  Apparently, the House of Representatives agreed unanimously to extend 
it a year, to give that breathing room, and send over here earlier this 
week the Higher Education Extension Act of 2015, to do that for the 
students who are including the Perkins loan as part of their student 
aid package and, as I understand it, for those for whom this loan makes 
sense--low-income students, vulnerable students, the ones we want to 
fight for here--to make sure they have access to the American dream. 
That is about $2,000 for students who are some of the most financially 
in need.
  I understand there are other loans available. But when you look at a 
student aid package, it is usually a combination of loans, especially 
if you are someone who comes from a background where you aren't able to 
pay for college yourself. I think the reasonable position here would be 
this: Let's extend this; let's provide that certainty while the HELP 
Committee is doing the work that I think we all agree on needs to be 
done to address higher costs, to make it easier for students, to give 
more transparency in this system for students and for parents, and to 
make it easier for students to repay these loans.
  I am here fighting for the 5,000 students in New Hampshire and for 
others like them. I don't want them to be a victim of Washington 
uncertainty or those who come after them for whom the Perkins loans 
make sense. Until we get to this broader discussion, which is an 
important discussion, let's not let this lapse on behalf of those 
students. I think there is a reasonable position that allows the 
important work of the HELP Committee to go forward, but it extends this 
important loan program.
  With all the respect I have for the senior Senator from Tennessee, 
this is something on which I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin and 
others who have said: Let's not leave them hanging on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is 
always eloquent as she is fighting for students in New Hampshire. I 
want to assure her and any of those 5,000 New Hampshire students who 
already have a Perkins loan are not affected by this. In fact, almost 
no students across the country who have a student loan are affected by 
this. There are about $8 billion worth of outstanding Perkins loans out 
of $1.3 trillion in student loans. We are talking about less than 1 
percent of all student loans. We are talking about students that might 
be awarded loans a year from now. No one who currently has a Perkins 
loan is affected by this.
  What is our goal here? Our goal is to help students afford college. 
How do you help students afford college, No. 1, by continuing a program 
that has a higher interest rate than the loan they could get in a 
regular student loan? No, the Perkins loan rate is higher than the 
interest rate on a Direct Loan that every single undergraduate student 
who applies for federal aid is entitled to. No. 2, by continuing the 
Perkins loan which does not have the income-based repayment program 
offered in the Direct Loan program?
  What is that income-based repayment plan? It says that you can pay 
your loan back over 20 to 25 years, not paying more than 10 percent to 
15 percent of your disposable income each year. If you are a teacher or 
a firefighter or if you have a lower-income position, you are not 
treated the same as someone with a higher income. You pay back less 
because you earn less. If you get to the end of the 20 years and you 
haven't paid it back, your loan is forgiven. That is the law today. 
That is a loan that is available to every single student going to 
college. A low-income student can take advantage of that.
  What we are seeking to do in our discussions--and they are indeed 
bipartisan as are the proposals to change the structure of the loan 
programs--is to say that instead of a combination of student loans, 
which is where you have a whole stack of confusing student loans and 
you pay one to this part of the Federal Government and another to this 
part, you will have one student loan at the lowest possible rate. Under 
our proposal, you will make only one payment to the Federal Government, 
and you will have the advantage of a 20-year repayment. If you haven't 
paid it off, it is forgiven.
  We will simplify your application for that loan from a 108-question 
form, which I can't hold up according to the Senate rules, to 2 
questions, and we will simplify the process for paying it back. That is 
how we are proposing to replace the Perkins Loan program, but we 
haven't made a decision about that.
  We have had eight hearings. I am working with Senator Murray, the 
senior Democrat on the education committee, and other members of the 
committee to make sure that we come to a conclusion. I am not sure what 
conclusion we will come to. But the argument I am making is the same 
argument that so many witnesses before our committee said: Simplify the 
student aid process. You are discouraging low-income kids whose parents 
may never have gone to college. Those parents may say: Ok, you can go 
to college and we will help you, but in your senior year of high school 
you need to fill out this 108-question form requiring information about 
your taxes before you file your tax return. And sorry, you can't use 
your Pell grant year-round.
  After completing college, there is a complex repayment form. The 
program is generous, but it is so complex that you will never use it. 
We are losing millions of students, most of them lower income, most of 
them are the first in their families to go to college, because of the 
complexity of our student aid system. We have bipartisan proposals to 
simplify it, and this is part of that. Instead of getting three Federal 
loans, you get one. You will be able to potentially borrow more, but 
you will get a loan with the lowest rate and a generous income based 
repayment program. Why wouldn't that be a better deal for the students 
we are trying to help? Why would we extend something with a higher rate 
and no generous repayment program? That is the argument here.
  I see no need to rush through the House and the Senate a subject that 
we are considering in our committee--and debating it fully in a 
bipartisan way. We plan to mark up and have ready for the full Senate 
our proposal by the end of the year. I see no need to rush that through 
so fast. Every student with a Perkins loan today still has one 
tomorrow. Those who might apply for one next year will have time to do 
that if for some reason the program is reinstated. They will also be 
able to apply for a Federal loan that now exists with a lower interest 
rate and a better repayment plan. That is my reason for standing here 
today because we are trying to help students afford college by 
simplifying the process of applications and the process of paying their 
loan back. You don't make it easier with a loan with a high interest 
rate, no income based repayment program and a confusing bunch of loans.
  You could come back and say: But this is an additional loan, and that 
would be true. We haven't decided yet exactly how much a full-time 
student may borrow from the Federal Government in our new 
reauthorization. This is a third loan on top of the other two federal 
loans. How many Senators have stood up on this floor and complained 
about the overborrowing of students, about how we have $1 trillion-plus 
of loans outstanding, and about how students can't pay back their 
loans? What we are saying to students is that we don't want to 
encourage you to overborrow. We don't want you borrowing more than you 
can afford. What we want to offer you is a plain, clear, simple 
opportunity to borrow an amount of money at a low interest rate with a 
generous repayment plan, and we want to give the university you are 
attending more latitude in explaining to you whether you can pay that 
back or not. Now they are handcuffed. Who is putting them in handcuffs? 
The federal government is. We have Federal laws that make it hard for 
universities to counsel students about how much to borrow. I don't 
think we are doing students any favor by extending this loan. We are 
not cutting anybody out of a loan who already has one. In fact, we are 
offering all students a low-interest-rate loan.
  The last point I want to make is that it is a revolving fund. It is 
true that the Federal Government has contributed about two-thirds of 
the revolving fund and the universities themselves contribute the rest. 
I heard from university presidents that they find this

[[Page S7032]]

loan useful as they put together their financial aid package. I have 
heard all of that. But for the last number of years, the Federal 
Government hasn't been contributing to the Perkins fund. For the last 
number of years, Congress has said that it is time to sunset the 
Perkins Loan program. Both President Bush and President Obama at one 
time or another have recommended that we sunset the Perkins Loan 
program. Many of the witnesses before our committee said the same 
thing. They said: You are overwhelming these students and their 
families. Give them something simple. Give them something direct. Give 
them one grant. Give them one loan.
  That is our proposal--one grant, one loan, and the loan will be at 
the lowest possible rate--which is currently lower than a Perkins 
loan--with the most generous repayment terms that are responsible. The 
Perkins loan doesn't have those repayment plans. Make it available to 
every single student at an amount that we would agree upon and then 
allow the universities, colleges, and technical schools to be able to 
counsel these students. Don't borrow too much, because a loan is not a 
grant. You can keep a grant. You are going to have to pay back a loan.
  There has even been some talk--and I support the concept--of saying 
to the universities and schools that you are going to have to have some 
skin in the game. If you are one of those schools or universities with 
too great a default rate on your student loans, you will have to pay 
some of the amount borrowed because we want you to take some 
responsibility for it.
  I, actually, am not one of those Americans who is so concerned about 
the amount of student loans outstanding today. I think it is a pretty 
healthy indication in many ways. We have $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion 
in outstanding student loans. We have about $900 billion in outstanding 
car loans. The average student loan for a 4-year graduate is about 
$29,000. The average car loan is about $27,000. Your car will 
depreciate. Your degree will appreciate. Some say it will earn you a 
million dollars more in your lifetime than you would otherwise.
  The unemployment rate in America today for Americans with a 4-year 
degree is 3 percent. The average income for those Americans is in the 
mid-40s. I think it is a pretty good investment if we can say to 
Americans: Go on to the community colleges where the average tuition is 
$3,300--and the average Pell grant is about $3,300--if you are low-
income. For all intents and purposes, it is free today for most low-
income students. Go on and earn that degree and improve your skills. 
That is the way you make it up the ladder in this country. In order to 
help, we will loan you some money at a lower rate with a generous 
repayment term on top of that if you need it. But we are going to take 
steps to make sure we don't loan you more than you can pay back.
  I think that is a pretty good picture of the American dream--the 
unemployment rate of 3 percent, the average income that is almost twice 
what the average total student loan debt of an individual, a chance for 
2 years of community college or any 2-year school if you are low-
income, with the taxpayer paying the average tuition of $3,300. That is 
a pretty good system. We are trying to make it better. But the right 
way to do this is to take all of this discussion that we have had in a 
bipartisan way--all of these things I have talked about have been 
proposed by Democratic Senators and Republican Senators--and finish our 
work in the committee, which is the way our Senate is supposed to work, 
and then recommend to the full Senate what the student loan program 
ought to be. If some Senators want to say that we want to take $5 
billion and for the next 10 years authorize extending the Perkins Loan 
Program--that is what it costs, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office--I am probably going to stand up and say: Let's take that $5 
billion and instead give a year-round Pell grant for students. Let's 
pay for the Pell grants for all those students who are persuaded to go 
to college because we have simplified their application form and their 
repayment form. We are going to have a lot more Pell grants, a lot more 
students getting degrees. If we do, we will have a lot more Americans 
joining the middle class.
  We are all for helping students. We want you to succeed. But my 
argument is that so far I am not persuaded that you succeed more with a 
Perkins loan that has a higher rate and no repayment program than you 
do with a student loan that I have described that is already available 
to you with a lower rate and a generous repayment program. This is a 
healthy debate. It is one we are having in our committee. Actually, I 
am glad it has gotten the attention of enough Senators. We are hearing 
from college presidents all over the country. Soon we will have this 
debate in our full committee and then on the Senate floor. I look 
forward to it, and I think the students of America will benefit from 
the work we are doing in a bipartisan way.

