[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 17 (Thursday, January 28, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S299-S326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2012, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the 
     energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Murkowski amendment No. 2953, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Murkowski (for Cassidy/Markey) amendment No. 2954 (to 
     amendment No. 2953), to provide for certain increases in, and 
     limitations on, the drawdown and sales of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve.
       Murkowski (for Shaheen) amendment No. 2968 (to amendment 
     No. 2953), to clarify the definition of the term ``smart 
     manufacturing.''
       Murkowski amendment No. 2963 (to amendment No. 2953), to 
     modify a provision relating to bulk-power system reliability 
     impact statements.
       Murkowski (for Barrasso/Schatz) amendment No. 3017 (to 
     amendment No. 2953), to expand the authority for awarding 
     technology prizes by the Secretary of Energy to include a 
     financial award for separation of carbon dioxide from dilute 
     sources.
       Murkowski (for Markey) amendment No. 2982 (to amendment No. 
     2953), to require the Comptroller General of the United 
     States to conduct a review and submit a report on energy 
     production in the United States and the effects of crude oil 
     exports.
       Murkowski (for Crapo) amendment No. 3021 (to amendment No. 
     2953), to enable civilian research and development of 
     advanced nuclear energy technologies by private and public 
     institutions, to expand theoretical and practical knowledge 
     of nuclear physics, chemistry, and materials science.
       Murkowski (for Schatz) amendment No. 2965 (to amendment No. 
     2953), to modify the funding provided for the Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency--Energy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon will be equally divided between the managers or their designees.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, good morning. This morning we are on 
day 2 of the Energy Policy Modernization Act. Yesterday, we took up 
this broad, bipartisan energy bill, the first of its kind in more than 
8 years. Taking this up was a good moment for the Senate. It was an 
important step. It is the beginning of a series of steps that we will 
take to modernizing our Nation's energy as well as our mineral 
policies. I am hopeful we are going to have a good day of debate today.
  As we begin this morning, I would like to summarize very briefly 
where we are in this process and what Members might expect over the 
course of the day. As of this morning, we have a total of 89 amendments 
that have now been filed to the underlying bill. We are already 
starting to process those amendments. We recognize that some will go by 
voice vote, some will of course need rollcall votes, and others simply 
will not be voted at all.
  Right now we do have six amendments pending before the body. We have 
amendment No. 2963 that I have offered, which improves a provision in 
the underlying bill related to reliability impact statements. We have 
amendment No. 2968 from Senator Shaheen to clarify a definition for the 
term ``smart manufacturing'' that is contained within the underlying 
bill. We have an amendment from Senator Markey, amendment No. 2982, to 
require the Government Accountability Office to study the economic 
aspects of crude oil exports annually for 3 years. We have an amendment 
from Senator Barrasso, amendment No. 3017, to establish a prize for 
technologies that can separate carbon dioxide molecules from dilute 
sources such as ambient air.
  At noon we are scheduled to proceed to a rollcall vote on amendment 
No. 3021 to promote research into nuclear energy. There is a strong 
list of Members who are supporting this amendment: Senators Crapo and 
Risch from Idaho, along with Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, 
Senator Booker of

[[Page S300]]

New Jersey, Senator Hatch of Utah, and Senators Kirk and Durbin from 
Illinois. There is a good bipartisan mix of Senators from around the 
country coming together to promote nuclear research with this 
amendment.
  At 1:45 p.m. we will proceed to amendment No. 2965. This has been 
offered by Senator Schatz, and it will increase the authorized funding 
levels for ARPA-E in the underlying Energy bill.
  Senator Cantwell and I are both working with our staffs to reach 
agreement on any additional amendments that can be brought up for votes 
today. We will try to keep Members apprised as to what they can expect. 
I think both of us are hopeful that we will see more votes added to the 
list I have just described. We may have one as early as 11:30 this 
morning. That has not been worked out yet, but there is an option of 
course for more amendments in the afternoon, if Members are willing to 
stick with us on this.
  As I mentioned yesterday in terms of some housekeeping details, and 
it is worth repeating today, I would urge Members not to wait to file 
amendments. Get your amendments in so we can be looking at them and 
assessing where they might fit, in terms of how we handle and process 
them. I think the earlier you are able to file these amendments the 
greater the likelihood that you will see a vote on them.
  Again, as I mentioned yesterday, any amendments that cost money, any 
amendment that is going to score, you are going to need to find a 
viable offset in order for us to consider it. Further, if it is a 
measure that would result in a blue slip because it involves a tax 
provision or a tax amendment, know that is something we cannot 
consider.
  Before I make some comments about some individuals, I want to make a 
few more brief remarks about the bill itself, this broad and bipartisan 
Energy Policy Modernization Act. I mentioned yesterday that we have a 
total of five titles within the bill, and we did not just construct 
them for organizational purposes. They represent some important themes 
in our policies within these areas.
  The first title is ``Efficiency.'' When you think about the 
importance of efficiency in the energy sector, it is a critical 
component. We should all always be looking for ways to be saving 
energy. It is just smart. It is smart from a cost perspective. It is 
smart from being a good steward perspective. It is just smart all the 
way around. It helps our businesses and our families save money. It 
makes our resources last longer. It is good for our environment. 
Efficiency is good overall.
  ``Infrastructure'' is our second title. Typically, when we think 
about infrastructure, we think about the roads and bridges, but our 
energy infrastructure is integral to the daily operation of commerce 
that goes on around us when we are talking about energy infrastructure. 
It may be the big infrastructure such as the Hoover Dam. It is also the 
electric wires, pipelines, and it is the whole infrastructure package. 
We have a responsibility to keep our infrastructure in good shape so 
that we can reliably and safely transport energy from the place where 
it is produced to the place where it is needed.
  I joke sometimes, saying it is frustrating because there is not more 
education or understanding about our energy and our energy resources 
and how they work as much as we would like. I have joked that some 
ascribe to this ``immaculate conception'' theory of energy--it just 
happens. The lights come on, the temperature is what we would like it 
to be, and we do not care how or why it came to us or the fact that we 
might not have that energy resource right here in our neighborhood. It 
is just here, and as long as we are not inconvenienced because it is 
not too expensive and it is reliable, we are good with it. We do not 
think about how it gets to us and the necessity of reliable, safe 
infrastructure to take that from the source to the customer.

  The fourth title is accountability. Again, like efficiency, it just 
makes good sense to ensure that, as we are building out our energy 
policies, there is a level of accountability that comes with it--that 
our Federal agencies work efficiently and effectively as good stewards 
of taxpayer dollars. I think we have plenty of room for improvement 
when it comes to accountability right now.
  I mentioned yesterday that in addition to a pretty robust 
accountability title, we remove some deadwood, some reports and 
requirements that have built up over the years that get incorporated 
into our United States Code, and then they just sit there.
  As they sit there, it is not just that they are benign. The agencies 
still go ahead, and they have the reports that we here in Congress have 
required of them. That costs money. Nobody reads them. We have taken 
care of that within the accountability title.
  Then the fifth title is the title that relates to conservation 
aspects as it relates to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an issue 
that I know the Presiding Officer is very interested in and would like 
making sure there are reforms there. We want to work to make sure that 
the reforms are good and sound, also making sure that our national 
parks have the focus on maintenance that they need. We have a 
responsibility to ensure that we are taking care of our parks and 
public lands, to not let the addition of more parks come at the cost of 
not taking care of what we already have.
  Rather than just kind of doing the 30,000-foot level on each of these 
various titles, I want to highlight today a little bit about the third 
title of this bill, the title that deals with energy supply.
  Over the past few years, we have seen several things. We have seen a 
lot of good things that happen when we are producing our own energy 
here in this country and the benefits that accrue to us when our energy 
is abundant. It is not just access to energy, but it is also what 
allows us in terms of energy economic security, something that leads to 
the creation of good jobs. As the economy grows here, our security 
increases. Really, we become far more competitive.
  So, again, when I talk about energy, strong energy policies, and an 
energy security focus, keep in mind these things reinforce one another. 
You have energy security leading to economic security, leading to 
national security. It moves all the way around. That, again, allows us 
to be more competitive over all other nations.
  Our bill would help keep our Nation's oil and natural gas production 
going strong. We have included a pilot program from Senator Hoeven for 
oil and gas permitting. We would expedite the process for liquefied 
natural gas exports, which could help us raise our domestic production 
levels. I want to say also that we did not just focus on oil and gas in 
this bill because we recognize drawing our energy from a variety of 
sources creates reliability and stability. We all know that Alaska is 
an oil-producing State. We focus a lot in our State on oil and being 
able to access it responsibly. We also know that when you are reliant 
on one source, there is a vulnerability. So when we talk about an ``all 
of the above'' approach to energy production, we mean it. This kind of 
approach just makes sense. It makes sense because it lessens your 
vulnerability. It increases not only your energy security, but your 
economic security and your national security as well.
  So focusing on all aspects of our energy sources is key to what we do 
within this bill. We took some good steps to produce more hydropower in 
this country by helping to reduce the regulatory barriers and extending 
the licensing period for hydropower projects. This is important to us 
as a nation, especially when we think about resources that already 
exist through hydropower and the additional capacity that we could 
potentially gain from these already exiting hydropower resources. This 
is significant.
  Geothermal is another area where we have an emissions-free source of 
baseload energy. Again, so much of what we talk about with renewables 
and part of the big problem that we face is that some renewables are 
intermittent. The wind does not always blow and the sun is not always 
out, so you have to have a reliable baseload. Our reliable baseload for 
a century has been coal.
  We have a reliable baseload with nuclear. When others think about 
those other areas where we have reliable baseloads, they also ought to 
think about the potential of geothermal. Our bill includes a number of 
provisions to help us expand the use and reduce the cost of this 
important renewable resource. We are doing some exciting

[[Page S301]]

things up in Alaska, as we are identifying sources to access geothermal 
energy resources.
  In another area, in Alaska and in some of the other coastal States, 
whether it is Maine or down in Oregon, we are seeing some good 
progress, some interesting progress when it comes to marine 
hydrokinetic energy, which has the potential to draw the power from the 
movement of the oceans and river currents. I just mentioned reliable 
baseload. You need to have something that you can rely on.
  The Presiding Officer comes from the interior part of the country. I 
come from a State that has almost 34,000 miles of coastline. One of the 
things that we know in Alaska is how the tides come and go. We can 
print up tide books because there is reliability as to when the tide is 
in and when the tide is out. So think about the potential for energy 
resources from our oceans, from our river currents. What we do within 
the bill is help advance marine hydrokinetic energy. We are attempting 
to help move it out of its infancy and focus the DOE on some pretty 
critical research areas.
  We also have a great subtitle on minerals. Oftentimes we forget about 
the strategic importance of critical minerals. Every one of us is 
walking around nowadays with a smartphone. Every one of us, therefore, 
is reliant on some form of critical mineral. For those who want to 
advance the energy future in the direction of renewables, well, in 
order for you to have a wind turbine, you are going to need some of 
these critical minerals from the Earth to allow us to really build out 
technologies.
  Minerals are really the foundation of our modern society. We need 
them for everything, as I said, from our smartphones to our military 
assets. Yet, despite this importance, we have really failed as 
policymakers to focus on mineral security. We have not been thinking 
about it enough. We have been talking a lot about this: Oh, we do not 
want to be reliant on oil. We do not want to be reliant on OPEC, and we 
work to address that. In the meantime, we have taken our eye off the 
ball when it comes to mineral security. We now import 100 percent of 19 
separate mineral commodities and more than 50 percent of some 24 
additional commodities. This is happening despite the growing 
importance of those minerals in our everyday lives and despite what we 
have here in this country, which is a world-class mineral base. When we 
talk about energy security and making sure that we are able to produce 
more here to reduce our vulnerability, energy security also needs to 
include that mineral security.
  We also have provisions to promote our domestic supply of helium. A 
lot of people do not think about helium in the energy space. We promote 
nuclear power, particularly our advanced nuclear power, to help foster 
a strong energy workforce. So when we talk about the direction that 
this energy bill goes, I mentioned yesterday that innovation is the key 
to so much of what we are trying to push out as we modernize our energy 
policies.
  As important as innovation is, supply is a case where more really is 
better. As a result of this good title that we have contained in the 
Energy Policy Modernization Act, I think our energy and our mineral 
supplies will increase in the years ahead to the benefit of America.


                         Tribute to Mike Brumas

  Mr. President, I know my colleague from Hawaii is here on the floor, 
but I want to take just a few minutes to acknowledge something the 
leader mentioned regarding an individual in his office, someone that 
has served him well, Mike Brumas. Mike has been working for Leader 
McConnell now for a number of years and has done a great job in the 
communications department.
  I too am very privileged to have had him leading my communications 
department between 2008 and 2010. Mike is one of those men whom you can 
call a southern gentleman. He has a little bit of a twang that did not 
quite fit with the Alaska reporters, but it did not matter because he 
was so knowledgeable on all issues--all issues that we dealt with, 
including some of the most parochial and local of Alaskan issues.
  Mike Brumas embraced his job with an enthusiasm and a professionalism 
that was genuinely and sincerely appreciated. I know that he and his 
wife Ann are probably going to be spending a lot more time out on their 
bicycles and enjoying their time together. We happen to share timing; 
their two sons are just about the same age as the two sons that Vern 
and I have been raising. So we kind of shared parenting experiences as 
our sons grew into men.
  It has just been a delight to spend the time getting to know Michael 
Brumas and seeing him as an exceptional professional here serving the 
Senate, both for me and for Leader McConnell. So I wish him well and 
great adventures in his retirement.


                        Tribute to Karen Billups

  Mr. President, as I am speaking about retirement, I must mention a 
woman who is not with us as we are debating and navigating this Energy 
Policy Modernization Act. That woman is a friend and an incredible 
professional who headed up the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
for me for the majority of the past several years. After 25 years in 
the Senate, Karen Billups has said: I am moving on to more excitement, 
moving on to spend that time with a young son that she has.
  Karen is an individual with an incredible reputation, incredible 
integrity, and a graciousness that will be long remembered on this 
floor and around this body. She first joined the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee back in 1995. Before that, she had served with 
distinction at the Department of Energy during the first Bush 
administration. She was in private law practice, and she was also on 
the staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. She has had a 
breadth of experience on the private side, within the Executive branch, 
in the House and then, of course, in the Senate. After joining the 
committee again in 1995, Karen served as counsel and then she came on 
as senior counsel.

  I think it is worth noting that Karen has worked through--or perhaps 
lived through--two Murkowskis because when my father was the chairman 
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Karen Billups worked for 
him. And when I came to the Senate and had Karen at the helm working as 
counsel, I have to tell you it was extraordinarily reassuring. In those 
early years, she focused on a whole host of different issues that face 
our Nation, from energy to civilian and defense nuclear waste. She was 
also the troubleshooter. She mentored our younger committee staff and 
ensured that Members and senior staff were all in alignment and that 
the direction was clear. Again, this was with a focus that was firm but 
yet very appreciative of the different dimensions she had to deal with. 
She is a woman who was able to navigate with a level of finesse. She is 
a woman who is able to navigate with finesse.
  After service in the private sector, Karen came back as deputy chief 
counsel in 2003, and I was very grateful when she accepted a promotion 
to be my chief counsel in 2009. Then in 2013 she agreed to step up to 
serve as my staff director and had been in that capacity until we 
concluded the end of 2015.
  I think it is so important to acknowledge what Karen not only lent to 
the committee, to me, to my office, but also to the many on the floor 
who worked with her on energy issues. Karen set a standard for 
excellence and achievement, and she worked tirelessly--truly 
tirelessly--to improve our policies to upgrade and to improve our 
Nation's energy resource, lands, and forestry policies. You might say 
she was a policy wonk, but you didn't get that impression from her 
because she did it with a genuineness and a passion that clearly 
showed.
  Karen steered a wide range of legislation into law, everything from 
boundary adjustments, to helping the economies of small western towns, 
to the landmark Energy Policy Act of 2005. Then as we wrapped up last 
year, she was able to pull together the end-of-year omnibus with the 
energy pieces that we had attached to that, the Transportation bill 
that had an energy title that had come over from the House side, and 
tax extenders. She worked in a way that was quiet and amenable but, 
again, firm and effective. In many ways her work continues today 
through this bipartisan Energy bill and the other legislation she 
guided to introduction. What we are seeing

[[Page S302]]

today has been done with the assistance--the mastermind, if you will--
of Karen Billups.
  As the ranking member and now chairman of the committee, I depended 
daily on Karen's thoughtful leadership, her patient counsel, and her 
wise judgment. I mean it when I say she was not only a trusted advisor 
but deeply skilled and motivated by the best traditions of service to 
the Senate and to the Nation on every issue that came before the 
committee. She had an understanding of the operations of this body.
  I know those who work the floor appreciated Karen's evenhanded 
skills. She helped point the way with a strategic vision for policy and 
oversight. I think she is probably one of the best lawyers I have ever 
met. Again, she was not just a leader for the staff, she was a mentor 
for them. She was an advocate for them. That is very telling of true 
leadership.
  Karen's service to the Senate was marked not by length but by 
distinction and by grace. She has truly earned the tremendous respect 
that she enjoys here and all throughout our Nation's Capital. Her 
legacy speaks for itself--a stronger energy policy that benefits every 
American and an Energy and Natural Resources Committee that continues 
to work together to tackle our toughest challenges.
  For all of these reasons and so many more, Karen truly stands out in 
my mind not only as a leader but as a real friend. As she embarks on 
this very well-deserved retirement, she knows that I wish her, her 
family, her husband Ray, and her great son Davis all the best as she 
goes off to her new endeavor. I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge 
the good work of a great lady who has helped shepherd this bill we have 
before us.
  Mr. President, I notice that we have a couple of Members on the floor 
who I am assuming would like to speak to the Energy bill before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I wish to start by congratulating the 
chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the senior Senator 
from Alaska, for her leadership on this bill and so many other issues. 
She is a testament to how the Senate should operate. She is a testament 
to the tradition of bipartisanship that characterizes this body when it 
is behaving properly. I thank her and congratulate her for her 
leadership on this issue and many others.
  I also thank the ranking member, Senator Cantwell from Washington 
State, for her leadership on this and many other issues. They have 
formed a good and productive partnership.
  Our energy system is undergoing a fundamental transformation. In the 
last 8 years, wind power capacity has grown by more than 400 percent, 
and solar capacity has grown by more than 2,500 percent. In 2015, wind 
and solar comprised 61 percent of new generation capacity. Last year in 
the United States, by far the majority of new generation was clean 
energy. So what has happened is that the clean energy revolution is no 
longer aspirational. It is no longer something people put in a bullet 
point in their campaign brochure or as a talking point in a debate. It 
is actually happening. It is actually real, and it is across the 
country. We drive more hybrids and electric vehicles and increasingly 
use efficient appliances and manufacturing equipment. We have made 
incredible progress in driving down the costs of clean energy, but we 
cannot let this progress stall out. We need to modernize our 
infrastructure in order to integrate greater amounts of renewable 
energy and save money for consumers through energy efficiency.
  This bill is a positive step in transitioning our energy system from 
the 19th and 20th centuries into the 21st. There are a number of 
provisions that are worth highlighting.
  First, the bill proposes $500 million in research and development for 
grid-scale storage. This will allow us to use even more electricity 
from renewable sources. There is no doubt we are going to continue to 
need baseload power, but the assumptions about the percentage of 
baseload power that we need in order to have good power quality across 
our grids are changing. For instance, in the State of Hawaii the basic 
assumption was that you couldn't have more than about 15 percent of 
penetration of intermittent renewable energy. Well, we now have parts 
of our grid that are 35 percent, 45 percent, renewable energy. So the 
old assumptions are being thrown out the window, but no doubt we are 
going to continue to need to have Federal research and private sector 
research into this question of how much intermittent renewable energy a 
grid can accommodate without sacrificing power quality. This $500 
million investment is going to be a big help toward that.
  This bill will also continue investments in grid modernization that 
will help to smooth the integration of distributed renewable 
generation. This will make a real difference in improving reliability 
while reducing individuals' reliance on fossil fuels.
  This bill would also permanently reauthorize the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. This is not just the most successful conservation 
program in our Nation's history--and that would be a good enough reason 
to permanently reauthorize it--it is also an economic driver, returning 
$4 in economic value for every $1 invested.


                           Amendment No. 2965

  Last, but certainly not least, this bill increases funding for energy 
research and development at the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy, which is desperately needed because only the Federal Government 
can undertake the kind of high-risk, high-reward research that will 
allow us to maintain our economic dominance in this space.
  But I think we must do more on energy innovation, so I have offered 
an amendment to increase the authorization for ARPA-E above and beyond 
what is in this bill. Specifically, the amendment sets forth 
authorization levels as follows: $325 million for fiscal years 2016 to 
2018 and $375 million per year for fiscal years 2019 through 2020.
  This is a relatively modest increase of just $113 million over 4 
years. It is important to remember that ARPA-E was the brainchild of a 
National Academies report which recommended to Congress that they 
establish an ARPA-E within the U.S. Department of Energy, modeled after 
a very successful program in the Department of Defense called DARPA. 
The agency was credited with such innovations as GPS, the stealth 
fighter, and computer networking.
  In 2007, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law 
the America COMPETES Act, which officially authorized the creation 
ARPA-E. In 2009, Congress appropriated and President Obama allocated 
$400 million to the new agency, which funded ARPA-E's first projects.
  In the years since, despite bipartisan support, ARPA-E has not 
received more than the $280 million in funding. Yet this agency has had 
incredible success with even this modest amount of funding. For 
example, ARPA-E awardees have developed a 1-megawatt silicon carbide 
transistor the size of a fingernail and engineered microbes that use 
hydrogen and carbon dioxide to make liquid transportation fuel. They 
invest in pioneering research that is groundbreaking, transformative, 
and amazing. Think about what they could do with just a little more 
money.
  Innovation in advanced energy technologies can be a significant part 
of the solution to any number of challenges: increasing the reliability 
of our grid, lowering our electricity rates, hardening our energy 
infrastructure against cyber attacks, and many others. ARPA-E is 
helping to fund projects at the cutting edge of all of these 
challenges--and more.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to 
support ARPA-E and to vote for this amendment and to support the 
underlying bill, which is an important step to paving the way to a 
revolution in the way in which we produce and consume energy in the 
United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time during the 
quorum calls be equally charged to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S303]]

  

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to praise the ranking member and 
the chairman of the committee on the great job they have done on this 
legislation. I have worked for years with Senator Murkowski. She is a 
real trooper and has done a great job for our country and for her State 
of Alaska. Senator Cantwell of Washington is the same. I am pleased to 
work with them on this particular legislation, which I support today.
  I am rising to talk for a minute about an amendment Senator Bennet of 
Colorado and I will be offering to the bill at the appropriate time 
called the SAVE Act.
  The SAVE Act is a way to encourage people to finance and include in 
the purchase of a new home the right types of energy efficiency 
additions to that home, which will lower the cost of energy to the 
home, improve the rate of consumption of energy in the home, and make 
it easier for people to afford energy-saving R-factors for insulation, 
Thermopane for doors and windows, and other treatments they need to 
reduce costs.
  I spent 33 years in residential real estate. I don't know much about 
anything, but I know a lot about people buying houses and about housing 
laws and about financing, and I know this: For the entry-level 
borrower--and this addresses only FHA loans--the most important thing 
to have the right type of energy efficiency is to be able to afford it, 
and the best way to be able to afford it is to be able to finance it. 
If you don't allow the incorporation of the value of the additional 
cost of the additional R-factor for insulation or Thermopane factor for 
windows and doors, then people don't end up choosing energy efficiency; 
they choose less efficient houses which last for 30 or 40 years and 
burn more energy in their lifetime than they would have if we had not 
had a way to incentivize people to incorporate energy efficiency into 
the purchase of their new home.
  So my story is very simple. We are here today to encourage energy 
efficiency, encourage savings on energy, and encourage people to focus 
on energy, to be a more energy-independent country. The best way to do 
that is to make sure we take the mechanisms of purchase--being the FHA 
loan in this case--and incorporate and consider for financial value 
purposes, for the appraisal and for the loan-to-value ratio and for 
qualification purposes, the savings of the R-factor improvements, 
Thermopane improvements, and other energy efficiency improvements put 
in.
  At the appropriate time--sometime today--I will ask the chairman to 
recognize me to set aside the pending amendment and make this amendment 
pending, but until that time, I wanted to come to the floor to let 
Members know we have an outstanding piece of legislation which scores 
at zero in terms of costs, applies only to FHA loans, encourages energy 
efficiency, and allows people to afford to build it into the financing 
of the purchase of a house. It is a win-win-win. I am proud to work 
with Senator Bennet on this legislation.
  I appreciate being recognized by the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield to the minority whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic whip.


                  For-Profit Colleges and Universities

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to two separate 
issues. First, I wish to speak to the issue of for-profit colleges and 
universities.
  Yesterday another for-profit college was accused by a Federal agency 
of misleading and deceiving students. The Federal Trade Commission 
announced it filed suit against DeVry University for advertisements 
that deceived consumers about the likelihood that students would find 
jobs and earn money after they graduated from DeVry.
  DeVry's commercials and advertisements date back to at least 2008--
about 9 years that they have been claiming that ``since 1975, 90% of 
DeVry graduates system-wide in the active job market held positions in 
their fields of study within 6 months of graduation.'' Starting in 
2013, they also claimed that DeVry graduates ``had 15 percent higher 
incomes one year after graduation on average than graduates of all 
other colleges and universities.''
  The Department of Education started investigating these claims in 
August of last year. After asking DeVry for proof of their statements 
in these ads, the Department announced yesterday that the company was 
``unable to substantiate the truthfulness of those representations, as 
is required by federal law.'' As such, the Department of Education 
ordered DeVry to stop making these false claims and required DeVry's 
future claims related to employability and income to be verified by an 
independent monitor. At the same time, it appears the Department will 
allow DeVry to continue to participate in Federal title IV programs--
receiving taxpayer dollars and enrolling new students. How much Federal 
funding does DeVry receive? In 2013 and 2014, DeVry Education Group, 
brought in more than $1 billion in taxpayer funding through title IV.
  The company's president, Daniel Hamburger, received $5.7 million in 
total compensation in 2014--$5.7 million. If we compare the salary this 
president took from DeVry University--which receives the lion's share 
of all of its funds from the Federal Government--we will find he is 
compensated dramatically more than college presidents across the United 
States. The president of the University of Illinois--a major flagship 
institution and research university--makes a base salary in the 
neighborhood of $600,000. By comparison, DeVry's president, Daniel 
Hamburger, received $5.7 million in total compensation thanks to the 
taxpayers and students.
  Meanwhile, according to a recent study by Brookings, DeVry students 
cumulatively owe more than $8.3 billion in federal student loan debt. 
It is no wonder considering the average cost of an associate's degree--
a 2-year degree--at DeVry is about $40,000. In 2009, DeVry's 5-year 
cohort default rate on student loans was 43 percent. That means that of 
the students who left DeVry in the year 2009, 43 percent--almost half 
of them--had defaulted within 5 years of leaving DeVry. I have said it 
before of Corinthian--a for-profit school that went out of business--
and I will say it now of DeVry: Students shouldn't be left holding the 
bag for the misdeeds of these private, profit-making corporations that 
are skimming so much money from the taxpayers.
  The Department of Education has found that DeVry's claims could not 
be substantiated as required by Federal law.
  The Federal Trade Commission is also suing DeVry over claims of 
misleading students and consumers. Students who were harmed should be 
eligible for expedited Federal student loan relief through defense to 
repayment. But let me remind those who are following this debate: 
Follow the money. Taxpayers across America pay their taxes. The money 
goes into the Federal Treasury, and then the money goes--through the 
Treasury and through Pell grants and student loans--to students and 
their families, to these private, for-profit colleges and universities. 
The private, for-profit colleges and universities, such as DeVry, 
deceive and mislead the students about the value of their education and 
whether they will get a job after they graduate. The students end up 
wasting their time and their money because they end up with a huge 
student debt when it is all over. And what happens? They default on 
their debt, which means the taxpayers don't see the money going back to 
the Treasury, which we hope for, or in some cases the schools--like 
Corinthian--fail, and as a result the students are relieved of their 
debt obligations--as they should be, so the taxpayers again are the 
ultimate losers.
  The for-profit colleges and universities of the United States of 
America are the most heavily subsidized private sector businesses in 
our country--not a defense contractor or a farm operation; for-profit 
colleges and universities.
  The DeVry news follows a particularly bad year for this industry. In 
2015 more misconduct and schemes were exposed when it came to for-
profit colleges and universities than ever before. Enrollment across 
the industry is declining, as students and their parents finally 
realize that many of these schools are just bad news. State and Federal 
regulators are shining a light on the illegal tactics of the for-profit 
college and university industry. Stock prices for these private, for-
profit corporations are plummeting because investors realize that 
exploiting these students, misleading these students, and swindling 
taxpayers is not a sustainable business model.

[[Page S304]]

  Years of bad behavior are catching up with for-profit colleges and 
universities, and it shows in how for-profit education companies are 
closing their schools across the country. Even in my home state of 
Illinois, we have seen dramatic changes over the last year. It started 
with the collapse of Corinthian. This company was inflating its job-
placement rates to lure in new students, defrauding the students, their 
families, and taxpayers, and lying to the accrediting agencies and 
Federal Government. When Corinthian collapsed, more than 70,000 
students were left in the lurch, many with more debt than they could 
possibly repay and a Corinthian education that turned out to be 
virtually worthless.
  In Illinois, the campuses Corinthian operated as Everest College in 
the villages and towns of Bedford Park, Burr Ridge, Melrose Park, 
Merrionette Park, and Skokie were then sold to ECMC. ECMC was a new 
creation. This company that created this new not-for-profit, in name at 
least, college, incidentally, is a major debt collector for the U.S. 
Department of Education and had no previous experience running an 
educational enterprise. What qualified them to start a college, I don't 
know. Unfortunately, ECMC maintained much of the old Corinthian 
leadership and maintained practices to keep students from suing them 
for misconduct. After the Illinois Board of Higher Education pushed 
them on some of these issues, ECMC decided to teach-out its newly 
acquired campuses in Illinois and leave the State, thank goodness.
  Then there is Westwood. Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan--whom 
I respect very much--sued Westwood College for engaging in deceptive 
practices. Attorney General Madigan's suit focused specifically on 
Westwood's criminal justice program. In order to lure students into the 
program, this private, for-profit college, Westwood, convinced the 
students they could get jobs with the Chicago Police Department or the 
Illinois State Police if they would just hang on and get a degree from 
Westwood. What happened when the students graduated and took their 
degrees and diplomas to employers and applied for a job? The employers 
laughed at them. They didn't recognize a Westwood degree.
  In November, Attorney General Madigan reached a settlement with 
Westwood. It agreed to forgive $15 million in private student loans for 
Illinois students--private loans, not federal loans. Shortly 
thereafter, Westwood announced it would stop enrolling students and end 
operations at its campuses nationwide, including the four it operates 
in the Chicagoland area. Thank goodness and good riddance to Westwood.
  Also in 2015, Career Education Corporation, which is another for-
profit college, announced it would close its brands Sanford Brown, 
Harrington College of Design, and Le Cordon Bleu, all of which had 
campuses in Illinois. Thank goodness and good riddance. In Chicago, an 
associate's degree in culinary art at Le Cordon Bleu would have cost 
$42,000, and students had a one-in-five chance of defaulting on any 
loans they took out for that associate's degree. If the students walked 
a few blocks away to Chicago City Colleges' Kennedy King Campus, in 
comparison, they could have received the same degree not for $42,000 
but for $7,000. And the likelihood of defaulting on student loans at 
City Colleges is not 1 in 5, as it was at Le Cordon Bleu, it is 1 in 
20.
  Harrington--I have talked about them before. Harrington College of 
Design exploited Hannah Moore, a young woman from Chicago whom I have 
come to know. She got her degree at Harrington after transferring from 
a community college. She couldn't find a job in her field with her 
Harrington degree. It turned out to be worthless. What did it cost her 
to get the degree, this for-profit college degree that Harrington 
heavily marketed? Hannah paid $125,000. She still carries that debt to 
this day, and it is growing. She can't pay it off fast enough, and it 
has ballooned to $150,000. This poor young woman. Her life is 
compromised because of the exploitation of her ambition to do something 
important in life. She had to live in her parents' basement. Her dad 
came out of retirement to try to help his daughter pay off her students 
loans because, you see, the loans that are taken out to go to any 
institution of higher education are not like money borrowed for a car 
or a home; these student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. 
What does that mean? You are going to carry them to the grave.
  Many student loan debts that are in default are being collected in 
the most unusual places. Grandmothers who helped their granddaughters 
by cosigning their loan for college--when the granddaughter defaults, 
it is the grandmother and in some cases her Social Security payments 
that are withheld to pay off these student loans. These loans will 
haunt these students, many of them for a lifetime, particularly if they 
have gone to these for-profit schools.
  Finally, even though it is not in Illinois, I want to mention Ashford 
University. On a campus in Clinton, IA, just across the Mississippi 
River, Ashford has shown itself to be one of the worst actors in the 
for-profit college industry.
  A Bloomberg News story told of James Long, who suffered a brain 
injury when he was in service to his country in the Army, driving a 
humvee in Iraq that was attacked. An Ashford recruiter went after James 
Long and got him to sign up to use his military education benefits to 
enroll in classes that this individual, sadly, could not even remember 
because of the traumatic brain injury he had suffered.
  In 2014, Iowa attorney general Tom Miller announced a $7.25 million 
settlement with Ashford University. Miller accused the school of 
violating Iowa's Consumer Fraud Act after the Iowa attorney general 
received multiple complaints filed by current and former Ashford 
students. This included complaints that this for-profit school misled 
students to believe that an online Ashford education degree would allow 
students to become classroom teachers with no further certification.