  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I have been 
coming to the floor for 22 weeks now--every time the Senate has been in 
session during this cycle--to address another waste of the week, and 
that is what I am doing here this afternoon.
  The amount of money we would be able to save that has been designated 
as waste, fraud, and abuse has an estimated total of nearly $116 
billion, and though people continue to say we can't cut a dime because 
every dime of taxpayer money is used for an essential function, that is 
simply not true.
  While we have not been able to come forward with what I believe is 
absolutely necessary to stop this continued deficit spending and plunge 
into debt--the larger issues that we will be dealing with later in this 
session--we can at least hopefully stand together and support those 
documented spending waste, fraud, and abuse issues that have been 
presented to us by the various nonpartisan agencies that audit and look 
at how we control our spending.
  Today I will add some more money to that amount by discussing an 
agency called the National Technical Information Service, NTIS. This is 
an agency within the Department of Commerce. It was created during the 
Truman administration to keep all the reports produced by the Federal 
Government in a central location and make them available to the 
American public through sale. The idea here was that various research 
papers, and other studies which were conducted by various agencies in 
the government, would be centrally located in one place and that the 
American people would have access to that research and information. 
They had to pay for the receipt of that, and it was a modest pay-for, 
but the money they paid for that was to be used to pay for the 
administrative costs of storing this information and providing it and 
making it available for people. Frankly, it was a good idea. It was the 
only way we could truly access that. It had important information that 
the government could access as well.
  Times have changed. Obviously, the way we store information and the 
way we make information available to people is entirely different than 
it was back during the Truman administration some 70 years ago. Today 
the American people access and conduct research using a variety of 
tools and methods, largely online and largely for free. The abundance 
of free information has obviously greatly decreased the need for the 
NTIS.
  In fact, last year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, found 
that three-quarters of the documents added to the NTIS collection in 
the past 20 years can be found elsewhere, and 95 percent of it can be 
found for free by using a basic search on Google.
  When testifying before the Senate, the Government Accountability 
Office said ``the legislation that established NTIS requires it to be 
financially self-sustaining to the fullest extent feasible. However, 
the increasing availability of the information that NTIS collects and 
disseminates--primarily through the Web--has called the service's basic 
statutory function into question.''
  Well, that is a mild way of saying: Look, this is an outdated, 
antiquated way of providing benefits to the American people to get 
these scientific papers and research. They no longer have to go through 
NTIS to get this information. It is available for free.

[[Page S7033]]

  The irony here is that if you do dial up NTIS on their Web site, a 
large message comes up--first thing on the screen--saying ``Before 
purchasing from NTIS, you may want to check for free access from'' and 
then they list those Web sites. NTIS says you can use their Web site to 
get this information for free. They list the U.S. Government Publishing 
Office's Digital System Web site, the Federal Government Internet 
portal, usa.gov, or a Web search conducted by a commercial search firm, 
such as Google.
  In fact, one of my colleagues, who retired from the Senate just last 
year, actually introduced a bill called Just Google It Act, a clear 
indication that we no longer need this agency and it no longer serves 
its function. That has been introduced again by Senator Kirk this year, 
and I have cosponsored it. This is an agency that is saying: Don't use 
us anymore. You can get it for free, and we will even show you how to 
get it for free. Why are we covering the cost of NTIS at a rate of $880 
million over 10 years when that savings could be applied to reducing 
our deficit, giving money back, and not requiring that amount of money 
to come from taxpayers--or better used for another essential purpose of 
the Federal Government.
  What we are putting up and adding to our ``Waste of the Week'' this 
week is another $880 million, bringing our total to nearly $117 billion 
of savings that has been declared through nonpartisan government 
agencies that oversee our spending as waste, fraud, and abuse. So 
Members cannot come down here and simply say: Where are we going to get 
the money to cover this or do that? They can't come down here and say: 
It is impossible to cut any more spending. We have done all that we can 
do, and now we need more revenue. That is simply not the case.
  Each week I will continue to bring up examples that are documented by 
nonpartisan agencies to be totally unnecessary. This is a small step in 
the direction of trying to deal with a much larger problem. That much 
larger problem is something I have been dealing with since I came back 
to the Senate after the election of 2010, and I am going to continue to 
talk about it even though it is not foremost on many people's minds 
right now, given all of the dysfunction and other problems we are 
dealing with. We must not ignore the fact that we are continuing to act 
on a deficit-spending basis, meaning we spend more than we take in each 
year, and we have to borrow the money to cover the difference.
  Our national debt has moved to a staggering level of nearly $19 
trillion, and almost $9 trillion of that amount accumulated in less 
than a decade. It was more than 200 years before we first reached the 
$1 trillion mark. We have been on a spending binge ever since then, and 
it has to stop or we will pay a huge price. The debt collector will be 
at the door.
  We need to make a major effort, and hopefully we will make an effort 
this year. I have already announced that I will not support any 
spending effort to continue funding for this government unless we put 
some policy changes in to start us down the path to fiscal 
responsibility. We are working hard on that, and I will outline a 
number of ways in which we can do that.
  In the meantime, I am saying: If you can't go big, let's at least 
start small. Let's at least take those things that we already know have 
been declared waste, fraud, and abuse by nonpartisan agencies. At least 
we are taking steps in the right direction.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield back my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Bipartisan Dialogue in the Senate

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague, Tom Udall, the Senator from New Mexico, to talk about how to 
come together to fix our broken Senate and specifically to invite our 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to engage in a dialogue 
together to address the dysfunction that we see so evident on the floor 
of the Senate day after day. What we have come to understand in the 
course of 2015 is that the frustration with a broken Senate is a 
bipartisan, equal opportunity frustration.
  In 2013 and 2014, Democrats were in the majority and Republicans were 
in the minority. The majority was frustrated and couldn't get onto 
bills to start debate, and when we did get on the bills, we couldn't 
start the process of having amendments; the time on the floor was being 
wasted. Now here we are in 2015 and the roles are reversed. Republicans 
are in control, and Republicans are frustrated that we can't get to 
bills and have them on the floor and that the amendment process is 
broken. And on amendments, it affects the minority and the majority. So 
here we have Democrats and Republicans with something deeply in common: 
a common interest in fixing this broken Senate.
  The perspective I bring to this goes back to when I first came to 
this Chamber in the summer of 1976. I was an intern for Senator 
Hatfield. I was assigned to work on a bill called the Tax Reform Act of 
1976 that came up on the floor of the Senate. I was assigned to follow 
the debate because, of course, we didn't have television coverage at 
that point and we didn't have emails at that point. I would meet 
Senator Hatfield out at the elevators, just outside these beautiful 
double doors, and brief him on the amendment, and he would go in and 
vote. Then, an hour later, we would do it all over again. Debate was 
largely on amendments that were relevant to the main underlying bill. 
There was no delaying, no wasted time between amendments. There was no 
agreement that had to be negotiated between the Democratic and the 
Republican leaders; it was simply whoever got the attention of the 
Presiding Officer after the preceding amendment was completed. In a lot 
of ways, it represented how the Senate had operated since our founding.
  But today we are in a very different place. Today we are in a place 
where multiple aspects of the Senate are broken. We all wrestle with 
getting bills to the floor. We wrestle with wasting time and not being 
able to bring our amendments forward. We wrestle with the 
responsibility of the Senate to execute advice and consent 
responsibility on nominations in a responsible fashion. So I wish to 
speak a little bit about these three areas, and, again, at the core of 
my message is an invitation to a bipartisan dialogue to try to address 
these issues.
  Let's talk first about the motions to proceed to the floor. These 
motions used to be routine. This is a chart which shows when there was 
a necessity of doing a cloture motion--a motion to close debate on a 
motion to get to a bill. This chart goes back to about 1915. From 1915 
through 1960, no one ever contested a vote on whether to bring a bill 
to the floor. It just was not done. It was a social contract. It was 
voted either up or down; let's go to the bill or not go to the bill.
  Starting in 1962--and we see the accelerating number of red bars--it 
became more and more routine, through times when Democrats were in the 
majority and through times when Republicans were in the majority, to 
contest and obstruct the effort to even start debate on a bill. So this 
is an area we can work together to address.
  Let's talk about the frustration of actually being able to debate 
amendments. I thought one way of contrasting this would be to look at 
the number of amendments the Senate has considered in different years. 
Back in the 1993 through 1995 session, 2000, roughly, or 1,961 
amendments were debated and voted on here in the Senate. The following 
2-year period, 1995 through 1997, 2,540 amendments were voted on. How 
does that contrast with the two previous Congresses? In 2011 through 
2013, we were under 1,000--974; from 2013 to 2015, just over 500 
amendments, or roughly one-fifth of the number that were considered 20 
years earlier. So those are the numbers.
  But what it really looks like here on the floor is we get onto a 
bill, and then nothing happens because the tree has been filled--filled 
by the Democratic leader when the Democrats have been in the majority, 
filled by the Republican leader when the Republicans have been in the 
majority--so no one can introduce an amendment unless they have 
unanimous consent, and there is

[[Page S7034]]

always someone willing to object. Therefore, we are paralyzed. This is 
an area we can address.
  Virtually every Senate legislature has worked out a system where they 
can come to the floor on a bill and immediately start considering 
amendments. There are many different ways we can solve this problem, 
but we won't solve it unless we come together as Democrats and 
Republicans and work together to figure it out--figure out a way that 
will work for both sides.
  Let's turn to nominations. Here again we see that before 1960--this 
chart goes back to about 1915--we never had cloture votes on 
nominations. The nomination was proposed, debated, and then there was 
an up-or-down vote. That was the social contract. There could have been 
an objection to closing debate, but there wasn't. People understood 
that the time is short and if a nominee has majority support, then that 
nominee for a judicial position, for an executive position, should be 
in that position; that we shouldn't allow one branch of government--the 
legislative branch--to systematically undermine and attack the other 
branches of government.
  Now, it is true that we haven't quite reversed roles at this point in 
time the way we did in terms of being here on the floor of the Senate 
simply because both last session and this session we still have the 
same President--we still have a Democratic President. But let's turn 
our minds to the next election in November of 2016, which is not that 
far away--a year and a month a way--and then January 2017, when that 
new President is going to take office. At this point, we have no idea 
whether that will be a Democratic President or a Republican President 
and we have no idea whether control of this Chamber will be in 
Democratic hands or Republican hands. But I do know that my Republican 
colleagues across the aisle--if there is a Republican President, they 
don't want this Chamber to systematically obstruct the ability of that 
Republican President to be able to put capable people into the 
necessary positions to operate the government. Our role is to screen 
out terrible nominees, not to systematically undermine the ability of 
an administration to function.
  So as we look forward to 2017, not knowing who will be in charge, 
maybe this is a window of opportunity where we can come together and 
work out a plan to expedite nominations so that we can return to the 
traditions of the Senate and serve our role of advice and consent 
without conducting a war on the judicial branch or a war on the 
executive branch.
  This concept of a supermajority was not the vision of the Founding 
Fathers. In fact, they worried about this. Madison spoke to it. So did 
Hamilton. Madison talked about the danger of a supermajority. He said:

       It would be no longer the majority that would rule: The 
     power would be transferred to the minority. Were the 
     defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an 
     interested minority might take advantage of it to screen 
     themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, 
     in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable 
     indulgences.

  He continues to address supermajority rule and says: ``The 
fundamental principle of free government would be reversed.''
  Let me translate that. What he is saying is that in a principled 
democracy, there is wisdom in the majority; that if the majority says 
this is the right decision, that is the decision we should make. But if 
we systematically go in the direction in which the minority says we 
should go, then we have chosen the less wise option. Those decisions 
build up over time and undermine the success of the Nation, and that 
would be a huge mistake.
  Hamilton addressed this as well. He said--and this is Federalist 
Paper No. 22, and he was speaking from painful experience as a New York 
Representative in Congress that was created under the Articles of 
Confederation. He said that supermajority rule results in ``tedious 
delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of 
the public good.''
  I think a lot of Americans, when they think about the way Congress is 
operating now, would say: That is what we see. We see contemptible 
compromises of the common good. We don't see 100 Members of the Senate 
working together for the public. Instead, we see a lot of special 
interest deals, contemptible compromises, really abuse of minority role 
in blocking.
  They have seen both the Democrats in the minority this year, 
Republicans in the minority before, so it is an equal opportunity 
critique, if you will, toward both parties. Of course, our national 
rating is very low.
  Again, as we look toward the future and have no idea whether the next 
President will be a Democrat or Republican, and we don't know whether 
the next majority leader will be a Democrat or a Republican, we have a 
chance, an opportunity, an incentive to work together to establish new 
rules--rules that will make this place work again, rules that will 
restore the Senate.
  Senator Udall and I have laid out ideas on how we might address these 
things, but those ideas--there is no one wisdom, no silver bullet. So 
let's come together in a dialogue.
  There are ideas that I absolutely love. I love the idea of a talking 
filibuster. That is, let's get rid of the filibuster on motions to 
proceed. That is in sync with the way the Senate used to operate. Let's 
get rid of it on conference committees. That is the way the Senate used 
to operate. And on final passage, if 41 Senators want to continue 
debate, then let's insist that one of them be on the floor speaking. 
That makes it both a commitment of time and energy, which is not 
required now under the supermajority requirement, and it makes it 
visible and transparent to the American public. So I love that idea, 
but perhaps that is not an idea on which we can build a bipartisan 
bridge. I don't know, and I won't know unless we can come together in a 
bipartisan way to discuss it.
  I love the idea of coming to the floor with a protocol for 
amendments, since we have been so paralyzed, so that immediately five 
amendments from the minority and five from the majority that are 
relevant to the bill and that are in order could be offered. That would 
be terrific. It would be a simple majority passage. I think if that was 
done, then the majority and minority Members would hear from their 
leaders and say: Let's do five more on each side. But we wouldn't come 
to the floor and play music on C-SPAN because we can't even start 
debate on an amendment. Let's use the valuable time we have on this 
floor to do the people's work, not to sit here in deep-freeze 
paralysis.
  I love the idea of establishing a rule that creates a specific way to 
discuss and debate rule changes. We don't have that right now. When we 
start every 2-year Congress, we wrestle with how can we create a 
conversation over rules. There is no systematic way in our rules to do 
that. I love the idea of us working together to lay out a way to do 
that. I think it would serve this body well.
  We need to work together to restore this body. It has often been 
referred to by the nickname ``the world's greatest deliberative body.'' 
That certainly is not an accurate description today, but together we 
can restore that. We have a responsibility to the citizens of the 
United States to restore that vision.
  Let's make deliberation work and characterize this body, not deep 
freeze. Let's engage in respectful dialogue, not rigid partisanship. 
Let's take this moment, as we plan toward January 2017, and build a 
vision together, dialogue together, a vision of how to make the Senate 
work for Americans.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  It is my privilege to introduce my colleague from New Mexico, who has 
wrestled with this issue even before he came to the Senate and has been 
engaged in it from day one and has brought so much insight and wisdom 
to bear on this challenge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I have said many times. The Senate is too 
often a graveyard for good ideas. And the shovel is the broken 
filibuster. I want to thank Senator Merkley for his remarks about the 
need to reform the Senate rules. And I want to say a few words myself, 
because this issue continues to prevent this body from working for the 
American people.
  That is why we pushed for reform in the 112th Congress and in the 
113th Congress. Some said it was just a power grab by the majority--a 
partisan push--nothing could be further from the truth. Now that the 
shoe is on the

[[Page S7035]]

other foot, I think many Republicans are realizing the modern 
filibuster may need reform.
  Some of the same people who voted for, or supported, record numbers 
of filibusters in recent years are now complaining about the filibuster 
when Democratic Senators use it.
  Conservative commentators, House Members, and Republican Presidential 
candidates all are now talking about the filibuster.
  Several years ago, a number of senior Republican Senators said 
Senator Merkley and I would step back once we were in the minority. 
They said we would not try again, but we renewed our fight at the 
beginning of this Congress. We are in the minority today. We hope that 
does not last long, but we support filibuster reform--regardless of who 
is the majority leader. The American people want a government that 
works. Majorities will change, but the need for responsive government 
does not--at least it should not. So we will keep pushing for reform 
that is fair, that reins in abuse, and protects the minority. That was 
our goal before and that is our goal now.
  The heart of our proposal is the ``talking filibuster.'' It is 
simple, it is reasonable, and it makes sense. If you oppose a bill, 
then go to the floor and explain why. The filibuster was once used 
sparingly. It allowed the minority to be heard. But under the current 
rules, it is used too much and too easily. One Senator just needs to 
notify the floor staff of his or her objection. The American people 
deserve a real debate, not one Senator picking up a phone.
  This is not news to our Republican colleagues, who are now in the 
majority. In the last Congress, we voted on cloture 218 times. To put 
that in perspective, the Senate voted on cloture only 38 times in the 
50 years after the rule was adopted in 1917. Filibuster reform will 
allow a majority to pass more legislation in the Senate. But as 
everyone who has served here knows, floor time is a precious commodity. 
The ability to come to the floor and delay action by debating forces 
compromise, and most importantly, filibuster reform would apply to both 
parties equally going forward.
  If legislation is passed more easily under a reform scenario, it can 
also be reformed, amended, or repealed more easily. Demanding one party 
to give up its rights under the rules will never succeed. The solution 
is to change the rules for both parties going forward on a permanent 
basis.
  We made some progress in the last Congress by allowing for simple 
majority votes for qualified nominees for judicial and Executive 
appointments, and the Senate is working better. By changing the rules, 
we confirmed 96 judges--more judges than any modern Congress since 
1980.
  We also confirmed 293 Executive nominations in 2014--the most since 
2010. That was an important change. It was bold. It was necessary. And 
the unprecedented mass obstruction by the new majority of this 
President's nominees only underscores that we did the right thing last 
year. But, we still need broader filibuster reform.
  We said it before, and we will say it again: We can do this with 
respect for the minority, with respect for differing points of view, 
and with respect for this Chamber, but most of all with respect for the 
people who send us here. The right to change the rules at the beginning 
of a new Congress is supported by history and by the Constitution. 
Article I, section 5 is very clear. The Senate can adopt and amend its 
rules at the beginning of a new Congress by a simple majority vote. 
This is known as the Constitutional Option. It is well named. It has 
been used numerous times--often with bipartisan support--since the 
cloture provision was adopted in 1917.
  We opened the door, as we said we would, at the beginning of this 
Congress. Our reform proposal remains on the table. The majority leader 
can bring it up at any time. This is not just about rules. It is about 
the norms and traditions of the Senate.
  I support any Senator's right to oppose bad legislation. The 
filibuster has a role to play. The abuse of the filibuster does not.
  Our constituents are waiting. There is a lot of work to be done. We 
need to make sure we get it done, and get it done right. These are 
commonsense reforms to restore the best traditions of the Senate. 
Neither side is 100 percent pure. Both sides have used the rules for 
obstruction. And no doubt they had their reasons. But most Americans 
don't care about that. They don't want a history lesson or a lesson in 
parliamentary procedure. They want a government that is fair, 
reasonable, and works no matter which party is in the majority.
  We changed the process for nominations, and that was a good start, 
but, it was the beginning, not the end. We still have a lot of work to 
do.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to carry on a short colloquy 
with Senator Merkley or maybe other Senators who could join us and also 
for as much time as we may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Senator Merkley, I have listened very carefully, and I think you and 
I have worked diligently since we got into the Senate to try to make 
sure the Senate functions properly. What we want to see more than 
anything is bipartisanship, working together.
  Whenever we have worked on the rules, I know one of our principles--
which was a good one--was to draft rules so that they apply to either 
the majority or minority. That is something I think we have done on a 
regular basis, is to look at the rules and say: If we do the right set 
of rules, then if we are in the minority, we will feel good about it, 
and if we are in the majority, they will work for us that way also.
  I am wondering. I see calls of reform all around the Senate right 
now. You see the Presidential candidates who look at our Senate rules 
and say there ought to be reforms. There ought to be filibuster reform. 
You see Republicans over in the House almost every week raising the 
issue that there should be filibuster reform. We need democracy to 
work.
  Many of the outside scholars--people such as Thomas Mann, Norm 
Ornstein, and scholars like them--write books over and over again, and 
always a big part of the reform package goes to the Senate rules.
  So I would ask the Senator, do you think that we are really talking 
about there being fertile ground right now for us to come together; 
that this is a time, when enough people are speaking about this, that 
we should be able to come together? And what we are urging--are we 
urging them to join us in some kind of format on the floor, off the 
floor, to have a meeting with various Senators who have worked on this 
in the past? Is this a good time to do this?
  Mr. MERKLEY. I think Senator Udall is absolutely accurate that this 
is the perfect moment to do it.
  When we first engaged in this dialogue, we reached out to our 
Republican colleagues. We held one-on-one meetings. We sought to 
champion this. What we found was that the view of reform was polarized 
on whether you were in the majority or the minority.
  We said that we were going to have this test for what we put forward: 
that what we put forward when we were in the majority is what we put 
forward when we are in the minority. If we don't think it would work 
for us in the minority, then it is not an honest or fair appraisal of 
making the Senate work.
  So now we have come to that test because here we are now in the 
minority and we are proposing the same set of ideas. This Senator 
absolutely believes these ideas would make this place work better. It 
would enable more bills to be debated, which is--to have that value 
when you are in the minority, to actually put your amendments forward 
and have that debate, is a gift.
  Certainly it says that if you really believe--the idea that we put 
forward, a talking filibuster--if you really believe you want to block 
something, you have to stand on this floor and debate it. I think that 
is a way to keep the theory of the filibuster and return it to the 
social contract of the past where people understood that it was a 
simple-majority body, as envisioned in the Constitution, as envisioned 
by Hamilton, as envisioned by Madison; that they had the experience of 
the supermajority and knew that caused deep damage, but that if you 
really believe in something so deeply, then you are willing to spend 
the time and energy.