  I remember Ashford because our former colleague, Senator Tom Harkin 
of Iowa, held a hearing and talked about how Ashford bought what was a 
small Catholic college, took on their accreditation, and started 
peddling the for-profit education that was worthless. Do you know what 
the faculty of Ashford University consisted of at that time? One 
faculty member for every 500 students. Do you know what the people who 
were running this scam operation were paid? Millions--millions of 
dollars of taxpayers' money. The investigation found that Ashford 
recruiters, in addition, misled prospective students, used high-
pressure sales tactics, and failed to disclose information about the 
cost and likelihood of obtaining a degree.
  In 2015, Ashford announced it was going to close its Clinton, IA, 
campus--thank goodness and good riddance. It is for the students who 
could have been exploited by these companies that I say this: It is 
time for us to stand up as a Congress and Federal Government and put an 
end to this insidious scam of students, their families, and the 
taxpayers.
  Thousands of students in Illinois and all across the Nation have been 
lured into attending these for-profit schools with lies or deception. 
Don't take this Senator's word for it. Take a look at the litany of 
schools that are under investigation by State and local authorities for 
fraud. Many students, such as Hannah, have so much debt that their 
lives and futures are compromised.
  Over the last year, I have joined several of my Senate colleagues to 
push the Department of Education to provide Federal student loan debt 
relief to students who have been taken advantage of by the for-profit 
colleges. We have an obligation here. To think that we are shoveling 
$25 billion into these for-profit schools every single year without 
asking the hard questions about whether taxpayers' dollars and student 
debt is justified by the results. Shame on us--we can do so much 
better. The numbers tell the story. Ten percent, or 1 out of 10, of 
college students in this country attend for-profit colleges and 
universities, and 20 percent of all the Federal aid to education, or 
$25 billion, goes to these for-profit colleges and universities. In 
spite of it only accounting for 10 percent of college students, these 
for-profit colleges and universities account for over 40 percent of 
student loan defaults. They charge too much, their diplomas are worth 
too little, and these students suffer as a result.
  What is our obligation here? Is this a ``buyer beware'' situation 
when it

[[Page S305]]

comes to the students and their families or is it a situation where 
``Congress beware'' if we aren't more sensitive to the fact that we are 
propping up an industry that is exploiting these students and 
taxpayers.
  With the closure of these campuses in Illinois and several of these 
companies moving out of the State all together, the educational 
landscape is a little safer for the thousands of Illinoisans trying to 
do the right thing--to get an education for themselves and their 
families. There is a sensible alternative in virtually every city and 
town in America--community colleges, city colleges. They are 
affordable, and in most cases the credits are transferrable to major 
universities and students don't incur the kind of debt that can 
compromise their lives for years and years to come.
  I have spoken on the floor many times about these for-profit colleges 
and universities. In one respect it is a fairly easy issue and easy 
topic. They need to be held accountable, as DeVry is being held 
accountable by the Department of Education and the Federal Trade 
Commission for their misconduct.
  Now the question is this: Will the Congress step up to its 
responsibility to clean up this situation?
  Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering a bipartisan 
energy bill that will help put our country on a pathway to build a 21st 
century economy. It contains several important provisions to develop 
domestic clean energy resources, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues through the amendment process to strengthen it.
  I wish to congratulate Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from 
Alaska, and Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from the State of 
Washington--the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee--and applaud them for their effort and thank them 
for bringing this bipartisan measure to the floor.
  The Energy Policy Modernization Act is a result of the committee's 
multiple hearings on over 100 individual bills. If passed, it will be 
the first major energy bill approved by Congress in 9 years.
  A lot has changed in 9 years. The United States has dramatically 
increased natural gas and oil production. Renewable energy production 
has skyrocketed and the cost of this has decreased. More Americans are 
using it. We are also finding new and better ways to address our most 
pressing energy and climate change challenges.
  The bill before us takes those new developments into account and 
updates our policies. The act strengthens energy efficiency measures 
for Federal buildings and multifamily homes and reauthorizes important 
programs such as weatherization and energy. In Illinois, that means 
tens of thousands low-income and elderly households will be able to 
receive critical upgrades that will make their homes more efficient, 
allowing them to spend less money to keep their homes cool and warm. It 
will also help maintain Illinois' leadership as the top State for LEED-
certified buildings as ranked by the U.S. Green Building Council.
  The bill encourages the development of new energy resources such as 
geothermal and hydropower and better ways to store carbon dioxide, 
which will help us address the challenge of climate change. Most 
importantly, the bill makes a substantial commitment to supporting 
basic science research and innovation at universities and the 
Department of Energy's laboratories. The Energy Policy Modernization 
Act authorizes 4-percent annual budget increases for the DOE Office of 
Science and the Advanced Research Projects Agency.
  As cochair of the Senate National Laboratory Caucus, I strongly 
support these increases at DOE's Office of Science because I know it 
will lead to new breakthrough scientific discoveries that will keep 
America competitive.
  Since their creation in the 1940s, the national labs have really done 
some amazing things on energy innovation, scientific discovery, and 
national security. In Illinois, both Argonne and Fermi serve as a 
meeting place for the world's best researchers. The work conducted at 
their labs leads to advances in alternative-fuel vehicles and 
improvements in energy efficiency. Universities from across the country 
use the labs to conduct research and train others. That is why earlier 
this year I introduced a bill, the American Innovation Act, to provide 
5-percent real growth to DOE's Office of Science.
  I hope to offer an amendment on the floor. A 4-percent annual 
increase when it comes to the Office of Science in the Department of 
Energy, for example, is good, but that is not 4 percent over inflation. 
If inflation is running at 2 percent, it is merely a 2-percent real 
increase in research. I think we ought to err on the side of investing 
more into research. I think we should have 5-percent real growth in 
investment in the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense medical 
research, and the Veterans Administration medical research. Then when 
it comes to this side of the ledger, such as innovations, let's include 
the Office of Science and many other key agencies.
  I visited the Department of Energy a few months ago, and I had 
breakfast with Ernest Moniz, who is the Secretary. I talked to him 
about biomedical research, and he said: There is something I need to 
share with you. The Office of Science in the Department of Energy is 
developing the technology for imaging the brain so we can detect early 
indications of Alzheimer's. Currently, unfortunately, the only way to 
really say that a person is suffering from Alzheimer's with any 
objective assurance is through an autopsy. If we can--through imaging 
devices, while a person is still alive and before they have really 
started to decline--detect and work on stopping the progress of 
Alzheimer's, it would be an amazing achievement.
  Once every 67 seconds in America someone is diagnosed with 
Alzheimer's. I challenged my staff when they told me that, and they 
were right. Almost every single minute a person is diagnosed with 
Alzheimer's.
  Last year, in Federal funds, we spent in Medicare and Medicaid $200 
billion on Alzheimer's patients. Imagine what was spent in the private 
sector, and imagine the kind of sacrifices and the spending that were 
made by families trying to maintain the care of a family member 
stricken with Alzheimer's.
  So putting a little extra money into biomedical research, or in this 
case research at the Office of Science, is money well invested. If we 
can slow down the progress of Alzheimer's and find a way to delay it--
even months--it will pay back this investment over and over. God 
willing, if we find a cure, it will justify every penny we put into 
this research.
  I will offer an amendment, and what I am asking is basic. I am asking 
for authorization for 5-percent real growth that is over inflation. I 
think that is the least we can do, but I think it will be a significant 
commitment and substantially more than is currently in the bill.
  The work at these labs has led to amazing advances, and I think there 
is more ahead of us. In addition to supporting basic science research, 
the act before us directs the Department of Education to build a 
research program to develop the next generation of computers--1,000 
times faster than our current supercomputers. Is it possible? I believe 
it is. I am not an expert in this field, but you have to step back and 
say that it is amazing when they tell us that the cellphones we carry 
around have more computing power than the early computers that Steve 
Jobs and others brought to market.
  Currently, companies around the world use supercomputers to solve 
problems and answer important questions. Boeing and Cummins have both 
used DOE supercomputers to design better airplanes and trucks and use 
less energy so that they burn fuel more efficiently. This has led 
China, South Korea, and Europe to get into the competition. They are in 
the race, too, for the next generation of supercomputers. I want 
America to win that race. The bill before us, with its investment and 
research, can make a difference. The government should invest in these 
labs and in research to create jobs and competitive businesses. This 
bipartisan energy bill can achieve that and lead this country to a 
brighter future with greater energy resources that have a lighter 
impact on the environment and build a stronger economy. Because the 
energy choices we make now will determine the future of our children 
and

[[Page S306]]

grandchildren, we ought to be serious about it. We ought to make the 
investments for a sustainable planet and a promising, bright future.
  I hope my colleagues will work together to improve this bill and help 
us create a 21st century energy economy.
  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. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, we just left the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, as the Presiding Officer knows as a member of the Foreign 
Relation Committee, where we passed, with overwhelming bipartisan 
support, legislation to increase our sanctions against the rogue regime 
in North Korea.
  About a year ago I had a conversation with Senator Corker, the 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, about the need for 
the legislation. We both agreed that North Korea poses a serious and 
growing threat to its neighbors, to the U.S. homeland, and to global 
security. We agreed we could not continue to ignore the forgotten 
maniac--the forgotten maniac who is Kim Jong Un.
  This past August I had an opportunity to visit with South Korea 
personally to meet with the President of South Korea, Mr. Park, and we 
agreed that the status quo with regard to North Korea was no longer 
sustainable and no longer responsible. That is why this past October I 
introduced S. 2144, the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement 
Act. I thank the sponsors of that bill--Senators Rubio, Risch, Perdue, 
and Isakson--for cosponsoring the legislation and the chairman and his 
staff for their encouragement and invaluable support to make that bill 
a reality today, along with Senators Cardin and Menendez, who worked so 
hard, and the work Senator Menendez has been leading over the past year 
as well. This is a bipartisan product that came out of the committee. 
As the chairman announced today, we will most likely see floor time in 
just a couple of weeks.
  On January 6, 2016, our worst fears were realized when North Korea 
conducted its fourth nuclear test. Moreover, North Korea has claimed 
this test was a hydrogen bomb, which is a vastly more powerful weapon. 
Even if the reports out of North Korea are not true that it is not such 
a weapon, it still represents a significant advancement in North 
Korea's nuclear weapons capability. We also know North Korea continues 
to advance its ballistic missile program. News reports recently out of 
both Japan and in the United States talk about the equipment being 
moved for a possible additional missile launch.
  ADM Bill Gortney, the head of U.S. Northern Command based at Peterson 
Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO, has publicly stated on several 
occasions that North Korea may have already developed the ability to 
miniaturize a nuclear warhead, to mount it on their own 
intercontinental ballistic missile called the KN-08, and to ``shoot it 
at the homeland.'' Admiral Gortney reiterated those fears to me 
privately in our conversations numerous times as well, including his 
feeling--his concern--that the condition of the peninsula is perhaps at 
its most unstable point that it has been since the armistice.
  North Korea continues to grossly abuse the rights of their own 
people. There are up to 200,000 men, women, and children in North 
Korea's vast prison systems. In fact, the United Nations Commission of 
Inquiry in 2014 found that North Korea's actions constituted a crime 
against humanity.
  We have seen North Korea's cyber capabilities grow into an 
asymmetrical threat that they have utilized against its neighbors, 
South Korea and Japan, as well as the United States, as we all recall 
after the Sony Pictures hack in November of 2014. According to a 
November 2015 report by the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, North Korea is emerging as a significant actor in cyber space 
with both its military and clandestine organizations gaining the 
ability to conduct cyber operations.
  All of these developments represent a failure of U.S. policy of 
strategic patience toward North Korea. That is why this bill out of 
committee, with the strong bipartisan support that it received today, 
represents a final change in that failed policy. It allows us to change 
course and, in just a couple of weeks, we can put that legislation into 
effect.
  The House of Representatives, as we know, passed 418-to-2 their own 
version of a bill sanctioning North Korea just a few weeks ago, and I 
thank the chairman for moving forward on our very strong substitute 
amendment today.
  The Gardner-Menendez substitute before us today represents a slightly 
modified version of S. 2144. In particular, this legislation mandates--
not simply authorizes, it mandates--the President to impose sanctions 
against persons who materially contribute to North Korea's nuclear and 
ballistic missile development; import luxury goods into North Korea; 
enable its censorship and human rights abuses; engage in money 
laundering or manufacturing of counterfeit goods and narcotics 
trafficking; engaging in activities undermining cyber security; have 
sold, supplied or transferred to or from North Korea precious metals or 
raw metals, including aluminum, steel, and coal for the benefit of 
North Korea's regime and its illicit activities.
  These are mandatory sanctions. It is a dramatic new direction from 
the discretionary sanctions of today. I would note that these mandatory 
sanctions on North Korea's cyber activities and mandatory sanctions on 
the minerals are unique to the Senate legislation.
  This bill also codifies Executive Order Nos. 13687 and 13694, 
regarding cyber security as they apply to North Korea, which were 
enacted last year in the wake of the Sony Pictures hack and other cyber 
incidents. This is also a unique feature of the Senate bill, the 
Gardner-Menendez substitute amendment.
  Lastly, the mandatory sanctions on cyber violators will break new 
ground for Congress if enacted and signed into law, perhaps providing 
precedent for future cyber violations around the globe.
  We need to look for every way to deprive Pyongyang of income to build 
its weapons program, strengthen its cyber capabilities, and continue 
the abuse of its own people. We must stop this regime's abuse, and we 
must also send a strong message to China, North Korea's diplomatic 
protector and largest trading partner, that the United States will use 
every economic tool at its disposal to stop the forgotten maniac.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation when it moves to the 
floor. I congratulate Senator Corker and Senator Menendez for coming 
together with a bipartisan solution today so this body and the House of 
Representatives can pass this legislation and put it on the President's 
desk to be signed into law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Colorado 
for moving his amendment forward.
  I am here on a different subject, which is to discuss an amendment 
that I submitted with Senator Isakson concerning residential energy 
efficiency. The so-called SAVE Act has always been thoroughly 
bipartisan, drawing the support of Senators Isakson, Toomey, Moran, 
Portman, Boxer, and others, and attracted support from groups all 
across the political spectrum from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all the 
way to the Sierra Club.
  Our amendment would allow for a home's energy efficiency to be 
considered when a borrower is applying for a loan by making a simple 
change to home underwriting and appraisal standards. Specifically, when 
you apply for a mortgage, you can request under this legislation an 
energy audit, and if you have a loan that is backed by the FHA, the 
energy efficiency of your home and your energy bills will be taken into 
account by your mortgage