[[Page S7036]]

  So I think the things we crafted in the majority still hold up. But 
the bigger point is this: Now that we have had a reversal, many of our 
colleagues are experiencing firsthand the frustrations the minority can 
inflict on the majority. I think that opens a window of opportunity.
  I have a list of 20 quotes. The Senator referred to people in the 
House--he is a former Member of the House--saying to their Senate 
Republican colleagues: Why don't you do something to fix the Senate? 
And now we are standing here saying: Join with us in a dialogue to fix 
the Senate.
  Mr. UDALL. I say to Senator Merkley, I couldn't think of this being a 
more appropriate time. I think it is fertile ground, and I think it is 
great that we have come here.
  The important thing to remember is a point you and I both made in the 
past, and it has to do with the old movie everybody knows called ``Mr. 
Smith Goes to Washington.'' People always thought the filibuster was as 
it is portrayed in that movie. You have Mr. Smith coming to Washington, 
and he is concerned with a passion about an issue, and he thinks he may 
be in the minority, but he wants to fight it out. He comes to the floor 
and he speaks about it, and he rallies people outside.
  Now today, as we know, you don't see that very often. Actually, 
sometimes what people call a filibuster, we are at the early stage of a 
motion to proceed before we even get onto the bill.
  What we are doing is trying to return to ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington.'' What we want to see happen is a talking filibuster where 
every Senator gets to talk.
  As you and I know--you have been a real scholar and a student of the 
Senate in terms of its history--before there was this rule in place on 
the filibuster, the tradition was always that every Senator had an 
opportunity to speak. That was a fine Senate tradition. It was 
established. They didn't have to write it down. Everybody said: We are 
not going to take any action until we let every Senator speak.
  The other part of it was just what you talked about in our amendment 
proposal--allowing Senators to offer amendments. Today we are so far 
away from that.
  We have this motion to proceed. We don't even get onto the bill. That 
causes so much mischief because you have all these procedural things 
that happen in advance of even getting on the bill.
  You were a leader in the Oregon Legislature, so I would ask you to 
just reflect a little on that because you have seen that when you get a 
bill on the floor, you work on it, you get to amend it, to debate it--
and most of the time when people are working on it, they want to get to 
the end game, but we are not able to do that. Was that your experience 
in working in the Oregon Legislature? If you get on the bill, that is 
half the work right there. And we are blocked here on the motion to 
proceed and the filibuster on the motion to proceed.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Indeed, my experience in the Oregon State Legislature 
was dramatically different. In many ways, it was much more similar to 
the way I thought the Senate was operating when I was here in the 1970s 
and then working for Congress in the 1980s. Once we got to a bill on 
the floor of the Oregon House, where I served for 10 years and spent 2 
years as speaker, every moment was utilized in debate. There was no 
paralysis. People only had limited time. We were there to hear each 
other and to make decisions and certainly in a more expeditious style 
than is the custom in the Senate. But what we had in common was floor 
time was well utilized in the Senate in the past and well utilized in 
Oregon.
  As you were speaking about tradition and how the Senate worked, I was 
thinking about how all this began. When they had the first U.S. Senate, 
they had in their rule book a motion to force a vote. They had that 
rule, but they never used it. Why didn't they use it? Imagine if there 
are 13 States and just 26 Senators and they stand here occupying a 
quarter of the space we now occupy and they say: Well, we certainly can 
extend the courtesy of hearing each person's insight or opinion before 
we vote.
  So after a couple of years, when they rewrote the rule book, they 
decided not to include the rule. They didn't need it because they had 
the courtesy of hearing each other. So suddenly there is a Senate with 
no rule on how to close debate and force a vote. And over time that 
courtesy eroded. It was after World War I that the first time occurred 
when the Senate said: Well, let's enable a majority--a supermajority of 
the Senate to close debate if there is too much abuse or paralysis.
  The point is that the filibuster is not in the Constitution. Some of 
my colleagues have said this is the way the Founders designed the 
Senate--to be a supermajority body. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 
not in the Constitution, it was not in the early Senate, and it was not 
a major feature of the Senate in terms of it being a common experience 
until these recent years.
  So if we can recapture the spirit and the courtesy of hearing each 
other's opinion but enable us to get onto the bill, debate the bill, do 
amendments, and then if someone finds a moment of great principle, 
great heartfelt objection, and wants to spend the time and energy to 
extend debate, they do so in this visibile talking-filibuster fashion, 
I think that would be a huge improvement and well worth our time.
  Mr. UDALL. I say to Senator Merkley, what you point out that is so 
important for people to understand--when we put the original bill back 
in there in World War I, it was put in so that a minority could not 
block it. We had Woodrow Wilson as President. He was very concerned. We 
were talking about national security during a war, and he wanted to arm 
our merchant ships. He got a bill out of the House of Representatives, 
and it was rolling toward the Senate. It was near the end of the 
session, and he took that bill very seriously. He thought it was vital 
to the national security of the country, and he asked the Senate to act 
on it. There were about 11 or 12 Senators, I believe, who had decided: 
We are near the end of the session; let's just run out the clock. There 
was no procedure to be able to get to the bill before the clock ran 
out. These 11 Senators took to the floor and they ran out the clock, 
and Woodrow Wilson said: No way am I going to allow that to happen 
again. He got a bee in his bonnet on that one.
  The next Congress that came in, the President said he wanted a rule 
so that wouldn't happen again. So they put in a rule which was at the 
time 67 votes in order to cut off debate, and that rule has really been 
turned on its head with what is happening in recent times. The rule was 
originally so that a small minority could cut off debate and could 
proceed to the issue. Now we have calls to the cloakroom, calls to the 
leadership. You and I don't know what is going on. We don't know why we 
don't get on an issue. We go on a motion to proceed, and we have a 
motion to invoke cloture and all these procedural things nobody 
understands, until people say: Why can't you get on the bill? Well, 
because the filibuster rule has been turned on its head. That is 
something people have to understand. We are not using this filibuster 
rule the traditional way that we used it in the Senate for the purpose 
it was originally put in.
  As Senator Merkley pointed out on the motion to proceed--and I wanted 
to ask one more question about the motion to proceed. You talked about 
how in 1962 we increasingly started to see obstruction in terms of the 
motion to proceed. It would prevent bills from getting to the floor. 
There wasn't any way to get on these bills. It jammed things up.
  I will never forget the Senator whom I succeeded, Senator Pete 
Dominici, a solid Republican who believed in the Senate. He came out 
and said we shouldn't have filibusters on a motion to proceed; we 
should get right on the bill. I remember several Senators who came in 
in our class and after--Republican Senators--who said the same thing. 
So I think there is a lot of room here.
  I am asking you again, in terms of the motion to proceed and us 
calling for a bipartisan effort--we should be able, with the people who 
are here, to either work on a motion to proceed, work on the talking 
filibuster, or work on a variety of other amendment issues that are 
crucial. Don't you think this is the time?
  I just want to make sure before you leave that we make sure there is 
an invitation from us to 98 other Senators to sit down in some format, 
whether it

[[Page S7037]]

is a bipartisan conference or something else, and talk about how we 
make this place work better and how we make it more democratic.
  Mr. MERKLEY. There are two former Members of the Senate right now who 
are working on a book that is coming out in January that will be 
addressing reform in the Senate, and that is Trent Lott and Tom 
Daschle. They have already issued a number of ideas about how to reform 
this.
  The point I am making is that when people leave the Senate, they 
reflect back and say: You know, there is a bipartisan opportunity, a 
bipartisan responsibility to make this Chamber work.
  What we are saying is that this can't be accomplished through folks 
who have left the Senate; that we must invite bipartisanship here and 
solve it ourselves; and that any rule changes that are envisioned, any 
agreements that are forged have to be done here on the floor, and we 
are extending that invitation, as you put it, to our 98 colleagues to 
be part of that dialogue.
  We can draw on the ideas that our former Members have put forward as 
a starting point. We can draw on the ideas that you and I have put 
forward, but these ideas, there is no one way to address this. We are 
inviting others to brainstorm together in a dialogue to try to gather a 
vision that perhaps we can commit ourselves to, in a bipartisan 
fashion, to enact at the start of the next legislature, when we realize 
we may not be minority or majority, and that becomes a magical way to 
escape our current status as we are embattled and we are having deep 
emotional fights over foreign policy, social policy, and how to create 
jobs in America--but to get some distance on that and say how to make 
this Chamber work the way it was envisioned, because certainly I think 
100 Members can agree the Senate is broken. Would it not be phenomenal 
if, in a bipartisan effort, we were able to restore the U.S. Senate to 
being a great deliberative body?
  Mr. UDALL. Yes, I say to Senator Merkley, you are absolutely right. I 
am just going to close by saying that the thing we have--and I said 
this in the beginning. The thing we have worked on and tried to achieve 
is to make sure that when we crafted changes to the rules--motion to 
proceed, talking filibuster, how we allow each side to have 
amendments--we have always said we could live with them if we were in 
the minority.
  We have been in the minority now for almost a year. In a couple of 
months it will be a year. We came out right at the beginning of the 
Congress and talked about our rules again. We proposed the same rules 
in the majority. We want to be fair to both sides, but what is more 
important isn't that fairness; it is the fairness to the American 
people to get their democracy back again so it works.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Colorado.