[[Page S307]]

lender. Without this change, even though homeowners spend more on 
energy costs than taxes or home insurance, the amount you pay each 
month for energy is not taken into account.
  This amendment isn't a mandate. It doesn't require anything. It 
simply allows mortgage lenders to account for energy costs in the same 
way they account for taxes and insurance. It makes no sense that 
cosmetic improvements like new countertops increase a house's value, 
but an energy-efficient furnace, which will actually save homeowners 
thousands of dollars, does not.
  This amendment will create thousands of jobs in manufacturing, 
construction, and energy efficiency. It will save homeowners money on 
their energy bills, and it will decrease foreclosure risk. It will 
increase the energy efficiency of our homes. It does all this by giving 
consumers a choice they don't today have.
  I have heard from builders all across Colorado who support this 
amendment--people like Gene Myers, who is the CEO and founder of Thrive 
Home Builders. He has built more than 1,000 energy-efficient homes in 
the Denver area, but he understands we will not fully attain the 
benefits of efficiency in the market until we properly value it.
  For these reasons, a large and diverse coalition supports this 
amendment, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
National Association of Home Builders, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
and the U.S. Defense Council, among others.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan and commonsense 
amendment to improve energy efficiency and create American jobs. I 
thank the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, for his leadership and his 
sponsorship of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Energy Policy 
Modernization Act of 2015--legislation that has been advanced by our 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee chairman, Senator Murkowski, 
along with the ranking member, Senator Cantwell. As a member of the 
committee, I appreciate their leadership on this important issue and 
this legislation we are now considering on the floor.
  I think Chairwoman Murkowski is right when she speaks to the need to 
update our Nation's energy policy and, in that spirit, I filed several 
amendments designed to advance our Nation's energy policy in key areas. 
Today I wish to speak briefly about these three amendments. These 
amendments would help provide regulatory certainty for cross-border 
infrastructure projects, the regulation and recycling of coal ash, and 
reaffirm State primacy for energy development, particularly when it 
comes to hydraulic fracturing or fracking.
  First, let me talk about the North American energy infrastructure 
amendment. One of the necessary components to leveraging our abundant 
energy resources and strengthening our energy security involves 
building the infrastructure to take energy from where it is produced to 
where it is consumed. Whether it is transporting crude oil or natural 
gas or modernizing and connecting our electric grid, these projects 
require long-term planning and investment, as well as a regulatory 
environment that promotes certainty and transparency, as well as 
impartial review.
  That is why I have submitted an amendment which is identical to the 
North American Energy Infrastructure Act--S. 1228--that would modernize 
the existing Department of Energy Presidential permitting process for 
cross-border infrastructure projects.
  This amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Donnelly of Indiana--
it is a bipartisan measure--removes the need for a Presidential permit 
for the construction, operation or maintenance of a new oil or natural 
gas pipeline or electric transmission facility with Canada or Mexico 
and instead places the process in the proper Federal agencies.
  While it does not alter the NEPA--again, I will repeat this. While it 
does not alter NEPA's--the National Environmental Policy Act--
environmental review process, our amendment sets time limits for 
Federal agencies to make a decision on projects once those necessary 
reviews are completed. This will add greater certainty to the 
permitting process, and that certainty will help attract the long-term 
investment necessary to help us build the energy infrastructure we 
need.
  These projects are too important to our economy and to our national 
security to be dragged out virtually for years, such as in the case of 
the Keystone XL Pipeline--more than 7 years. We need a process that is 
fact-based, transparent, consistent, and nonpartisan, that will help 
support the important energy relationship between the United States and 
our closest friend and ally--Canada.
  The Energy Department publicly states that it requires approximately 
6 to 18 months to issue a Presidential permit. However, there are 
numerous examples of pipelines and electric transmission applications 
languishing far beyond that timeline. The many inconsistencies 
involving these applications speak to the need to update this 
permitting process.
  So let's start with crude oil pipelines. Take, for example, the 
bureaucratic delays for the Plains All American Pipeline, which secured 
a Presidential permit from the U.S. State Department for its crude oil 
pipeline in 2007. In February of 2013, the company sought a name change 
permit from the State Department. However, it took until August of 
2015--2\1/2\ years--before a name change was approved.
  The State Department informed the company that its application for a 
name change required a new National Environmental Policy Act--or NEPA--
review because a separate pipeline, the Bakken North, based wholly 
within the United States, would connect to it. So to change the name, 
they had to do a NEPA review for 2\1/2\ years.
  Electric transmission lines. There have also been many delays in 
siting electric transmission lines between the United States and 
Canada, and in a lot of cases that is for renewable energy. One example 
is the New England Clean Power Link, a 1,000-megawatt project 
delivering renewable energy spanning 154 miles between Vermont and 
Quebec. The company filed its application for a Presidential permit in 
May of 2014. Yet its application has been pending for over 20 months 
for a renewable energy electric transmission line.
  Another example is the Great Northern Transmission Line, a 220-mile 
project that would connect Minnesota and Manitoba, bringing 
hydroelectricity and wind power across the border. The project's 
Presidential application was filed in April of 2014. While the review 
is ongoing and we hope an outcome will come soon, this application has 
been pending for almost 2 years.
  The third example is the Champlain Hudson Power Express project, a 
333-mile underground and underwater project. It will bring 1,000 
megawatts of hydroelectric power from Quebec to the New York City area. 
The application for a Presidential permit was initially filed in 
January 2010; yet it took almost 5 years--until October 2014--for the 
Presidential permit to be issued.
  Inconsistent delays in the Federal review timelines, which last 
longer than the Energy Department's 6- to 18-month target--the target 
is 6 to 18 months, not 5 to 7 years--inject uncertainty, risk, and 
costs into all of these vital projects.
  Commonsense reforms are needed so the project proponents and 
consumers can benefit. This is exactly what this legislation does. 
Specifically, this amendment would eliminate the Presidential permit 
requirement for construction or modification of new oil and natural gas 
pipelines, as well as electric transmission facilities, that cross the 
national boundary of the United States. Instead, it places the process 
in the proper agencies.
  It would require that the certificate of crossing will be issued by 
the Secretary of State for oil pipelines, the Energy Department for 
electric transmission lines, and FERC and the Energy Department for 
cross-border natural gas pipelines, as currently configured.
  It requires the State Department to issue a certificate of crossing 
on a cross-border pipeline permit within 120 days upon completion of a 
NEPA environmental review process. There is the NEPA environmental 
review process, but then 120 days after that, they have to make a 
decision and they have to issue a certificate of crossing unless

[[Page S308]]

the agency finds that construction of the cross-border segment is not 
in the public interest of the United States.
  It would retain the NEPA review of the potential environmental 
impacts of a new project at a border crossing and leaves unchanged all 
other environmental, land, or wildlife reviews currently applying to 
any other pipeline constructed in the country. In other words, the 
States would still oversee the NEPA and permitting processes, as they 
do now.
  It would provide for an open and transparent rulemaking process to 
determine the definition of ``cross-border segment,'' which would be 
used to help determine the scope of the NEPA review process. That is 
because requiring a NEPA review for the entire pipeline project 
duplicates the multiple Federal, State, and local agencies' 
regulations, processes, and authorities already in place.
  There are numerous existing State and Federal laws and regulations 
for the review and approval of siting, land acquisition, design, and 
construction of projects. Those remain unaffected by this amendment. 
For example--and this is important--State laws and regulations 
governing pipeline siting remain unchanged by this amendment. Federal 
laws and regulations governing design, construction, safety, and 
environmental review of the pipelines remain unchanged. State and local 
laws and regulations regarding land and rights-of-way acquisition for 
infrastructure projects, such as pipelines, would remain unchanged. 
Construction and operation of a pipeline in the United States must 
comply with the safety regulations of the Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration. This is a separate process from the 
NEPA process and is also unchanged by this amendment.
  The measure would provide appropriate authority and scope to the 
State Department for examination of border-crossing impacts of 
projects. Other reviews by the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers for issues such as environmental, land, and wildlife impacts 
are appropriate and remain unchanged.
  The amendment would require FERC to approve natural gas cross-border 
pipelines consistent with current policy. It also requires the Energy 
Department to issue a permit within 30 days of the receipt of the FERC 
action. Again, these are rational timelines, so there is some 
consistency and dependability in the process.
  Finally, the amendment also specifies that existing projects do not 
need further approvals for new or revised Presidential permits for 
certain modifications. These include alterations such as volume 
expansion, adjustments to maintain flow, or changes in ownership.
  This is commonsense legislation that can help us build the vital 
energy infrastructure we need for this country.
  At this point, Mr. President, I would ask how much time I have 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, the next amendment I would like to review 
that I will be offering is identical to a bill introduced by Senator 
Manchin and myself. It is the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals 
Regulation Act of 2016, S. 2446. This legislation, which builds on our 
past efforts to find a bicameral, bipartisan approach to coal ash, 
ensures that there is safe disposal of coal ash and provides greater 
certainty for its recycling. This is a win from the industry standpoint 
of more energy, it is more cost-effective, but it is also an 
environmental win in terms of recycling coal ash, as well as making 
sure that when it is disposed of, it is done safely.
  Coal ash is a byproduct of coal-based electricity generation that has 
been safely recycled for buildings, roads, bridges, and other 
infrastructure for years. In fact, I think it is important to take note 
of the environmental and financial benefits of coal ash recycling. Over 
60 million tons of coal ash were beneficially used in 2014, including 
over 14 million tons in concrete. It has been calculated that taxpayers 
save $5.2 billion dollars per year thanks to the use of coal ash in 
federally funded road and bridge construction. Products made with coal 
ash are often stronger and more durable, and coal ash reduces the need 
to manufacture cement, which resulted in greenhouse gas emission 
reductions of 13 million tons in 2014.
  In December of 2014, the EPA put forth new regulations for the 
management of coal ash. The regulations made clear--at least for the 
time being--that coal ash would continue to be treated and regulated as 
a nonhazardous waste consistent with EPA's earlier findings. However, 
the regulation has a major flaw: It relies solely on citizen lawsuits 
for enforcement. What this means is that neither the EPA nor the States 
can directly enforce the rules through a permit program with which 
owners and operators of coal ash disposal facilities must comply. Think 
about it. That means the regulation does not create the constructive 
regulatory guidance and oversight necessary to ensure the proper 
management of coal ash. Instead, the EPA regulation has created a 
situation whereby the only enforcement mechanism for the rule is that 
an operator of a coal ash site can be sued for not meeting the EPA's 
new Federal regulatory standards. Those subject to this regulation 
whose responsibility it is for keeping the lights on for our 
electricity consumers are themselves left in the dark about how the EPA 
standards will be defined in court cases across the Nation. Instead of 
direct oversight, we will have lawsuits brought by those who want to 
shut down coal production.
  Imagine building an addition to your house and there being no 
building permit process to go through with your local government. Let's 
just take this as an analogy. You want to build a house, but there is 
no building permit process to go through with the local government. You 
call the city or the county, and they say: Well, you should just read 
the rules, and if you violate the rules, know that you can be sued at 
any time by anyone who thinks that maybe you didn't build that addition 
according to the law. This process would leave you without any sort of 
assurances that you actually built your addition in accordance with the 
law. Worse, you would have the threat of litigation hanging over your 
head. Does that make any sense?
  Think about it. You build a house, a nice, beautiful house, in 
Phoenix, where it is nice and warm in the winter. You can't get a 
building permit. You build that house according to your interpretation 
of the regulations, but anybody--it might be your neighbor; it might be 
somebody who comes down from the great State of North Dakota to enjoy 
your lovely winter--anybody may decide to sue you, and they would be 
able to do it. That is how the regulation of coal ash is set up. Come 
on. It makes no sense at all. That is how it has been done, and that is 
why we need to fix it.
  Our amendment will directly address this problem by taking the best 
parts of our EPA rule--the standards for coal ash disposal--and 
incorporating all of them in EPA-approved State permit programs for 
both recycling and disposal. The States will have direct oversight over 
disposal sites' design and operation, including inspections, air 
criteria, run-on and run-off control, closure and postclosure care, and 
financial assurance. Meanwhile, we offer State regulators the same 
flexibility for implementing the groundwater monitoring and corrective 
action standards that are currently provided under existing municipal 
solid waste and hazardous waste regulations, allowing State regulators 
to make tailored, site-specific adjustments.
  We have been listening to the issues the EPA has brought up about our 
previous versions of this legislation. In fact, we changed the 
legislation to include a more traditional EPA application process for 
the State permit programs. If the EPA finds that a State permit program 
is deficient----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to 
finish my remarks, with the indulgence of the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. If the EPA finds a State permit program deficient, then 
the EPA can take direct control over the State's permit program in that 
State. If a State doesn't want to have its own permit program, the EPA 
runs the permit program for the State.
  Mr. President, our amendment is about responsible regulation. It is

[[Page S309]]

about certainty for recyclers and for the American public, who will 
know that State and Federal regulators are actually working with energy 
producers to ensure safe disposal of coal ash.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan approach 
by voting for the Hoeven-Manchin amendment.
  I do have another amendment to speak on, but at this time, due to 
time constraints, I will defer to the Senator from Massachusetts, and I 
thank him for his courtesy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                     Remembering Christa McAuliffe

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the 
life of Massachusetts' Christa McAuliffe. She lost her life, along with 
six other crewmembers, 30 years ago today when the space shuttle 
Challenger exploded. She was an extraordinary teacher and was selected 
out of a pool of 11,000 applicants to lead the ultimate field trip as 
the first teacher in space. Her legacy lives on in many ways but 
especially at the Christa McAuliffe Center for Education and Teaching 
Excellence at her alma mater, Framingham State University.


                           Amendment No. 2982

  Mr. President, the omnibus spending bill that was enacted into law in 
December lifted the 40-year-old restriction on exporting U.S. oil 
overseas. During that debate, concerns were raised regarding the impact 
that exporting American oil abroad could have on U.S. consumers and 
refining fuel prices, independent refineries, and other sectors of the 
U.S. economy, such as shipbuilding.
  However, the final language that became law did not include any 
requirement for analyzing and reporting on any potential impacts that 
exports could have on the industry or on U.S. consumers. The Markey 
amendment No. 2982 to the Energy bill would create such a review. The 
amendment would require the GAO to review and report back annually for 
3 years on the impacts of crude oil exports on U.S. consumers, 
independent refineries, shipbuilders, and energy production.
  The language of my amendment is language that is bipartisan. The 
language of my amendment is identical to language included in 
legislation sponsored by Chairman Murkowski. It is also identical to 
language included in legislation introduced by other Senators.
  Exporting American crude oil could be a disaster for independent 
refineries in regions such as the east coast. Upwards of 55 percent of 
our refining capacity on the east coast could potentially close as a 
result of oil exports.
  The Energy Department has said that exports could lead to as much as 
$9 billion less investment and 1.6 million barrels less refining 
capacity in 10 years. It could lead to up to $200 billion less revenue 
for the U.S. refining sector over the next decade.
  It could raise prices for consumers, who are currently saving $700 a 
year at the pump and $500 a year on home heating oil this winter 
because of low prices.
  It could harm U.S. shipbuilders. We have been having a shipbuilding 
renaissance in this country. We are currently seeing the biggest 
shipbuilding boom in 20 years, and it has been because of our 
increasing oil production and the Jones Act, which requires shipments 
between U.S. ports to be on U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-crewed 
ships. This means that producing more oil is leading to investment in 
U.S.-built ships to move that oil around the country. Right now, U.S. 
shipbuilders have orders to expand our domestic tanker fleet capable of 
transporting crude oil by 40 percent. Each oil tanker can represent an 
investment of $100 to $200 million. Five years ago there were zero 
orders. Now one company alone in Pennsylvania--Aker ASA--has nearly $1 
billion in back orders and has tripled employment over the last 3 
years.
  Exports could stop all of this in its tracks, so that GAO report is 
very important. I also want to compliment Chairman Murkowski and 
Ranking Member Cantwell for their excellent work in partnering to 
produce the legislation which we are considering here on the floor. It 
represents bipartisanship in the way it is meant to operate.
  Toward that goal, I have an amendment that I am going to speak to 
right now, which is one that Senator Cassidy from Louisiana and I have 
introduced. It is an amendment to improve the way we are going to be 
selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Our Nation's oil 
stockpile is supposed to be there to protect American consumers and our 
security in the event of an emergency. We should not be using it as a 
piggy bank to pay for other priorities. But if we are going to sell oil 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we should at least make sure that 
we do so strategically, to get the best deal for taxpayers and American 
consumers. Last year, Senator Cassidy and I offered a nearly identical 
amendment to the Transportation bill, which was adopted on the Senate 
floor and ultimately became law. That amendment protects taxpayers by 
improving the way the sales required under the bill--sales of oil from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--are, in fact, conducted. The Cassidy-
Markey fix gives the Secretary of Energy more flexibility to sell oil 
when prices are high and directs the Department to stop selling oil 
when the revenue targets required by the bill are reached.
  This fix should allow us to sell fewer overall barrels from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and get a better return on those sales. 
However, the roughly $5 million worth of SPRO that was required to be 
sold as part of the Budget Act that passed in November did not include 
this commonsense fix. The current Cassidy-Markey amendment that is 
pending to the Energy bill contains language virtually identical to the 
amendment to the Transportation bill that was adopted on the Senate 
floor. It would apply the same fix to the sales required by the Budget 
Act in order to protect taxpayers.
  Too often our policy with respect to SPRO has been to buy high and 
sell low. Taxpayers have paid an inflation-adjusted average of roughly 
$75 a barrel for the oil that is in our Nation's stockpile. We should 
ensure that we get the best return for our taxpayers in those SPRO 
sales. That is what our amendment would do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, did my colleague from Alaska wish to 
intervene for a moment?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Just an inquiry, Mr. President, into how much time the 
Senator is seeking at this moment.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Yes, 10 minutes.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I also understand that Senator Whitehouse wishes to 
speak to an amendment that is pending. Is that correct?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I only wish for a moment to speak in 
favor of the Crapo-Whitehouse amendment. I could do that for a minute 
or for 10 seconds later on. I don't need the time now. We can get to 
the vote as the chairman wishes.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you. I am trying to make sure that we are going 
to commence the vote beginning at noon. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.


                    Our ``We the People'' Democracy

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the most important words in the crafting 
of our Constitution are the first three words. Those words are ``We the 
People.'' As President Lincoln so eloquently put it, this is the notion 
that we would create a system of governance that would be governance of 
the people, by the people, and for the people. I will be rising 
periodically to address issues that affect American citizens across our 
Nation, that are important, that are urgent, and that this body should 
be addressing.
  This week I am using my ``We the People'' speech to highlight 
excerpts from an article written by NASA scientist Piers Sellers. Piers 
Sellers was an astronaut. He has been a NASA scientist, and he shared 
this article from which I am taking portions. He says:

       I'm a climate scientist who has just been told I have Stage 
     4 pancreatic cancer.

  He continues:

       This diagnosis puts me in an interesting position. I've 
     spent much of my professional life thinking about the science 
     of climate change, which is best viewed through a 
     multidecadal lens. At some level I was sure that, even at my 
     present age of 60, I would live to see the most critical part 
     of the problem, and its possible solutions, play out in my 
     lifetime. Now that my personal horizon has been steeply 
     foreshortened, I was forced

[[Page S310]]

     to decide how to spend my remaining time. Was continuing to 
     think about climate change worth the bother?

  He goes on to note that he examined his bucket list and he found only 
two things that really mattered: spending time with his family--as he 
put it, ``with the people I know and love''--and then getting back to 
his office ``as quickly as possible'' to continue the work on climate 
science and addressing climate change.
  He notes:

       On the science side, there has been a steady accumulation 
     of evidence from the last 15 years that climate change is 
     real and that its trajectory could lead us to a very 
     uncomfortable, if not dangerous, place. On the policy side, 
     the just-concluded climate conference in Paris set a goal of 
     holding the increase in global average temperature to 2 
     degrees Celsius . . . above preindustrial levels.

  He continues:

       It's doubtful that we'll hold the line at 2 degrees . . . 
     but we need to give it our best shot. With scenarios that 
     exceed that target, we are talking about enormous changes in 
     global precipitation and temperature patterns, huge impacts 
     on water and food security, and significant sea level rise.

  He continues, saying that ``Pope Francis and a think tank of retired 
military officers have drawn roughly the same conclusion . . . The 
worst impacts will be felt by the world's poorest.''
  He continues to examine this and notes that while heavy lifting will 
have to be done by policymakers--and he is speaking to all of us--
scientists can add a great deal, and scientists at NASA can help by 
keeping track of the changes in the Earth's system and using their 
powerful computer models to explore which approaches to addressing this 
problem are practical, trading off near-term impacts against longer 
term impacts.
  He observes that engineers and industrialists must come up with new 
technologies to address the challenges of clean energy generation, 
storage, and distribution, and that they must be solved within a few 
decades.
  Later in the article, he says:

       History is replete with examples of us humans getting out 
     of tight spots. The winners tend to be realistic, pragmatic, 
     and flexible; the losers are often in denial of the threat.

  He closes by saying this:

       As for me, I have no complaints. I am very grateful for the 
     experiences I have had on this planet. As an astronaut, I 
     space-walked 220 miles above the Earth, floating alongside 
     the International Space Station. I watched hurricanes 
     cartwheel across the ocean, the Amazon snake its way through 
     a sea of brilliant green carpeted forest, and gigantic 
     nighttime thunderstorms flash and flare for hundreds of miles 
     along the Ecuador. From this God's-eye-view, I saw how 
     fragile and infinitely precious the Earth is, and I am 
     hopeful for its future.

  ``And so,'' he concludes, ``I am going to work tomorrow.''
  I simply want to thank Piers for his lifetime of commitment to 
science, his service as an astronaut, his continuing to work on this 
major challenge of addressing the planet, and that he would see--even 
in these days where he is fighting a battle against a forceful, 
powerful disease, he is dedicating his efforts to this challenge.
  Is that not a call for all of us to see how important it is for us to 
dedicate our efforts to take on this challenge and to recognize, as he 
points out, that major strategies must be developed in a short period 
of time to avoid catastrophic consequences.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the disposition of the Crapo amendment, the Senate then vote on the 
Markey amendment with no second-degree amendments in order to the 
Markey amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, now we are ready to dispose of a couple 
of amendments by voice vote.


                           Amendment No. 3017

  I call for the regular order with respect to the Barrasso amendment 
No. 3017.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


                    Amendment No. 3017, as Modified

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk for 
Barrasso amendment No. 3017.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle G of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 46__. CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY PRIZE.

       Section 1008 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     16396) (as amended by section 4601) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(h) Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Prize.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Board.--The term `Board' means the Carbon Dioxide 
     Capture Technology Advisory Board established by paragraph 
     (6).
       ``(B) Dilute.--The term `dilute' means a concentration of 
     less than 1 percent by volume.
       ``(C) Intellectual property.--The term `intellectual 
     property' means--
       ``(i) an invention that is patentable under title 35, 
     United States Code; and
       ``(ii) any patent on an invention described in clause (i).
       ``(D) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Energy or designee, in consultation with the Board.
       ``(2) Authority.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, as part of the program carried 
     out under this section, the Secretary shall establish and 
     award competitive technology financial awards for carbon 
     dioxide capture from media in which the concentration of 
     carbon dioxide is dilute.
       ``(3) Duties.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) subject to paragraph (4), develop specific 
     requirements for--
       ``(i) the competition process;
       ``(ii) minimum performance standards for qualifying 
     projects; and
       ``(iii) monitoring and verification procedures for approved 
     projects;
       ``(B) establish minimum levels for the capture of carbon 
     dioxide from a dilute medium that are required to be achieved 
     to qualify for a financial award described in subparagraph 
     (C);
       ``(C) offer financial awards for--
       ``(i) a design for a promising capture technology;
       ``(ii) a successful bench-scale demonstration of a capture 
     technology;
       ``(iii) a design for a technology described in clause (i) 
     that will--

       ``(I) be operated on a demonstration scale; and
       ``(II) achieve significant reduction in the level of carbon 
     dioxide; and

       ``(iv) an operational capture technology on a commercial 
     scale that meets the minimum levels described in subparagraph 
     (B); and
       ``(D) submit to Congress--
       ``(i) an annual report that describes the progress made by 
     the Board and recipients of financial awards under this 
     subsection in achieving the demonstration goals established 
     under subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, a report on the adequacy of authorized 
     funding levels in this subsection.
       ``(4) Public participation.--In carrying out paragraph 
     (3)(A), the Board shall--
       ``(A) provide notice of and, for a period of at least 60 
     days, an opportunity for public comment on, any draft or 
     proposed version of the requirements described in paragraph 
     (3)(A); and
       ``(B) take into account public comments received in 
     developing the final version of those requirements.
       ``(5) Peer review.--No financial awards may be provided 
     under this subsection until the proposal for which the award 
     is sought has been peer reviewed in accordance with such 
     standards for peer review as are established by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(6) Carbon dioxide capture technology advisory board.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established an advisory 
     board to be known as the `Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology 
     Advisory Board'.
       ``(B) Composition.--The Board shall be composed of 9 
     members appointed by the President, who shall provide 
     expertise in--
       ``(i) climate science;
       ``(ii) physics;
       ``(iii) chemistry;
       ``(iv) biology;
       ``(v) engineering;
       ``(vi) economics;
       ``(vii) business management; and
       ``(viii) such other disciplines as the Secretary determines 
     to be necessary to achieve the purposes of this subsection.
       ``(C) Term; vacancies.--
       ``(i) Term.--A member of the Board shall serve for a term 
     of 6 years.
       ``(ii) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Board--

       ``(I) shall not affect the powers of the Board; and
       ``(II) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.

       ``(D) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which all members of the Board have been appointed, 
     the Board shall hold the initial meeting of the Board.
       ``(E) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       ``(F) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       ``(G) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The Board shall 
     select a Chairperson and

[[Page S311]]

     Vice Chairperson from among the members of the Board.
       ``(H) Compensation.--Each member of the Board may be 
     compensated at not to exceed the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level V 
     of the Executive Schedule for each day during which the 
     member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of 
     the Board.
       ``(I) Duties.--The Board shall advise the Secretary on 
     carrying out the duties of the Secretary under this 
     subsection.
       ``(7) Intellectual property.--
       ``(A) In general.--As a condition of receiving a financial 
     award under this subsection, an applicant shall agree to vest 
     the intellectual property of the applicant derived from the 
     technology in 1 or more entities that are incorporated in the 
     United States.
       ``(B) Reservation of license.--The United States--
       ``(i) may reserve a nonexclusive, nontransferable, 
     irrevocable, paid-up license, to have practiced for or on 
     behalf of the United States, in connection with any 
     intellectual property described in subparagraph (A); but
       ``(ii) shall not, in the exercise of a license reserved 
     under clause (i), publicly disclose proprietary information 
     relating to the license.
       ``(C) Transfer of title.--Title to any intellectual 
     property described in subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     transferred or passed, except to an entity that is 
     incorporated in the United States, until the expiration of 
     the first patent obtained in connection with the intellectual 
     property.
       ``(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $50,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       ``(9) Termination of authority.--The Board and all 
     authority provided under this subsection shall terminate on 
     December 31, 2026.''.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Since there is no further debate, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 3017, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3017), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2968

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with 
respect to the Shaheen amendment No. 2968.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2968.
  The amendment (No. 2968) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3021

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Crapo and Senator Whitehouse each have 1 minute of debate prior 
to the vote on the Crapo amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will vote on the 
adoption of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, which we 
are seeking to add as an amendment to this important Energy bill. This 
amendment will do a number of very critical things to help the United 
States increase and maintain and keep its lead in nuclear energy 
development globally.
  It will establish a modeling and simulation program that aids in the 
development of new reactor technologies, establish a user facility for 
a versatile reactor-based fast neutron source, and establish a national 
innovation center to help share this vital information between the 
government and the private sector.
  It will allow the NRC to apprise the Department of Energy of 
regulatory challenges early in the development process and would 
require a report by the NRC on the licensing of non-light water 
reactors. This bill is a strong signal to the rest of the world that we 
intend to maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear technology.
  This bill will enable the private sector and national labs to work 
together to create even greater achievement in nuclear science than in 
the last century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as the lead Democratic cosponsor of 
Senator Crapo's amendment, I want to commend and salute him for his 
leadership. Senators Durbin and Booker and I have all joined from our 
side. Senator Crapo, Senator Risch, Senator Hatch, and Senator Kirk are 
on the Republican side. This is truly a bipartisan amendment. I hope it 
will get a strong and positive vote.
  It is very important that America continue its innovation in the area 
of advanced nuclear technologies. They continue to confer immense 
promise. We are seeing the promise of American innovation realized 
overseas, for instance, where the first traveling wave technologies are 
being constructed in China, not here.
  We need to make sure we continue our investment. We need to make sure 
we are doing good regulation so that innovation can proceed to the 
market. We hope this amendment will help move that forward.
  Once again, Senator Crapo has shown great leadership with this. I am 
pleased to support him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3021.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), 
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Maryland 
(Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 4, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Hirono
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Inhofe
     Klobuchar
     Mikulski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The amendment (No. 3021) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2982

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2982.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), 
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 29, as follows:

[[Page S312]]

  


                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Corker
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Gardner
     Inhofe
     Mikulski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The amendment (No. 2982) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 1:45 
p.m. will be equally divided between the managers or their designees.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.