                  Aurora, Colorado, Veterans Hospital

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, today marks a pivotal day for veterans in 
Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region. Just minutes ago, the House of 
Representatives approved the Senate bill to extend several important 
authorizations to Coloradans, authorizations important to the health 
care of our country's veterans because the bill includes the 
authorization to complete the Denver VA replacement medical facility.
  After years of persistence, years of passion, years of emotion, we 
have finally passed a bill to finish the job at the Denver VA 
replacement facility in Aurora, CO. This bill will allow us to finish 
the job, allowing the replacement facility that is critical for the 
care of veterans in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region to move 
forward, to fulfill the promise we have made to our veterans.
  This bill also turns the page on the gross mismanagement by the VA of 
this project and will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to take over 
the management of the project to ensure its completion without further 
delay.
  There is simply no acceptable excuse for how the project ended up in 
this current state--years delayed, hundreds of millions of dollars over 
budget. While the bill will turn the page on this day, it will not turn 
our focus away from reforms at the VA to ensure accountability and to 
ensure this never happens again. I have worked with a number of my 
colleagues to initiate these reforms, including an amendment to the 
Defense authorization bill that will get the VA out of the big 
construction business.
  I come to the floor to say thank you--thank you to my colleagues, 
specifically Senator Isakson, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Kirk, Senator 
Tester, the majority leader, their staff, and my colleague Michael 
Bennet for their leadership on this issue.
  Of course, none of this would be possible without the incredible work 
of Mike Coffman, the Congressman representing the area, Ed Perlmutter, 
the entire Colorado delegation who worked so hard to make this happen. 
They have all provided a great service to veterans in passage of the 
legislation out of the House today. Years from now, when veterans go to 
this hospital to receive the care we have promised, they will enter 
into what will be the crown jewel of the VA infrastructure, the crown 
jewel of the VA system. It took a lot of hard work to get here.
  Today I am excited, with the passage of the House bill, passage in 
the Senate, that a bill is on its way to the President to finish the 
job, to complete the hospital, and to fulfill our promise.
  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.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Conduct of the Director of the St. Paul Office of the VBA

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern and 
disgust at recent revelations of improper and dishonest conduct by 
senior executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs, including the 
director of the St. Paul office of the Veterans Benefits 
Administration.
  According to a report released by the VA's Office of the Inspector 
General this week, two Veterans Benefits Administration executives used 
their positions to assign themselves to different jobs that involved 
fewer responsibilities while maintaining their high salaries. One of 
them has been the director of the VBA St. Paul regional office since 
October of 2014. The inspector general found that the St. Paul VBA 
director used her influence as director of the VBA Eastern Area Office 
to compel the relocation of the previous St. Paul office director. She 
then proceeded to submit her own name for consideration to fill the 
vacancy she herself had created.
  Taking on the job of directing the St. Paul regional office was 
actually a step down in responsibility for this administrator. In the 
inspector general's words, she ``went from being responsible for 
oversight of 16 [regional offices] to being responsible for only 1 
[regional office].'' But she kept her previous senior executive service 
salary of $173,949 per year. She also received over $129,000 in 
relocation expenses.
  So look at this: She had a responsible job managing 16 regional 
offices. She created an opening by transferring the person under her. 
She took that opening and went from supervising 16 regional offices to 
supervising 1. Then she kept the same salary, going from 16 offices to 
1 office, and then took $129,000 in relocation expenses.
  This is the kind of action that has created the breach of trust 
between our veterans and the departments that exist to serve their 
needs. There are so many people who have such good will who work at the 
Veterans' Administration, including in Minnesota, and there are so many 
deserving veterans who deserve their help. But to make this truly work, 
we have to show that the people at the top are accountable.
  What this director did was not responsible, it was not a good use of 
taxpayer money, and it certainly was not fair to our veterans. This is 
a senior executive who is supposed to be focused on ensuring that 
veterans are being served the way they deserve and who instead used her 
position to push out one of her colleagues and get herself a plum 
assignment where she would have fewer responsibilities but at the same 
time keep the same salary. This conduct is unacceptable. It erodes the

[[Page S7038]]

public's trust in the VA. It is commendable that the VA inspector 
general took action by referring these two cases to the U.S. attorney 
for possible criminal prosecution. The VA needs to do right by our 
veterans and our taxpayers by holding bad actors accountable and 
implementing reforms to prevent exploitation such as this from ever 
happening again.
  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. TESTER. 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. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to talk today about the bill we are 
considering currently--the MILCON-VA bill. I urge the Senate to take up 
and pass an appropriations bill that does right by our Nation's 
veterans. I think it is very important. But the MILCON-VA bill before 
us today--and I might add along with the rest of the appropriations 
bills--is shackled to an unwise and unrealistic budget that locks in 
destructive sequestration cuts and vastly underfunds programs vital to 
this Nation's security and prosperity, and it doesn't deal with the 
challenges the Veterans' Administration faces. Make no mistake about 
it, America's veterans would be severely shortchanged by this bill as 
it is currently drafted.
  Coming from the State of Montana, where we have the second highest 
per capita veterans population, I cannot look in the eyes of our 
Nation's brave men and women and say to them that this bill will 
fulfill our promise to you. This bill underfunds our veterans by over 
$850 million, subjecting the VA to the across-the-board spending caps 
the majority is desperate to avoid on the Defense bill. That is 
hypocritical because, let's be honest with ourselves, caring for our 
veterans is a cost of war.
  What we know and what the majority knows is that this bill is 
severely limiting the VA's ability to fulfill its mission--caring for 
those who have borne the battle. Need I remind everyone that just a few 
weeks ago, because of a surge in demand for hepatitis C treatments and 
a historic increase in non-VA care referrals, the VA medical services 
account ran out of money. As a result, we had to pass emergency 
legislation to allow Choice Act funding to be used to shore up the VA 
and prevent a serious disruption for veterans across this country.
  The budget pressures that caused that shortfall are the result of an 
unprecedented demand for services in terms of both numbers and 
complexity, and that demand will only continue to grow. At some point 
during the next year, nearly half the veterans will be 65 years old or 
older. Many of these folks will be seeking treatment to deal with the 
effects of toxic exposure--something we are struggling to better 
understand and treat and something that could have effects on their 
children and grandchildren.
  At the same time, a younger generation of veterans is struggling to 
cope with the unseen wounds of war. They are fighting to keep their 
lives and their families together, and for some of them it is a daily 
struggle to overcome the suicidal thoughts that claim the lives of at 
least 22 of their peers each and every day. Those are the stakes here. 
They are that high.
  We are also talking about an unprecedented demand for expensive new 
treatments for diseases, such as hepatitis C, which are shorter in 
duration and which have fewer side effects and have cure rates 
approaching 100 percent. That is good news, but we have to have money 
to do that. We are talking about addressing a chronic shortage of 
medical professionals, particularly mental health professionals in 
rural America, which greatly hinders our ability to provide veterans 
with timely and quality care. We are talking about a growing population 
of caregivers who have been forced to abandon their jobs and their 
livelihoods to care for loved ones with debilitating medical 
conditions, and we are talking about facilities that are literally 
crumbling in some cases and severely impacting the delivery of care.
  I believe we need more transparency and accountability from the VA to 
ensure it is spending taxpayer dollars in a responsible way. But let's 
be clear. Today we are asking more and more of the VA, and this bill 
gives them less than they need. Now is not the time to take a step 
backward. If we do that, we are never going to catch up.
  If we don't enact a commonsense, long-term budget that better 
reflects our priorities, our values, and provides the tools and 
resources required to fulfill our promises to veterans and their 
families, then we should all question just what are we doing here.
  Mr. President, there are cases when each of us has looked at a bill 
or amendment and said: You know, it is not perfect, but it is good 
enough. Sometimes that is what it takes to get work done around here. 
But when it comes to our veterans, when it comes to restoring 
confidence in the VA after the problems they have had in the last 2 
years, I don't think that is a path we should take.
  I know my chairman, Senator Kirk, did his best in writing this bill 
to soften the blow of budget constraints that he was forced to meet. I 
truly appreciate his efforts and his inclusiveness in working with me. 
But the fact is that he was handed a no-win allocation by his party's 
budget. You can't patch the holes in the VA budget created by 
sequestration. You can't shift money from known medical care 
requirements--treatment for cancer, diabetes, or kidney disease, to 
name just a few--to plug gaps in emerging requirements, such as 
lifesaving but costly new hepatitis C treatments.
  That is why I offered an amendment in committee to restore $857 
million to bring the VA to its requested level. Unfortunately, none of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined me, and it failed 
on a party-line vote. I am at a complete loss as to why we are now 
being asked to move to a bill that we all know underfunds the VA by 
almost $1 billion. For what? So that we can send this bill to 
conference with the House, whose own VA bill underfunds the VA by $1.4 
billion--$600 million more than the Senate. That will not improve the 
quality or the timeliness of veterans health care nor will giving the 
VA authority to fire more doctors and nurses without due process.
  It is time to stop the political games and maneuvering. To serve our 
veterans, to serve this country, and to serve all Americans, Congress 
must establish funding levels driven by what the VA actually needs, not 
by some arbitrary mathematical formula. We need a rational, realistic, 
bipartisan budget agreement to replace the draconian sequestration 
funding levels entrenched in the majority's fiscal year 2016 budget.
  I have been calling on Senate leaders for months to sit down and hash 
out a long-term budget agreement. The majority leader's response was to 
wait until the day before the government was scheduled to shut down and 
then pass a short-term CR. As early as tomorrow, we expect to vote on 
an appropriations bill that will drastically underfund the VA for the 
next fiscal year. This is clearly an attempt to paint those of us who 
think this bill is insufficient as voting against veterans.
  That plan will not work because I am here to tell you that veterans 
are well aware of the funding shortfall. It is one of the chief 
problems that is currently plaguing the VA. I will continue to provide 
adequate funding to support America's veterans.
  While I am disappointed the majority wouldn't work with us on a 
broader budget deal this summer, the CR that we passed today gives us 
just over 2 months to reach a reasonable budget agreement--an agreement 
that will support our veterans, an agreement that Members on both sides 
of the aisle agree we need. That is the job we are elected to do. But 
make no mistake, if we are having this same conversation on December 
10, we have failed--failed our veterans, failed the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed to this bill so 
that we can finally negotiate a bipartisan budget agreement that will 
do away with the devastating impacts of sequestration and will instead 
provide a responsible way forward to fund our government, to protect 
our national security, and to care for this Nation's veterans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S7039]]