    Remembering the Crewmembers of the Space Shuttle ``Challenger''

  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, today is the 30th anniversary of the 
tremendous loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger and of New Hampshire 
teacher in space Christa McAuliffe of Concord, NH.
  Today I rise to honor the legacy of the Challenger. On this day 30 
years ago, America was saddened by the tragic loss of seven brave 
crewmembers of the Space Shuttle Challenger : Commander Francis R. 
Scobee, Pilot Michael Smith, Mission Specialist Ellison S. Onizuka, 
Mission Specialist Ronald E. McNair, Mission Specialist Judith A. 
Resnik, Payload Specialist Gregory B. Jarvis, and, of course, our own 
New Hampshire teacher in space and payload specialist, S. Christa 
McAuliffe.
  Each of the members of the Challenger crew conducted themselves with 
such bravery, heroism, and a desire to reach beyond and into the stars 
that it inspired me.
  As a high school student, I remember where I was that day. We were 
all watching as the Challenger was lifting off into the stars. I was a 
student at Nashua High School and Christa McAuliffe inspired all of us. 
She captured the Nation's imagination as she looked to be the first 
teacher in space.
  That tragic day touched the lives of every man, woman, and child in 
New Hampshire. It was one of those days in history when time stopped 
and everyone remembers what they were doing at that moment. I know I 
certainly do. You see, Christa was a role model, someone who lived 
among us and was able to achieve extraordinary things. She inspired 
young people across New Hampshire and the Nation to ``touch the 
future.''
  She was a gifted educator and had such an infectious enthusiasm for 
teaching. She taught social studies at Concord High School and was 
selected from 11,000 applicants to be the first teacher in space.
  When asked about the mission on national television, she said: ``If 
you're offered a seat on a rocket ship, don't ask what seat. Just get 
on.'' It really shows her dedication to teaching, her bravery, and her 
commitment to inspiring the next generation of leaders, scientists, 
dreamers, and explorers, all of whom have made our Nation great.
  Today, the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center in Concord, NH, is 
named in her honor. This state-of-the-art facility not only provides a 
lasting tribute to the courage and bravery of Christa McAuliffe and all 
of the members of the Challenger crew, but it also helps educate 
visitors about the contributions of these extraordinary New Hampshire 
citizens--not just Christa McAuliffe but other New Hampshire citizens 
who have braved and explored space. The McAuliffe planetarium is doing 
amazing work by showing the next generation of scientists and leaders 
how exciting it is to study science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics. It is a tremendous legacy to Christa McAuliffe and all who 
have traveled in space and explored the edges of the universe on our 
behalf so we can learn more about ourselves and new developments.
  President Ronald Reagan eloquently said that frightful day 30 years 
ago:

       The crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger honored us by the 
     manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget 
     them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they 
     prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and ``slipped 
     the surly bonds of earth'' to ``touch the face of God.''

  Today we remember and honor the legacy of a great Granite Stater and 
great American, Christa McAuliffe, and all of the brave crewmembers of 
the Space Shuttle Challenger that day because their legacy continues to 
live on in our children and in our continuous focus on improving in 
science, technology, mathematics, and our continuous reach for the 
stars.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  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.
  Mrs. FISCHER. 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.


      Honoring Nebraska's Soldiers Who Lost Their Lives in Combat

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the great men 
and women of Nebraska who have served and are serving in the U.S. 
military.
  Our State has a rich and powerful history of answering the call to 
serve. For nearly 150 years, we have witnessed this bravery in each of 
America's wars. Over the past decade, the men and women of Nebraska 
have risen to defend our precious freedom against Islamic terrorists, 
primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This year marks the 15th anniversary of the horrific terrorist 
attacks in New York and Washington, DC. These events changed the lives 
of Nebraskans and our Nation forever. Nebraskans stepped up, ready to 
fight. Those serving in uniform, be it Active Duty, the National Guard 
or the Reserves, knew they would likely wind up on the battlefield at 
some point in the future.
  Many other Nebraskans enlisted after high school. ROTC units in 
Nebraska had no problem filling their ranks, and applications for 
military academy nominations poured in at record numbers. We should all 
be so thankful to this generation for answering the call and standing 
up to defend freedom across the globe.
  Today, I begin a new initiative to honor this generation of 
Nebraska's heroes on the Senate floor, and I will focus on those who 
lost their lives in combat. All of our fallen Nebraskans have a special 
story. According to the Nebraska Department of Veterans Affairs, there 
are 77 Nebraskans who lost their lives to combat-related incidents in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Throughout this year and beyond, I intend to 
devote time on the Senate floor to remember each of these heroes. 
Telling their stories keeps their service and their sacrifice alive in 
our hearts, while reminding us of the principles they fought and died 
for.
  Time after time, Nebraska's Gold Star families tell me the same 
thing. They hope and pray that the supreme sacrifices of their loved 
ones will always be remembered. It is my hope that these presentations 
will allow us to pause and reflect on these brave Nebraskans. The 
freedoms they secured are personified by the courage they embody.


                       Specialist Joshua A. Ford

  Mr. President, today I wish to begin with SPC Josh Ford from Pender, 
NE. Joshua A. Ford was killed in Iraq on July 31, 2006. His parents, 
relatives, and high school classmates look back lovingly on the boy who 
quickly grew to be a courageous soldier.
  As a young teenager, Josh was described as a couch potato who liked 
video games, painting, and watching horror movies, but deep inside 
there grew a strong desire to serve his country in military uniform.
  He joined the Nebraska Army National Guard between his junior and 
senior year at Pender High School in

[[Page S313]]

2003. That same year he began basic training at Fort Jackson. He was 
just 17 years old, and it was a tough transition.
  His dad Lonnie remembers Josh talking about being placed in ``fat 
man's camp'' at Fort Jackson. Josh was overweight by 35 pounds at the 
time. Lonnie and his wife Linda, along with classmates and friends, 
noticed how dramatically Josh had changed when he returned from basic 
training.
  A year later, after graduating from Pender High School, Josh attended 
the Army's heavy vehicle driver school at Fort Leonard Wood. He was 
assigned to the 189th Transportation Company, Detachment No. 1, in 
Wayne, NE.
  A senior sergeant remembers that Josh ``grew up from a kid to a 
soldier almost overnight.''
  The 189th had just been recognized as a unit in April of 2003. Two 
years later, the 189th received orders to deploy to Iraq.
  Following training at Fort Riley, the unit arrived at Tallil, Iraq, 
in October of 2005. For the next year they traveled over 2.5 million 
miles throughout the country. Specialist Ford became known as an 
energetic and reliable battle buddy. He was eager to tackle extra 
missions.
  Josh came home on leave in April of 2006. He had a number of things 
on his mind. At the top of his list was his girlfriend Michelle, whom 
he proposed to that spring, and she happily accepted. He also kept 
things in order, leaving behind an audio will for his friends. 
According to Josh's father Lonnie, ``he just wanted everyone to 
celebrate his life after he was gone.''
  Josh returned to Iraq with just 6 months to go in the deployment. In 
the early evening of July 31, 2006, the heat was unbearable but typical 
for a summer day in Iraq. Specialist Ford and his battle buddy, SPC Ben 
Marksmeier, were part of a 189th convoy that was driving through an 
area they had patrolled many times. Out of nowhere, an IED blast 
obliterated their vehicle. Unit members reached their truck 
immediately. Specialist Marksmeier was seriously injured, but 
Specialist Ford died at the scene.
  Lonnie, Josh's dad, will never forget the day he heard the knock at 
the door. Three members of the Nebraska Army National Guard had arrived 
at his home in Pender, and he knew before he opened the door why they 
had come. The next day, Lonnie and his wife Linda traveled over 250 
miles to tell Josh's grandmother and his three sisters of his death. 
One can only imagine the pain, sorrow, and agony they felt every step 
of the way.
  SPC Josh Ford was buried in Pender, NE, on August 10, 2006. Pictures 
show the road from the church to the cemetery lined with people as the 
Patriot Guard veteran motorcycle group escorted Josh to his final 
resting place.
  For his service to his country, SPC Josh Ford earned the Bronze Star, 
the Purple Heart, and the Combat Action Badge. He was promoted 
posthumously to the rank of sergeant.
  His father Lonnie later retired from teaching, and he joined the 
Patriot Guard. Today, Lonnie ensures those who served and died are 
never forgotten. He attends funerals and events with his fellow Patriot 
Guard riders all across Nebraska. Josh's photo and his service 
information are proudly displayed on his rider's vest.
  He recalls Josh saying to him, when he was home on leave in April 
before his death:

       Old man, I now understand why you were so tough on me while 
     I was growing up. You only wanted me to become the best 
     person I could possibly be.

  During his limited time on Earth, Josh did just that.
  Our Nation and all Nebraskans are forever indebted to his service and 
sacrifice. SGT Josh Ford was a hero, and I am honored to tell his story 
lest we forget his life and the freedom he fought to defend.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. 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 the Crewmembers of the Space Shuttle ``Challenger''

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, 30 years ago today millions of Americans 
gathered around their television sets in homes and classrooms all 
across the country to watch the Space Shuttle Challenger launch toward 
the stars. Seventy-three seconds later everything changed. We stared at 
our television sets, stunned and brokenhearted.
  Today, on the 30th anniversary of that terrible tragedy, we remember 
the heros we lost: Francis Scobee, Michael Smith, Ronald McNair, 
Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Gregory Jarvis; and we remember one 
more hero, the special person that so many little boys and girls tuned 
in that day to see, the very first U.S. civilian in space, Christa 
Corrigan McAuliffe.
  Christa was born in Boston, MA, and grew up in nearby Framingham. She 
attended Marian High School and attended Framingham State University. 
She married her high school sweetheart, Steve. They had two children, 
Scott and Caroline. She eventually became a high school social studies 
teacher in Concord, NH.
  In 1984, Ronald Reagan announced that NASA would send its first 
private citizen into space, and that person would be a teacher. A few 
months later, Christa beat out over 11,000 other applicants to become 
the first teacher in space. Christa was thrilled. It was like a dream 
come true. She reportedly told Johnny Carson: ``If you're offered a 
seat on a rocket ship, don't ask what seat. Just get on.''
  Mr. President, 30 years ago today Senator Ted Kennedy entered an 
excerpt of Christa McAuliffe's NASA application into the public record, 
and I would like to reenter it for the Record and read it again today.
  When asked why she wanted to be the first private citizen in space, 
Christa McAuliffe wrote:

       I remember the excitement in my home when the first 
     satellites were launched. My parents were amazed and I was 
     caught up in their wonder. In school my classes would gather 
     around the TV and try to follow the rocket as it seemed to 
     jump all over the screen. I remember when Alan Shepard made 
     his historic flight--not even an orbit--and I was thrilled. 
     John Kennedy inspired me with his words about placing a man 
     on the moon and I still remember a cloudy, rainy night 
     driving through Pennsylvania and hearing the news that the 
     astronauts had landed safely.
       As a woman, I have been envious of those men who could 
     participate in the space program and who were encouraged to 
     excel in areas of math and science. I felt that women had 
     indeed been left outside of one of the most exciting careers 
     available. When Sally Ride and other women began to train as 
     astronauts, I could look among my students and see ahead of 
     them an ever-increasing list of opportunities.
       I cannot join the space program and restart my life as an 
     astronaut, but this opportunity to connect my abilities as an 
     educator with my interests in history and space is a unique 
     opportunity to fulfill my early fantasies. I watched the 
     space age being born and I would like to participate.

  Mr. President, Christa McAuliffe never made it into orbit on January 
28, 1986. She never got the chance to write in her journal about what 
it was like inside the space shuttle, how it feels to float around, and 
all the other sorts of things that people who are not astronauts have 
wondered about. She never got to go back to her classroom to tell her 
children about her magnificent journey.
  But Christa McAuliffe still teaches. Since 1994, the Christa 
McAuliffe Center at Framingham State University has provided truly 
remarkable, innovative, integrated STEM education resources to 12,000 
Massachusetts students each year. Christa McAuliffe's story of a little 
girl from Framingham who became a schoolteacher and got the chance to 
take the ``ultimate field trip'' into outer space keeps inspiring 
little boys and girls in Massachusetts and around the country, telling 
them all to reach for the stars.
  Today, we remember Christa McAuliffe and the six others we lost on 
the Space Shuttle Challenger. We remember that day as our country 
stared at our television sets, stunned and brokenhearted. We honor 
their memory by continuing, as Christa McAuliffe said, ``to touch the 
future,'' to teach our children and our grandchildren ``where we have 
been, where we are going, [and] why.''
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Stabenow-Peters amendment package that

[[Page S314]]

will provide much needed assistance to Flint, MI. For decades Flint was 
known as the birthplace of General Motors and for playing a key role in 
the formation of the United Auto Workers.
  Now national attention is trained on Flint not for its role in the 
creation of America's middle class but for the utter abandonment by the 
State government of a city where 40 percent of the population lives 
below the poverty line.
  Nearly 2 years ago, an unelected emergency manager appointed by 
Michigan's Governor changed the city of Flint's water source to the 
Flint River in an attempt to save money while the city prepared to 
transition to a new regional water authority. The ultimate cost of this 
misguided, dangerous decision will not be known for decades.
  After switching away from clean water sourced from the Detroit Water 
Authority, Flint residents began to receive improperly treated Flint 
River water, long known to be contaminated and potentially very 
corrosive. Water poured from Flint faucets and tasted and smelled 
terrible. It was discolored--brown or yellow in many cases. In fact, 
General Motors stopped using this water source for their Flint engine 
operations because the high chloride levels were corroding parts used 
during the manufacturing process.
  The result of the State government decision was--and continues to 
be--catastrophic. Flint families were exposed to lead and other toxins 
that will have a lasting effect for generations.
  The water crisis in Flint is an immense failure on the part of 
Michigan's State government to ensure the health and safety of the 
people of Flint and to provide the basic human right of clean water for 
drinking, bathing, and cooking. It is a failure that will cause Flint's 
children to suffer from the adverse health effects of lead exposure for 
years to come--a failure that has created the enormous challenge of 
fixing a water system that has had corrosive water flowing through its 
pipes for months.
  Even after Flint has transitioned back to distributing water from 
Detroit that should be safe, unfortunately the potentially irreversible 
damage to the waterlines will still require the use of filters. This 
ongoing crisis has left the city of 100,000 people drinking bottled 
water donated from across the Nation.
  In light of the State government's failure, I am disappointed State 
government still has not sufficiently stepped up to provide the 
necessary resources to deal with the short and long term effects of 
water contamination in Flint.
  While the cause of this crisis and the ultimate responsibility to fix 
it lies with State government, we need to bring resources from all 
levels of government to bear to address this unprecedented emergency. 
Along with my Michigan colleagues Senator Stabenow and Representative 
Kildee, I have been working tirelessly to leverage all available 
resources for the people of Flint.
  The effects of lead exposure on children are insidious, causing long-
term developmental problems, nervous system damage, and decreased bone 
and muscle growth. There is no cure, but we can mitigate these problems 
with a commitment to delivering nutrition, education, health care, and 
other wrap-around services that a generation of Flint children now need 
more than ever.
  My colleagues and I have requested that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture allow existing programs to provide ready-to-feed infant 
formula that does not need to be mixed with water to all infants in 
Flint. We have urged the Department of Health and Human Services to 
make Head Start available for every eligible child in the city of 
Flint. We are working to make sure every Flint resident has access to 
affordable health care and are encouraging residents to purchase 
coverage through the open enrollment at healthcare.gov before the 
January 31 deadline or sign up for Medicaid if they are eligible.
  I will continue to work with Congress, the administration, and 
leaders on the ground in Flint to secure any Federal support possible 
for Flint families and small businesses that have been harmed. As part 
of our efforts to support the people of Flint, Senator Stabenow and I 
are offering an amendment that will help begin the process to make 
Flint whole with substantial investments in fixing this problem in both 
the short and long term. Our amendment will assist the city of Flint in 
four ways.
  First, the amendment would include my bill, the Improving 
Notification for Clean and Safe Drinking Water Act, or the INCASE Act, 
which would require the EPA to directly notify the public of 
dangerously high lead levels in drinking water if the local and State 
governments fail to do so within 15 days. The EPA repeatedly made 
recommendations to the State government, urging them to take steps to 
improve the water and protect the people. Unfortunately, the State of 
Michigan failed to take action and failed to properly notify Flint 
residents of the health risks in the water system for months. The 
primary responsibility for notifying residents lies with the State 
government, but when you have a situation like Flint where the State 
was sitting on critical information, there has to be another level of 
accountability.
  Second, our amendment will authorize EPA to issue direct grants to 
the State of Michigan and the city of Flint to hire new personnel, 
provide technical assistance, and, most importantly, replace and repair 
water service lines--the only long-term solution. These aging service 
lines were certainly a concern before the crisis, but now there is an 
urgent need to repair and to replace them. For nearly 2 years corrosive 
water flowed through the pipes leaching lead and other toxins. This 
provision will fund the repairs for the service lines that were 
severely and potentially permanently damaged as a result.
  Third, our amendment includes a technical fix that will allow current 
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to be used for loan forgiveness. 
This will provide upwards of $20 million in relief to Flint and allow 
them to direct new funds for investment in water infrastructure and not 
interest payments. Earlier this year the EPA acknowledged that the 
State did not have the authority to forgive these loans. That is why 
this amendment includes a temporary technical fix to allow States to 
use the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund resources for loan 
forgiveness and debt relief on debt incurred before the current fiscal 
year.
  Finally, our amendment will direct the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services to establish a Center Of Excellence on lead exposure in 
Flint, which will bring together local universities, hospitals, medical 
professionals, and the State and county public health departments in an 
effort to address the short and long-term health effects of lead 
exposure in the city.
  Mr. President, it is important to remember that the children of Flint 
have been impacted the most by this crisis through no fault of their 
own. Whether in Flint or elsewhere in America, we have a responsibility 
to care for our children. We must repair the trust Flint residents have 
lost in the ability of government officials to protect them and to 
provide the most basic services.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in our effort to help Flint 
recover from this unnecessary manmade disaster. Standing up for 
children is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. I hope we all come 
together. This is common ground on which we can stand together and 
stand up for the people and the children of Flint.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a 
bipartisan amendment I have submitted with the senior Senator from 
California. It would enable Arizona, California, and other drought-
stricken States to store more water in hydroelectric dams.
  As everyone knows, water is a controversial issue in the West. 
Arizona and California have long been at odds on a number of water-
related issues, particularly the very long-running Supreme Court case 
on the Colorado River. However, recognizing the importance of wisely 
managing water in the West is something on which we can all agree and 
look for ways to cooperate.
  Today I am pleased to submit, along with Senator Feinstein of 
California, one of these helpful management provisions to better use 
existing dams in our drought-stricken States. These dams

[[Page S315]]

are critical to water management in the West. We have to store water, 
obviously, in dry times. The Western United States relies on dams to 
produce clean, renewable hydropower, to deliver drinking water to 
growing cities, and to irrigate fields. Because these dams are large 
and expensive and increasingly difficult to have built, it is 
imperative that we make the most of those we have already.
  In a bill introduced last year, Senator Feinstein included a pilot 
program to allow the updating of how flood control operations are 
conducted at many dams. This very helpful provision allows the use of 
modern forecasting tools and better records of hydrology to reevaluate 
the flood control operations in order to create additional water 
storage space. Increased storage space would allow more water to be 
kept behind the dams, allowing more hydropower to be produced exactly 
when it is needed. This amendment simply expands on Senator Feinstein's 
proposal broadening the scope to all drought-stricken States--not just 
California--increasing the number of projects in the pilot program, and 
allowing more types of facilities to opt into this pilot program.
  This is a commonsense amendment. It will help us make the most of the 
capacity we have to store water and to produce hydropower. I urge its 
adoption.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2965

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2965.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), 
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 37, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Perdue
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Gardner
     Inhofe
     Mikulski
     Paul
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The amendment (No. 2965) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, 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. MORAN. 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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                S. 2452

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, there are a lot of things that go on here 
in our Nation's capital, Washington, DC, that don't make sense to me. 
One of those things occurred about 10 days ago when the Obama 
administration announced it would pay $1.7 billion to Iran in 
settlement of a financial dispute dating back to the days of the Shah 
of Iran. That $1.7 billion was a payment to Iran for $400 million that 
was held in escrow after the Shah's demise and fall from power, and the 
remaining $1.3 billion was to pay interest on that $400 million.
  I think there are a number of reasons that this makes no sense. I 
will highlight the one that seems to me to be the least controversial 
or at least makes the most sense. We have American citizens who have 
claims against Iran. There are actual judgments entered by a court of 
law which determines that the country of Iran owes money to American 
citizens. The number that I was told that they owe is nearly $10 
billion in judgments.
  What makes no sense to me is that the Obama administration would 
agree to pay the Iranian Government $1.7 billion without concurrently 
resolving the issues of what Iran should pay U.S. citizens. It makes no 
sense to me that we are not withholding the payment of that $1.7 
billion until Iran pays American citizens the judgment amounts owed to 
them for their country's terrorist attacks.
  Why would we unilaterally pay Iran money that we may or may not owe 
them without resolving the issue of money that we know Iran owes to 
U.S. citizens? This makes no sense. We could at least have a broader 
conversation and discussion about this issue, although I don't know 
that it is necessary to go further with a discussion to reach the 
conclusion that the Obama administration should not be doing this. We 
could also have a conversation about whether this payment of $1.7 
billion is ransom money. Was it paid because Americans were released 
from Iranian captivity on the same day? As the largest supporter and 
funder of terrorism and terrorist activity around the globe, we should 
have a discussion about whether we should be giving Iran any money at 
all.
  We know that part of the Iranian agreement related to nuclear weapons 
has the United States releasing money to Iran, and we know--in fact, 
administration officials have admitted to it--that we expect that 
money, in part, to be used to sponsor additional terrorist acts. Well, 
in addition to the flawed, mistaken agreement with Iran related to 
nuclear capabilities, we are now providing Iran with another $1.7 
billion to use as they see fit, presumably with the admitted ability to 
use that money to further terrorist acts around the globe, including 
against U.S. citizens.
  We could discuss whether this is ransom or whether we should be 
giving any money to Iran. But on the surface, you don't need to go 
further than, in my view, what ought to be easily agreed upon, which is 
that no money should go to Iran until the claims of American citizens 
are paid by Iran.
  I am on the Senate floor to highlight to my colleagues that I have 
introduced legislation exactly to that effect: no money to Iran until 
the claims are paid to U.S. citizens by Iran. I encourage my colleagues 
to consider this legislation and join me in its sponsorship. It is S. 
2452.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this issue to the 
attention of the Senate--one more instance of something that makes no 
sense to me that could be resolved with a firm statement by the U.S. 
Congress: Mr. President, you can't pay Iran until Iran meets its 
obligations to pay what it owes U.S. citizens.

[[Page S316]]

  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unaccompanied Minors Entering the United States

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if this sounds like a case of deja vu, it 
is because we have been here before. I am talking specifically about 
the flow of unaccompanied minor children coming across our southwestern 
border, primarily through my State--the State of Texas--which shares a 
1,200-mile common border with Mexico.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, these children are coming not from 
Mexico but from Central America. This is a situation that about a year 
or so ago the President and his administration called a humanitarian 
crisis because we had this flow of unaccompanied children and some with 
their mothers, but mostly without, who came flooding across our border, 
and we were just simply struggling to keep up with them to deal with 
their safety, their health needs, and their security needs.
  At that time we had a discussion about what we should do to protect 
these children to make sure they weren't victimized by human 
traffickers and other predators who might prey on their vulnerability 
when they get to the United States. Indeed, this morning, under the 
leadership of Chairman Portman from Ohio, the Senate Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing to explore a disturbing 
and tragic problem related to this flow of unaccompanied children 
coming across our Nation's southern border.
  After these children are apprehended by the Border Patrol, they are 
placed in the hands of the Department of Health and Human Services to 
ensure they receive proper care. Many of these children are recovering 
from abuse, exploitation, exhaustion, exposure from this incredible 
trip they would make from their country in Central America through 
Mexico into the United States, many on the back of a train system known 
colloquially as The Beast. Many of us have seen pictures of this train 
with people on top of it, not necessarily inside of it, and falling 
off, being injured, people being assaulted. It is a terrible 
experience.
  So many of these children come to the United States recovering from 
abuse and exploitation after traveling more than 1,000 miles. This is a 
very important point: These are not good people who are bringing them 
here. They are part of a transnational criminal organization--the 
cartels in Mexico, the gangs who help distribute drugs, traffic in 
human beings, help facilitate illegal immigration. This has become a 
huge international business. If you ask almost anybody who has had any 
experience in this area, it is not like the old days when coyotes, as 
we call them in Texas and elsewhere, smuggled people across in onesies 
and twosies. These are people who smuggle a lot of people for the money 
they are able to generate. They, frankly, don't care about the 
individuals, but they do care about the money, and that is why they are 
in the business of smuggling these children from Central America across 
Mexico and into the United States.
  Here is the immediate problem that Senator Portman's Subcommittee on 
Investigations revealed: Because the U.S. Government--the Department of 
Health and Human Services--does not adequately vet the sponsors with 
whom these children are placed once they come into the United States--
we know, for example, they admit these sponsors do not have to be 
American citizens. They don't even have to be family members. 
Shockingly, Health and Human Services is releasing many of these 
children to sponsors who have been convicted of serious crimes, 
including human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and violent offenses.
  Instead of using commonsense procedures as we see in place, for 
example, in international adoptions, including extensive background 
checks, thorough interviews, and multiple home visits to make sure a 
child is being placed in a safe and secure situation, the placement 
process for these migrant children is riddled with loopholes for those 
who want to exploit it, and unfortunately there are evil people who 
want to exploit it and take advantage of these innocent children.
  Some who may not have been following this issue may wonder: Why are 
we taking these children who are illegally entering the country and 
actually placing them with nonfamily member sponsors who haven't been 
vetted? The problem is that under current law, the Border Patrol cannot 
turn back people who enter the country illegally from noncontiguous 
countries. We can from Mexico, we can from Canada, but we can't if they 
come from a Central American country. So that is why they have to 
process them and get a placement for them as they issue a summons to 
them and say: You have a court date in front of an immigration judge in 
3 months or 6 months or a year that is going to determine whether you 
have a legal basis upon which to stay in the United States.
  Lo and behold, this should come as a surprise to no one. The vast 
majority of these people who illegally enter the country in this way 
never show up for their immigration hearing in front of a judge to 
determine whether they have a legal basis to stay. Indeed, because the 
Obama administration and ICE--Immigration and Customs Enforcement that 
is responsible for enforcing our immigration laws--because they simply 
have quit enforcing our laws once people enter the country, unless of 
course you have been arrested for some serious crime, this is actually 
a way to thread the needle and to beat the system and to succeed in 
illegally staying--immigrating and then staying in the United States.
  Here again today I wish to focus on once these children are here, and 
I would think every person with a heart would want to say: Well, we 
have a responsibility to take care of them, at least until we can 
return them back home.
  So I am grateful to the junior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, for 
dedicating his time and energy into investigating such an important 
issue. I commend him for his leadership in doing so in a bipartisan 
way. I think most of us can agree with the main point that he raised 
this morning, which is that the administration has a duty to ensure the 
safety of these children once they are in the country. I would hope all 
people of good will would agree, whether they have a legal duty or not, 
they have a moral obligation to make sure these children are safe and 
not place them, because of negligence or inadvertence or just 
recklessness, in the hands of people who will exploit them and abuse 
them.
  The subcommittee also released an important report in conjunction 
with this morning's hearing after a months-long investigation. The 
report confirms that HHS placement policies are--surprise--wholly 
insufficient and fail to adequately screen sponsors. They know they 
have a problem. They just don't have the will to do anything about it.
  This is unacceptable. This is unacceptable that Health and Human 
Services knows its own placement process does not even come close to 
foster care or international adoption standards. For the safety and 
protection of these children, the status quo cannot continue.
  I hope somebody will ask the President of the United States about 
this, because when we tried to pass a piece of legislation called the 
HUMANE Act to deal explicitly with this issue to raise the screening 
standards for sponsors here in the United States for these 
unaccompanied children, the administration and the President of the 
United States opposed it, and this is what they get. This is what they 
get--certainly not what they deserve. This is something anybody could 
have predicted and indeed did predict at the time if we did nothing to 
address it.
  So what these children need now, as Senator Portman's report 
suggests, is certainly a more transparent process with robust 
oversight. That sounds kind of bureaucratic, but what we need is 
somebody who can make sure that no child is placed with somebody who is 
going to abuse them, exploit them or make their life a living hell 
while they are here. We also need to make sure they are given an 
opportunity to appear in front of an immigration judge because maybe 
they have some legal

[[Page S317]]

basis upon which to claim a right to stay in the United States under 
current law--but maybe not--and maybe the proper recourse is for these 
children to be returned to their home country. We have had this 
experience before, where there is no enforcement of our immigration 
laws when people know they can penetrate our border and come here and 
successfully stay, even though they don't comply with the law. Our laws 
lose all deterrent value; in other words, where there is deterrence, 
people don't come in the first place because they realize the 
likelihood is that they will be unsuccessful. That is an important goal 
of law enforcement. It is not necessarily to deal with every case once 
it is on our doorstep, but actually we want to deter people from 
breaking the law in the first place. That is why enforcement is so 
important.
  So I wanted to come to the floor and express my appreciation to 
Senator Portman and his subcommittee for highlighting this issue but 
even more importantly to make sure that somehow, some way, somebody in 
the press, in the media is going to keep writing about this and 
exposing the facts. I hope we can reawaken the conscience of the 
Congress and the U.S. Government and say that this is simply 
unacceptable and we can work together to address it.
  We must do more to protect these children who are vulnerable to 
exploitation. Back in November I joined the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee in a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Health 
and Human Services. This was in response to a whistleblower who 
indicated those Departments were releasing unaccompanied children to 
criminal sponsors, many with ties to sex trafficking and human 
smuggling enterprises.
  Unfortunately, recent news reports have just reinforced how broken 
the system is. Earlier this week, the Washington Post published an 
indepth account of several young Guatemalan children who were smuggled 
to a farm in Ohio to be used as slave labor after authorities released 
them from human traffickers. So these children from Guatemala went from 
being trafficked to being basically indentured servants for slave labor 
in Ohio. Instead of keeping them in protective custody in an HHS 
shelter or placing them in a suitable safe environment, these children 
were reportedly forced to live in roach-infested trailers and their 
lives were threatened if they attempted to escape.