  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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Law of the Sea Treaty

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on climate change's 
radical alteration of the Earth's marine environments--particularly in 
the Arctic--and how these epic changes in the environment strengthen 
the case of U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
  Competitors of the United States in the global economy are taking 
advantage of climate change's environmental impact on the Arctic, 
particularly how the disappearance of Arctic sea ice is opening new 
shipping lanes and access to the mineral resources in the Arctic 
seabed. Our competitors' advances in the Arctic are happening at the 
expense of U.S. national security, energy development, and maritime 
transit interests, and it is the failure of the United States to join 
the treaty that is giving those countries a huge advantage of staking a 
claim in largely unclaimed territory.
  In the 3\1/2\ years since a partisan effort thwarted the Senate from 
providing the necessary advice and consent of the Law of the Sea 
Treaty, the United States has ceded millions in potential economic 
opportunity in the Arctic, and we have no recourse to dispute the 
legality of any of the territorial and economic zone expansions 
countries like Russia are making in the Arctic waters and sea ice.
  While the economic and territorial claims--including mineral, oil, 
and gas extraction rights--in the Arctic are not the only reason for 
the United States to accede to the Law of the Sea Treaty, the situation 
in the Arctic is arguably the most dynamic due to the impact climate 
change is having on the Arctic Ocean environment. As long as the United 
States sits on the sidelines by not being a party to this treaty, our 
global economic competitors will continue to take leaps and bounds 
ahead of the United States, accessing the opportunities we are 
squandering.
  The Arctic Ocean environment has experienced notable changes that 
have tracked ahead of the global rise in temperatures. Starting in the 
mid-1970s, global average temperatures have risen 0.5 degrees 
Centigrade, with each of the last three decades being successively 
warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850. 
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, 
the 10 hottest years, based on average global surface temperatures, 
have all occurred since 1998, with 2014 being the hottest year on 
record. However, many climate scientists are projecting that this year, 
2015, will surpass last year as the hottest year on record. Temperature 
increases at the Poles have been even more significant, and the impacts 
and consequences are more severe.
  I show this photograph here that points out that the data from the 
National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that over the past 30 years, 
the Arctic has warmed at a higher rate than any other region on Earth. 
Arctic warming is causing changes to sea ice, snow cover, and the 
extent of permafrost in the Arctic.
  According to NOAA, in the first half of 2010, air temperatures in the 
Arctic were 4 degrees Celsius--7 degrees Fahrenheit--warmer than the 
1968-to-1996 reference period. Satellite data shows that over the past 
30 years, Arctic sea ice cover has declined by 30 percent during the 
months of September--the month that historically marked the end of the 
summer melt season.
  In this NASA survey photo from April 2012, you can see for miles 
toward the horizon how thin the ice is over the Arctic Ocean, and you 
can see open channels in the ice with icebergs in the background. That 
is a new phenomenon. That didn't exist many years ago.
  This image is of the Arctic Ocean in April, 1 month into the spring 
melt season. It shows just how thin the aerial coverage of Arctic sea 
is and in some places where the ice has disappeared altogether. While 
annual variation in ice coverage has always followed the seasons, the 
melt periods are growing longer annually, meaning that much of the ice 
is never restored during the colder winter months.
  The peak melt periods during the protracted melt seasons have opened 
up new shipping channels that we must start paying greater attention 
to.
  A 2013 report in the ``Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences'' entitled ``New Trans-Atlantic shipping routes navigable by 
mid-century'' shows how declines of ice in the Arctic's rapidly 
changing environment will have dramatic changes in international 
freight movement.
  Russia is already declaring that the Northern Sea Route through 
Russian territorial waters will rival the Suez Canal as a faster and 
more efficient maritime passage between Europe and West Asia and the 
west coasts of the United States, Canada, and East Asia. Climate, 
surface temperature, and sea ice data were run through extensive 
computer modeling at UCLA, and the outcome produced pretty alarming 
results showing how wide open the Arctic will likely become for trans-
hemispheric transit between North America, Europe, and Asia.
  Historically, Arctic shipping lanes to Western Europe and the North 
Atlantic, via the Bering Strait, which connect the ports of the 
Pacific, including Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Vancouver, 
Alaska, and all of East Asia to Western Europe and the North Atlantic, 
have depended on ice breakers to clear channels and were only open 
during narrow summer melt seasons. These northerly routes have 
historically been across the Russian side of the Arctic.
  In recent years, the shipping channels have grown shorter in distance 
as what was once permanent and thick ice located at the Poles has 
become increasingly thinner with each passing warmer year. Each year, 
the shipping routes across the Arctic are getting closer and closer to 
being ``over the top.''
  The blue lines I depict on the chart I brought to the floor, this 
chart--this would not require any ice-breaking ships to assure clear 
passage during the peak of the summer melt seasons. The red lines are 
routes that are passable by ships that can either break ice or follow 
behind ice breakers. As you can see, from 2006 to the present, the ice-
breaking routes are very close to traversing directly over the North 
Pole and all the other routes are in the Russian Kara, Barrents, and 
Laptev Seas.
  The modeling data run through this peer-reviewed study, however, 
projects that in 30 years the Arctic Ocean will reach near open water 
status, passable by most ships on either the Canadian or Russian side 
of the Arctic.
  In the simplest of economic terms, climate change's impact on 
diminished sea ice in the Arctic will be a major boon to foreign ports 
at the expense of U.S. ports.
  The geopolitical consequences of a more open and expansive Arctic 
Ocean is something we cannot afford to observe from the sidelines. The 
Arctic's rapidly changing marine environment is influencing the 
territorial claims our Arctic neighbors Canada, Russia, Denmark, 
Greenland, Iceland, and Norway are making, and all these countries are 
making legal advances under the law of the sea--the treaty we have not 
ratified. The United States is the only Arctic nation not staking any 
expanded claims in the Arctic, nor are we willing to challenge the 
actions of neighbors who may be encroaching on waters we may have 
claims to.
  The State Department cannot be blamed for not making claims or 
challenging our neighbors because it is the U.S. Senate that has failed 
to give the State Department the ability to rightfully stake claims and 
challenge the legality of our competitors' claims purely out of 
unfounded and ideologically partisan opposition to the United States 
being party to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
  The law of the sea establishes international conventions allowing our 
neighbors to expand the reach of their economic zones, providing a 
framework for parties to the treaty to stake legal claims to mineral, 
oil, and gas deposits along the Continental Shelf beyond the

[[Page S7040]]

200 miles of a country's conventional territorial seas--they can do 
that under law of the sea, and we cannot; and to enjoy navigational 
freedom between parties to the convention, making passage through 
treaty partners' territorial seas easier--they can; we cannot. We have 
not ratified the law of the sea. It provides legal certainty to their 
nations' industries operating in these dangerous yet potentially 
productive waters--certainty that the United States simply cannot 
validly claim without being party to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Once 
again, they can give certainty to their industries; we cannot.
  Our Arctic neighbors' exploitation of Arctic resources is happening 
right now and is as real as climate change's impact on the Arctic 
ecosystems that is making these foreign economic ventures possible. 
They couldn't do it before, but now they can do it. The reports our 
Arctic Coast Guard fleet are making on the dramatic increase of 
commercial vessel activity in Alaskan waters are testament to this new 
reality. The Coast Guard has monitored and reported on this growth, all 
of which has happened in the last decade. Heightened Arctic maritime 
activity is directly contributing to the declining sea ice.
  Both the Washington Times and the New York Times, while covering the 
President's recent trip to Alaska, reported on the increase of 
commercial and naval fleet traffic transiting through and across the 
Arctic.
  In the New York Times story, Coast Guard Commandant ADM Paul F. 
Zukunft stated: ``We [the Coast Guard] have been for some time 
clamoring about our nation's lack of capacity to sustain any meaningful 
presence in the Arctic.''
  U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty has been a failure of 
many Congresses, not just this one. The United States played a critical 
role in the development of the treaty going back to the 1970s. The 
United States has the most to gain from being part of this treaty. For 
example, we shaped the constructs of the treaty to be very favorable to 
the United States, including giving the United States the only 
permanent seat on the international council that will oversee and make 
decisions about seabed mining. Obviously that permanent seat remains 
vacant and decisions are being made about seabed mining in 
international waters without U.S. participation.
  The estimated area of territorial expansion over which the United 
States can claim sovereignty under the Continental Shelf expansion 
conventions of the treaty is estimated to be about 291,000 square miles 
or roughly one and a half times the size of Texas.
  A broad set of stakeholders, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, to environmental organizations, our Nation's military brass, 
industry-specific trade groups representing commercial fishing, freight 
shipping, and mineral extraction, all support the ratification of the 
Law of the Sea Treaty.
  The combination of changes in the Arctic environment and changes and 
advancement in the maritime industry technologies is making the 
benefits this treaty stands to provide the United States greater and 
greater with each passing year. As long as the United States is outside 
the convention, our companies are left with two bad choices: Either 
take their deep sea mining businesses to another country or give up the 
idea altogether. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and many other countries are 
already securing their licenses under the convention to begin mining 
for valuable metals and rare Earth elements.

  Accompanying the previously mentioned New York Times story is a map 
depicting the breadth and scope of the international claims that are 
being made in the Arctic, the most concerning of the claims are the 
ones that Russia is making. This map demonstrates the urgency for U.S. 
action to ensure that these emerging opportunities don't pass us by and 
go to our competitors.
  The Law of the Sea Convention provides the international framework to 
deal with these new opportunities. We are the only Arctic nation 
outside the convention. Russia and other Arctic states are advancing 
their Continental Shelf claims in the Arctic. Some of these claims 
encroach on waters that we could have a viable claim to if the United 
States were a party, but we are not a party to the convention. Yet we 
will willfully remain on the outside looking in, painfully complicit to 
let foreign businesses better our U.S. industries. If the United States 
were a party to the convention, the United States would have a much 
stronger basis to assert our interests throughout the entire Arctic 
region.
  Lastly, the absence of the United States from the treaty weakens our 
national security. In 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Martin Dempsey testified before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee--I was present during that 
testimony--on how our security interests are intrinsically linked to 
the freedom of navigation. They testified in favor of the Law of the 
Sea Treaty ratification.
  The United States stands to gain considerably more from the legal 
certainty and the public order this treaty provides on the oceans than 
any other country. The U.S. Armed Forces need the navigable rights and 
freedoms provided under the Law of the Sea Convention, granting global 
access to the world's oceans to ease and expedite movement to combat 
areas when necessary and to sustain our engaged deployed forces. In 
2012, the former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and 
ranking member Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana made one of the most 
cogent set of arguments for U.S. accession to the treaty. In 
conclusion, let me quote what Senator Lugar told us at that time. I 
think it is still relevant today. He said:

       The substantial case for Law of the Sea is even stronger 
     today than it was in 2004 when I brought it up as chairman of 
     the committee. . . . Every year that goes by without the 
     United States joining the convention results in deepening our 
     country's submission to ocean laws and practices determined 
     by foreign governments without United States input.
       Our Navy and our ocean industries operate every day in a 
     maritime environment that is increasingly dominated by 
     foreign decision-making. In almost any other context, the 
     Senate would be outraged at subjecting Americans to foreign 
     controls without United States input.
       What many observers fail to understand about Law of the Sea 
     is that the convention already forms the basis of maritime 
     law regardless of whether the United States is a party or 
     not. International decisions related to resource 
     exploitation, navigation rights, and other matters will be 
     made in the context of the convention whether we join or not.
       By not joining the treaty, we are abetting Russian 
     ambitions in the Arctic. We are making the job of our Navy 
     more difficult despite the longstanding and nearly unanimous 
     pleas of Navy leaders that the United States participation in 
     Law of the Sea will help them maintain navigational rights 
     more effectively and with less risk to the men and women they 
     command.
       We are turning our backs on the requests of important 
     American industries that use the oceans and must abide by 
     rules established under this convention, and we are 
     diminishing our chances for energy independence by making 
     U.S. oil and gas exploration in international waters less 
     likely. . . . We will feel these costs more keenly in the 
     Arctic.
       The decision . . . is whether the Senate should continue to 
     consign the United States to a position of self-imposed 
     weakness in our ability to influence ocean affairs despite 
     the fact that no organization has a greater interest in 
     navigable freedoms, a larger exclusive economic zone, or a 
     more advanced technological capacity to exploit ocean 
     resources.
       The Senate should enthusiastically affirm the leadership of 
     the United States in this vital area of international 
     relations by giving advice and consent to the Law of the Sea 
     Convention.

  I took the time to give a long explanation as to why I believe it is 
important for the Senate to exercise its responsibility to give advice 
and consent to a treaty that is the Law of the Sea. It is critically 
important that we take this issue up and that we ratify the treaty. As 
I said earlier, it is supported by the Chamber, it is supported by our 
military, and it is supported by businesses. Laws are being made that 
affect the United States without our participation. By ratifying the 
treaty, we will have a seat at the table, and we will be able to 
protect our interests--our commercial interests, our security interests 
or whether it is the interests of our military.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Iowa.


                                 Energy

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't know how many times I have

[[Page S7041]]

come to the floor in the last several years or maybe in the last 
several days to talk about energy. In the process of talking energy, I 
always say I am for ``all of the above,'' as a lot of my colleagues do; 
meaning all forms of energy, which would be petroleum, natural gas, 
alternative energies, including biofuels and wind, conservation as a 
third one, and nuclear energy as a fourth one. I still believe that. 
Although I believe some of my colleagues who say they are for ``all of 
the above'' are for everything that is underground but not much above 
the ground. So I think there is an inconsistency there.
  With that background, I want to talk about something that is going to 
happen tomorrow morning. The Senate banking committee is scheduled to 
mark up legislation called the American Crude Oil Export Equality Act. 
I don't have any fault with that action tomorrow.
  This bill would repeal the four-decade ban on the export of 
domestically produced crude oil. This ban was put in place in response 
to the Arab oil embargo, which created an energy crisis and led to 
fears of crude oil shortages. That goes back to the 1970s. The recent 
technologies of horizontal drilling and fracking of oil shale has 
resulted in enormous increases in domestic crude oil production and 
reduced oil and gas prices. This has led to the domestic oil industry's 
insistence on repealing the export ban.
  I am all for fair and free trade. I recognize that Iowa manufacturers 
and farmers benefit from the export markets. One of every five tractors 
produced by John Deere is exported. Much of Iowa's agricultural 
abundance, both commodities and livestock, is exported. I understand, 
then, the economic benefit and economic impact that vibrant export 
markets can have on the domestic economy, creating good-paying jobs, 
and on productivity.
  What bothers me is not that Big Oil is on the cusp of achieving their 
highest priority in getting Congress to pass a bill to repeal the 
export ban, what bothers me is that Big Oil is pushing Congress to 
repeal the ban, while at the very same time continuing to attack and 
undermine domestic renewable fuels. Iowa does not produce any crude oil 
or natural gas, but Iowa farmers lead the Nation in the production of 
homegrown, renewable, clean ethanol and biodiesel.
  Congress created the renewable fuel standard to guarantee that 
consumers have a choice to buy clean renewable fuel. Big Oil has fought 
tirelessly to repeal and undermine the renewable fuel standard law 
because they are afraid of competition. If Big Oil wants to get the 
export ban lifted, I would suggest they end their selfish pursuit of 
the repeal of the renewable fuel standard.
  Big Oil should be satisfied with achieving their highest priority, a 
repeal of the export ban, and drop then their crusade against clean-
burning biofuels. It is time for Big Oil to stop acting like pigs at 
the trough. It is time for Big Oil to lay off the renewable fuel 
standard.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I understand the pending business is 
that we are discussing the motion to proceed to the VA-Military 
Construction bill, and I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
against this motion to proceed. And why? Well, because, quite simply, 
this is a parliamentary maneuver. This isn't a real deal to get to real 
benefits and real help for America's veterans or to modernize our 
military bases. This maneuver, quite simply, is a scam. The Republican 
leadership knows we do not have enough resources for our veterans. This 
bill is inadequate. And to bring up an appropriations bill before we 
have a new budget deal is really just a hollow gesture.
  We passed a continuing resolution. I am so pleased we did that so we 
would not have a government shutdown. We do not need a government 
shutdown. It is not in our national interest, it is not good for the 
economy, it is not good for our standing in the world, and most of all 
it is not good for the way we need to help the American people, whether 
it is in the area of national security or economic security.
  Having passed the CR, it is well known that the leadership on both 
sides of the aisle and the President want to negotiate a new budget 
deal. So what does that mean? A new budget deal gives the Committee on 
Appropriations a top line--something called a 302(a). A 302(a) tells 
the Committee on Appropriations what it can spend. We can't spend over 
a 302(a) unless we waive the Budget Act. And the whole purpose of the 
negotiation for the budget is to lift the cap through responsible, 
bipartisan, bicameral negotiations and to come up with additional 
revenue by either cuts or new revenue.
  My advice to my colleagues is don't go through trying to pass the 
bill when we know we are going to be getting a new allocation to truly 
try to meet America's needs. We all say we love our veterans. Everybody 
wants to wear yellow ribbons, and we all want to go to Veterans Day 
observations and so on. But I believe you show your support for 
veterans by deeds and in this case by putting forth the help we do need 
for our veterans.
  The bill pending now shows we need a new budget agreement. We need to 
cancel sequester--these across-the-board draconian cuts--so we can keep 
our promises to our veterans. Cloture on the motion to proceed is 
Washington-speak in order to filibuster a debate. The real debate here 
is whether the Senate will move forward with spartan Republican budget 
levels or whether we will come up with a new deal that will enable us 
to lift the cap we have and move ahead to getting a real deal. The 
Senate passed the bill to keep the government open. Now we need a 
budget deal that lifts the caps to make sure we have a 50-50 split 
between defense spending and domestic spending, acknowledging that 
domestic spending also meets national security needs.
  This bill is a perfect example. Military construction doesn't come 
out of DOD. There it is, in a domestic bill, and it is in the same 
subcommittee as funding our veterans. In terms of funding our veterans, 
the bill before us has an unacceptable cut of over $850 million from 
the VA, yet at the same time VA costs are rising.
  What am I talking about? Well, let's go to the new hepatitis C drugs 
that are causing veterans to seek treatment and really get the help 
they need. This inhibits us from buying the lifesaving drugs we need. 
Then there is the cost of the caregiver program. Those costs have 
nearly doubled since the original fiscal 2016 estimates that we 
received. And who are these caregivers? They are wives, spouses, 
parents taking care of really sick wounded warriors. You know those 
pictures we see when we have a concert for a fundraising drive for a 
veterans charitable organization--those men who are bedridden, many who 
can't talk, and some who have traumatic brain injury or some causing 
injury that causes paralysis--your heart goes out to them, and we have 
families taking care of them. Those families need help. The cost for 
that care is doubling. Yet this bill doesn't take care of it. We say: 
Oh, a grateful nation never forgets. Well, we seem to forget when it 
comes time to voting on the budget.
  We have held in the Committee on Appropriations hearing after 
hearing. The VA's Secretary McDonald testified that the budget request 
for hepatitis C is too low by as much as $1 billion. In fiscal year 
2015 alone, the VA spent close to $700 million just on hepatitis C 
drugs. I think we need to be able to give veterans the medications they 
need.
  Veterans care should not be held hostage to artificial budget caps, 
and veterans in the audience watching this should understand this is 
not a single-year problem. This cap will be in place until 2021. 
Remember, we are not funding an agency; we are funding help for our 
veterans. We want to reduce that backlog. We want to make sure our 
hospitals are fit for duty. We want to make sure there are no waiting 
lists for veterans. We want to be sure that the way they showed up for 
America, we are showing up for them. These veterans deserve to know 
that promises we made will be the promises we keep.
  I am asking my colleagues to get serious. Let's get a real budget 
deal. I

[[Page S7042]]

know the Republican leadership has been in contact with the President. 
We need our Democratic leadership to be a part of that conversation. I 
am the vice chair of the Committee on Appropriations. This is the 
committee that puts the money in the Federal checkbook. I want to be 
complimentary about the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from 
Mississippi, Senator Cochran. We know how to move bills, but what we 
need are the right allocations given to us so we can make the right 
decisions.
  Now, can we make some trims here, can we make some strategic cuts? 
Yes, but we need a new budget deal that lifts the caps. So I therefore 
will vote no on the motion to proceed, which is parliamentary-speak, 
but by voting no on the parliamentary maneuver I am saying we vote yes 
in meeting the compelling national needs we have.
  Let's get a new budget deal, let's lift the caps, let's do it in a 
responsible way, and let's help move America forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Signing Authority

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior 
Senator from Colorado be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or 
joint resolutions on Wednesday, September 30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2101

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, from coast to coast the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is the primary tool that our Nation uses to fund the 
protection of our natural and our cultural heritage. In my home State 
of New Mexico, the LWCF has protected some of our most iconic and 
famous landscapes--places such as the Valles Caldera National Preserve, 
Ute Mountain, and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. These are 
places families go back to year after year, generation after generation 
to camp, hunt, hike, and fish.
  Our public lands are uniquely American, but the future of our outdoor 
places--all the places we enjoy as public lands--depends on the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. We must permanently authorize and fully 
fund the LWCF. Permanently and fully funding the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund will help ensure the outdoor places we all enjoy will 
be protected for future generations to enjoy as well.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee be discharged from and the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. 2101; I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read 
a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  I wish to point out the Federal Government currently owns over 600 
million acres of land throughout the United States. In the opinion of 
many Americans, that is way too much. Some of my colleagues are pushing 
a piece of legislation that would reauthorize the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund--or LWCF--a program that is primarily used for land 
acquisition, and they want to do this without making a single reform to 
that same program.
  Before taking such a drastic and I believe misguided step, I would 
ask my colleagues to examine the Federal Government's current 
landholdings and in particular evaluate the manner in which they are 
being maintained.
  In many Western States, the largest landholder is the Federal 
Government. In my home State of Utah, the Federal Government owns close 
to 70 percent of the land within the State. This reality is hard for a 
lot of my colleagues from States east of the Mississippi River to even 
comprehend.
  Imagine if the Federal Government could tell your constituents where 
they could live, recreate, hunt and fish, and how they could earn a 
living. Imagine that the Federal Government used its vast landholdings 
to block developments of the valuable natural resources. Imagine 
further that the Land and Water Conservation Fund was used to acquire 
privately held lands from your constituents.
  Given how much land the Federal Government owns, it is not surprising 
to find out that much of it is rather poorly maintained. Specifically, 
the Department of the Interior currently has a maintenance backlog on 
Federal public lands with an estimated cost between $13.5 and $20 
billion. Instead of looking to acquire even more land through the LWCF, 
the Federal Government should focus on properly managing the land it 
already owns.
  Make no mistake, LWCF is a land acquisition program. According to a 
Congressional Research Service report from October 2014: ``The $16.8 
billion appropriated throughout the history of the LWCF program has 
been unevenly allocated among federal land acquisition (62%), the state 
grant program (25%), and other purposes (13%).''
  Today we are talking about the expiration of the LWCF's ability to 
accrue additional revenues to the fund--nothing more, nothing beyond 
that, just that. According to CRS, LWCF currently has an unappropriated 
balance of around $20 billion that can be appropriated to implement 
LWCF projects. If we assume the current rate of appropriations, roughly 
$300 million per year, it would take around 60 years before that Fund 
was exhausted. At full appropriation, $900 million, it would take about 
20 years. When we wake up tomorrow after allowing LWCF's authorization 
to expire, nothing will have substantively changed. Both the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources 
Committee are working to reform the LWCF to address the numerous issues 
I have raised. I know I speak for many of my colleagues in the West 
when I say that LWCF reform, especially with regard to Federal land 
acquisition, is a necessary condition of reauthorization.
  On that basis, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I also wish to speak to the issue of the 
objection on this, the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Twenty-nine percent of all the land in the United States is already 
under Federal ownership. Let me clarify. This is not Federal control--
Federal ownership, 29 percent of the land. There is $20 billion in 
deferred maintenance on that land--$20 billion. So there is a 
significant issue we face where a tremendous amount of land that is 
owned by the Federal Government is not being managed properly, 
including over $11 billion of that just in our national parks.
  The issue here is, what is this Land and Water Conservation Fund 
going to be used for? Continuing to acquire new land. It is actually 
prohibited under the structure of this account, to actually do any of 
the maintenance. So we are continuing to acquire new land constantly, 
expanding landholdings, already at 29 percent of the total property in 
the United States, but we are not doing maintenance on what we already 
have, and we continue to complain there is not enough money to be able 
to go around and get this done.
  If only this was the only program that actually did land acquisition 
in Federal control. In the past several years, there have been 130 
conservation banks also set up by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These 
130 different conservation banks that are scattered around the United 
States actually take private land and set it aside for what they call 
perpetual--perpetual--set-aside. This is land that is still in private 
ownership, but that is under conservation that can never be changed 
from its current status. Just in the recent decades, 160,000 acres have 
been moved into what they are calling these conservation banks.
  To reiterate, we have a growing amount of land that is being taken in 
Federal ownership through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 
then we have a separate set of programs--and this is only one of many 
programs--that is moving other land into Federal control and 
mitigation, and we have this expanding control of the Federal 
Government.

[[Page S7043]]

  We should have National Parks. We should have land that is set aside 
for public use. That is not the issue, but we are not taking care of 
what we currently have. The key issue is, what do we do with this 
program, and how do we reform it. As has already been mentioned, it is 
the key issue. If the Land and Water Conservation Fund has a reform, 
there are ways to be able to handle some of our deferred maintenance 
and the backlog that is there. If it doesn't have any reform at all, we 
are continuing to purchase new land, but one key thing that is in this 
as well, as it currently stands right now, the Land and Water 
Conservation continues to function. Nothing changes about it. The only 
thing that changes, as of tomorrow, is that we are not adding new 
dollars into it. Twenty billion dollars is already sitting in that 
fund, enough money to fund this program at current rates for 65 
years'--65 years'--worth of savings that is already built up in this 
program. I think it is fairly safe at this point. Strangely enough, the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund is more stable than Social Security 
is.
  So the argument is that there is some urgent emergency here to be 
able to take care of it, and to continue to add dollars to it without 
reform I think will not work. We need to reform this program. We need 
to manage carefully the land we have, and we can do that.
  I would highly suggest that the committees continue to do their work 
to be able to continue to reform this program. With that, I would also 
join in the objection to extending it as it currently exists today.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, my colleague from Utah purports to speak 
for westerners. I want to make it clear, he doesn't speak for New 
Mexico, he doesn't speak for me, he doesn't speak for my constituents, 
and he certainly doesn't speak for the businesses that write letters to 
me speaking about how the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 
benefited their businesses--particularly businesses that rely on 
tourism and outdoor recreation, that rely on places like the Valles 
Caldera National Preserve, that rely on places like the Rio Grande 
National Monument for their livelihood. The reason why, as westerners, 
I can take my kids out and go hunting on public land and the reason we 
can go camping and cut firewood to heat our homes is because of the 
public land the Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided in places 
like New Mexico.
  We had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. If 
anything, what we heard is that we didn't need to reform this program; 
that, frankly, it was working better than just about any program in the 
Federal Government.
  LWCF works. It has broad bipartisan support. It creates recreation 
jobs that are key to Western States. LWCF buys from willing sellers in 
places that oftentimes reduce how much we spend on maintaining, 
protecting, and managing our Federal lands. Imagine in-holdings that 
make it harder for our foresters to manage wildfires and to protect and 
do the work. We need to do a better job of managing wildfires across 
the West.
  So many of these issues that have been raised, particularly reform, 
are a red herring for what is truly an ideological opposition to the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund--a program that has put soccer fields 
and baseball diamonds in just about every little town across the United 
States. All of my counties, many of my cities, have benefited from 
sports fields specifically from this fund for decades now, as well as 
purchases like the new National Wildlife Refuge in Albuquerque's South 
Valley, the Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge, something the local 
community has enormous pride in. They had a friends group set up for 
this wildlife refuge before the refuge even existed.
  So it is an indication of just how off base and out of the mainstream 
some of our conversations in Washington, DC, have become that we have 
this ideological opposition to the Land and Water Conservation Fund--a 
program that is actually working as it was designed to work and that 
has broad bipartisan support from one coast to the other in this 
Nation.
  So I am disappointed in the actions of my colleagues. This issue is 
not going away. We have a strong coalition. We are going to continue to 
fight for the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
I would argue that we ought to stop taking money out of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund and using it to cover other expenses within the 
general fund; that we should remain true to the concept of this fund as 
it was created back in the 1960s, under Secretary Udall, and return to 
a level of fiscal responsibility, where the money flowing into the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund actually benefits land and water.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.

                          ____________________