  This is a gut-wrenching story, but it is only one story. This Senator 
dares to say that the U.S. Government, Health and Human Services, and 
the Obama administration can't tell us how many other children have 
been exposed to such terrible abuse and mistreatment. We are now 
learning that these stories are not uncommon. Of course, given the 
process by which Health and Human Services and the administration place 
these children--not with American citizens, not with even family 
members without vetting them--what else would be expected?
  The Associated Press recently reported similar stories from across 
the country, including accounts of teens forced to work around the 
clock just to stay in a safe place to live. One young girl was 
reportedly locked inside her house, basically kept in a prison, and 
there are reports of some unaccompanied children who had been sexually 
assaulted by their sponsors.
  With more than 95,000 unaccompanied children crossing our southern 
border illegally over the last 2 years, these reports likely only 
scratch the surface of the horrors these children are enduring. And it 
is not over. There are more coming every day. Indeed, we have seen that 
the peaks and valleys of the flow of unaccompanied children across the 
border are seasonal. As we get out of the winter and into the warmer 
months, we will continue to see these children flow across at higher 
levels than they are now. But there were 95,000 in the past 2 years.
  This surge of children coming across our border has exposed our 
Nation's vulnerability to human smugglers and these transnational 
criminal organizations. It has shown that inadequate border security 
can contribute to a humanitarian crisis that endangers the lives of the 
children who are turned over by their parents to dangerous predators 
and smuggled into the United States.
  Let's be clear on this point. Once these children arrive in the 
United States, our government has a duty to protect them and ensure 
they are no longer preyed upon by criminals and traffickers. But then 
we have a responsibility to make sure that if they can't legally stay 
in the United States because they have no valid claim to asylum or 
refugee status--our laws need to be enforced until those laws are 
changed by Congress.
  The United States could see a new surge of these children pouring 
across our southern border in the coming months. In fact, I will 
predict here today that we will. We know from historical trends that 
these types of surges are not likely until the spring or summer months. 
We shouldn't just stand around here or sit on our hands and ignore this 
growing crisis.
  There is a legislative response that I would recommend to my 
colleagues. I was proud to sponsor a piece of legislation last Congress 
called the Helping Unaccompanied Alien Minors and Alleviating National 
Emergency Act, or the HUMANE Act in short. This legislation would 
require all potential sponsors of unaccompanied children to undergo a 
rigorous biometric criminal history check. Let's check to make sure the 
government is not placing these kids with known criminals. There are 
records we could easily discover if we just bothered to check those 
records and to make sure we don't inadvertently place these children in 
the hands of sex offenders or people who will merely traffic them to 
someone else.
  Given the clear threat these children face and the anecdotes which I 
have described here and which are described in horrific fashion in 
Senator Portman's report, it is irresponsible for us not to do 
something about this while we can. There is more we can do and should 
do to ensure that these children are treated safely and securely while 
they are with us. I believe the provisions of my legislation would be a 
good start. If anybody has a better idea, I am certainly willing to 
hear and work with them.
  Before we see another humanitarian crisis of huge proportion of young 
children coming across our borders, I hope the Senate will take a look 
at the concerns exposed in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
report led by Senator Portman.
  I look forward to reintroducing the HUMANE Act soon as a way to at 
least in part begin the process of addressing this new humanitarian 
crisis in the making.
  Mr. President, I see no one wishing to speak, so 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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, this morning I discussed two amendments 
that I have submitted in regard to the current energy legislation, the 
Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015.
  I would like to talk about a third amendment that I submitted as 
well. The amendment actually follows legislation that I introduced 
earlier entitled the ``empower States amendment.''
  Essentially what the ``empower States'' legislation does is it 
ensures that States retain the right to manage oil and gas production 
in their respective State. It gives them the ability to develop 
hydraulic fracturing rules and to respond first to any violation that 
might occur, rather than having a Federal one-size-fits-all approach. 
This is very important, because how we produce oil and gas in States 
such as North Dakota is very different than how we might produce oil 
and gas in a State like Louisiana, for example, or some other State. So 
States have to have the flexibility to respond to their industry to 
provide regulatory certainty and to empower that investment that will 
help us produce more energy and do it with good environmental 
stewardship.
  This amendment also allows States to regulate oil and gas development 
on Bureau of Land Management lands if the State has laws and 
regulations in place to protect both public health and the environment.

[[Page S318]]

  As I said, it takes a States-first approach because individual States 
are the first and best responders to oil and gas issues. They know 
their land, their geology, their water resources, and they have a 
primary stake in protecting their environment and their citizens.
  States such as North Dakota have been successful in developing oil 
and gas production with good environmental stewardship. Right now our 
State produces about 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, second only to 
the State of Texas.
  With that growth in development, our industry has had to work very 
closely with the State of North Dakota on a whole gamut of issues that 
are vitally important--not only, as I said a minute ago, in terms of 
producing more energy but doing it with good environmental stewardship. 
So that is what this legislation is all about.
  At the same time, this amendment provides a safety net that allows 
the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, to step in if there is 
a danger to health or the environment. Again, it is about making sure 
that States have the primary role, but it still recognizes the EPA's 
role as well in terms of protecting the environment and good 
stewardship.
  States would still be subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the 
Clean Water Act. These Federal laws have minimum standards for all 
States, and those minimum standards ensure consistent protection 
between and among the States for both the public and the environment.
  Surface water is protected under the EPA's Clean Water Act surface 
water quality standards. Drinking water is protected by the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, which allows the EPA to act if a contaminant is 
present or likely will enter an underground drinking water source.
  Hydraulic fracturing wastewater is regulated by the EPA's underground 
injection program, which is designated to the States to implement and 
enforce. That is what we are talking about, again--the State having the 
primary role in regulation of hydraulic fracturing.
  The EPA requires a State to have a minimum requirement in terms of 
protecting underground injection from endangering drinking water 
sources. This concludes inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements. None of those requirements would change under 
this amendment.
  Instead, this amendment gives the States and tribes more certainty 
about under what circumstances the EPA may withdraw or amend a State's 
regulation. Again, it is about making sure we have the regulatory 
certainty out there that actually empowers the very investment that 
helps us produce more energy and do it with good environmental 
stewardship. It ensures that if the EPA does decide to intervene, it 
must show that its action is necessary and that the decision takes into 
account factors such as job loss and energy supplies.
  It will help States retain the right to regulate hydraulic fracturing 
within their borders. That makes sense, as I say, because States are 
the first and best responders to oil and gas issues and have been 
successful in developing oil and gas production regulations.
  It would also allow a State to regulate hydraulic fracturing on 
Federal lands, such as BLM lands, as I mentioned earlier. In addition, 
though, the amendment would prohibit new burdensome Federal rules if a 
State or tribe already has those rules in place.
  Again, the effort here is to make sure that we are empowering States 
to work with their industry and then, in turn, empowering those 
industries, through regulatory certainty, to help develop our energy 
future in this country and do it with good, consistent, commonsense 
regulation that empowers the kind of investment that we want to see for 
job creation and economic growth.
  Finally, the amendment allows for judicial review. It allows a State 
or tribe to seek redress for an agency's actions in a Federal court 
located within the State or the District of Columbia. Judicial review 
is very important in case there is a dispute in terms of what the EPA 
may require, what the State may require or what the industry feels is 
fair treatment.
  In conclusion, the legislation recognizes that States have a long 
record of effectively regulating oil and gas development, including 
hydraulic fracturing, with good environmental stewardship. The measure 
works to ensure that the rules for hydraulic fracturing are certain, 
fair, effective, and environmentally sound. These are qualities we 
expect in good regulation.
  As I said at the outset this morning in introducing a number of these 
amendments, to build the kind of energy plan for the future that we 
need we have to reduce the regulatory burden and at the same time 
empower the investment that will help us build the energy 
infrastructure we need to move energy safely and cost-effectively from 
where it is produced to where it is consumed in this country.
  With that, I look forward to working with both the chairman of our 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who is bringing this 
legislation forward, and the ranking member in offering these 
amendments, voting on these and other amendments, and trying to get to 
the best product we can in terms of strengthening the energy plan for 
this country.
  With that, 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. COATS. 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 Susan Jordan

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come here during a sad time for Hoosiers. 
The beloved principal of Amy Beverland Elementary School in Lawrence 
Township, in the Indianapolis area, was seeing her students off after a 
day of school. A bus came around the corner to pick up the kids and 
accidentally lost control. The principal of Amy Beverland Elementary 
School, Susan Jordan, saw the bus coming, saw that it was going to hit 
the students, and put herself in front of them, and saved the lives of 
her young students. Two were injured seriously but will recover, but 
Principal Susan Jordan lost her life in doing this. The situation is 
still under investigation, but all elements and indications point to 
this as simply a tragic accident.
  This story is not just one of tragedy, it is also one of heroism. As 
I said before, the bus struck her as Principal Jordan pushed several of 
her students out of harm's way. The principal, who came out of her 
office at school every day to help the students safely board the buses, 
lost her life in doing so. Those who knew her well--said that was not a 
surprising act. ``It didn't surprise any of us Susan would sacrifice 
herself,'' said the district administrator for Lawrence Township. Shawn 
Smith, superintendent of the Lawrence Township schools, called 
Principal Jordan ``a legend'' and said that ``we lost a great 
educator.''
  Susan Jordan served as principal of the school for 22 years. She was 
known for her cheery disposition and welcomed each classroom every 
morning.
  The Gospel of John tells us that ``greater love has no one than this: 
to lay down one's life for one's friends.'' The love that Susan Jordan 
had for her students should be an inspiration to us all.
  We offer our deepest condolences to Principal Jordan's family and 
friends, to the students who were injured and their parents, and to all 
parents and students of the school. I know I join with all Hoosiers in 
mourning her loss and celebrating the life and impact of this talented, 
compassionate educator who paid the ultimate price for the students she 
loved so dearly.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. President, I rise to address something I have been doing on a 
weekly basis called ``Waste of the Week.'' This is No. 31 of my visits 
down here to the floor to talk about the egregious waste, fraud, and 
abuse in spending by the Federal Government.
  We hear so often that we just can't cut another penny, we just can't 
cut another dime out of this program because they have been subject to 
freezes or they have been subject to sequester, and, besides, we don't 
have the money to pay for it. Well, I have been highlighting small 
steps--because we haven't been able to achieve the big steps--small 
steps of ways that we can save taxpayer money and address Federal 
spending. So I have come down

[[Page S319]]

every week, and put up the board ``Waste of the Week,'' and this week 
deals with a situation, once again, where we don't need to be in a 
position to spend taxpayers' dollars on what was already being done.
  The Amtrak Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration 
participate in a joint task force that works to interdict passengers 
who are trafficking contraband on Amtrak trains. Amtrak information is 
available to the Drug Enforcement Agency at no cost from the Amtrak 
Police Department--two agencies that are working together. But despite 
this agreement, the DEA wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer 
dollars paying just two Amtrak employees to do exactly what this task 
force was formed to do. So we have a task force of paid employees who 
are there for a specific purpose--providing information to DEA. The DEA 
says this is important information, but the task force also uses 
informants. These are people who work for Amtrak on the trains, and 
some of the information they provide is valuable.
  According to an investigation by the Justice Department's inspector 
general, the DEA paid two Amtrak employees a total of--are you ready 
for this? Are you sitting down? Two paid Amtrak employees are getting a 
salary, they work for Amtrak, The DEA paid them a total of $864,161 for 
information they have been providing to Amtrak and then giving to the 
DEA. The information probably was important, but over a period of 20 
years, these payments went out to just two employees, this $864,000-
plus.
  The IG's investigation concluded that when DEA officials sought 
approval to register these Amtrak employees as informants in the DEA's 
Confidential Source Program, the required documents did not indicate 
that these informants would be paid.
  Let me stop for a minute and say that confidential sources are an 
important tool for our law enforcement agencies. Officials at the DEA 
actively use confidential informants to obtain information regarding 
drug trafficking or investigations. Some DEA officials have said they 
consider the information the confidential sources provide as the 
``bread and butter'' of the agency.
  My point today is not to question the use of confidential sources but 
to point out that Federal agencies like the DEA don't need to pay for 
information they already have access to. This is a waste of taxpayer 
dollars and poor stewardship of limited resources that fall in the 
category of ``waste of the week.''
  Twenty years of the DEA paying for information that they were already 
supposed to receive at no cost without a second thought indicates a 
serious, systemic spending problem that spans multiple parties and 
Presidents. We must pull the plug on this type of waste. So today I add 
an additional $864,161 to the taxpayer price tag for this already free 
information from Amtrak employees. We continue to add more, our gauge 
continues to rise, and we now are well over $130 billion of waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  So let no one come down to this floor and say we can't take a penny 
away from this program or come down to the floor and say we don't have 
the money to pay for things that we ought to do or to return to the 
taxpayer. I am trying to show that government can be run much more 
efficiently and effectively.
  I applaud the inspectors general and others who are looking into this 
waste, but I want to bring to my colleagues' attention the fact that we 
have a lot of work to do, chipping away at this spending and waste and 
also looking at long-term, major financial fixes to our ever-careening 
plunge into debt and deficit.
  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. 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.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
display for the Senate a model of the space shuttle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 
as much time as I might consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Remembering the Crewmembers of the Space Shuttle ``Challenger'', the 
              Space Shuttle ``Columbia'', and ``Apollo 1''

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, 30 years ago today, it was very cold in 
Florida at the Kennedy Space Center. Both pads had been readied for the 
first time--a space shuttle on 39A and 39B--since the Space Shuttle 
Columbia, which was the 24th flight, was so late getting off the 
ground--indeed, for the better part of the month, from the first start 
and four scrubs starting December 19 but finally launching after the 
fifth try into a flawless 6-day mission on January 12, to return to 
Earth on January 18. In the meantime, on the other space shuttle launch 
pad, Challenger--the 25th flight--is being readied.
  The night before the day of the launch, which is 30 years ago today, 
it was exceptionally cold in Florida. It got down to 25 degrees. 
Indeed, there were actually icicles hanging on the launch tower. As the 
crew arrived in the early morning hours--and there were holds all the 
way up until a little bit past 11 o'clock. At this point, the 
temperature had improved to 36 degrees. The icicles were still there, 
but it was above freezing. There was considerable consternation 
throughout the entire apparatus of NASA and its contractors--
particularly the top managers, as well as the managers of the company 
that made the solid rocket boosters--as to whether there should be a 
launch, and the go was given.
  Seventy-three seconds high into the sky above Florida, Challenger 
disintegrated. To a nation that had come to think that climbing in the 
space shuttle was like getting in your car and taking a Sunday 
afternoon drive, indeed this was quite a shock because the entire 
technological prowess of the country 30 years ago was summed up in this 
magnificent flying machine that would go to orbit and would come back 
and would take 45,000 pounds of payload to orbit and would come back 
and land like an airplane, albeit without an engine. But that morning, 
it was to be different.
  The only other astronauts we had lost were in getting ready for the 
Apollo program to go to the Moon. On the pad, in just a countdown test 
of the Apollo capsule--and the environment was an oxygen-rich 
environment. One of the three astronauts doing the practice countdown 
happened to kick a part of the spacecraft that had a wire that set an 
ignition, and in that oxygen-enriched environment, fire engulfed and 
claimed the lives of Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chafee.
  All those years when we did not even know what was going to happen 
when we went into space--when we launched John Glenn on that Atlas 
rocket that we knew had a 20-percent chance of failure--we didn't know 
enough about the human body in zero gravity and at those speeds to know 
what was going to happen to the human body. In all those years of 
experimentation and going to the Moon many times--even on the ill-fated 
Apollo 13 where we thought we had three dead men in the Apollo capsule 
when that explosion occurred en route to the Moon, and yet miraculously 
this space industry and NASA apparatus came together and figured out 
real-time how to get them back and get them back safely, a crew headed 
by Jim Lovell. But it was not to be on the morning of January 28, 1986.
  I have a scale model of 1 to 100 of the space shuttle, and I want to 
explain what happened that morning. As Challenger launched, it went 
through its sequence where they had to throttle back on the main 
engines as they went through part of the atmosphere getting maximum 
dynamic pressure, and then those famous words that came back from the 
crew that they were acknowledging: Go at throttle up.
  The three main engines ignited a burning in the tail of the space 
shuttle, fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen contained in the 
external fuel tank. They throttled up to 100 percent, and it was 
straight up and accelerating.
  Here is what happened at 73 seconds. The solid rocket boosters are 
attached by struts to the external tank, which does not hold their 
fuel. Their fuel is a

[[Page S320]]

solid fuel. It has the consistency of the eraser on this pencil. Those 
ignite at T minus zero, each with about 3 million pounds of thrust. You 
definitely know you are going somewhere. But the cold weather had dealt 
us a devil's brew that day. These joints where they put together the 
solid rocket booster are sealed with a rubberized gasket, and those 
rubber O-rings, because of the cold weather, had gotten stiff and 
brittle to the point at which it just so happened that at a point close 
to the external tank, the hot gases of thrust, instead of coming out 
the nozzle in the tail of the solid rocket booster, are coming out 
because the joint is not sealed because of that rubberized O-ring that 
has now become stiff and brittle from the cold weather, and the hot 
gases burned into the external tank, and that caused the explosion that 
all of us remember. That was played over and over on our television 
screens. That was what was such a shock to the American people.
  Those seven souls--led by Dick Scobee as the mission commander, a 
test pilot; and by Mike Smith, the pilot in NASA terminology, the 
copilot, a test pilot; Christa McAuliffe, the schoolteacher from New 
Hampshire; Greg Jarvis, a payload specialist; Judy Resnik, a mission 
specialist; Ron McNair, a mission specialist; and Ellison Onizuka, a 
mission specialist--those seven souls perished as all of the explosion 
fell miles and miles down to the surface waters of the ocean and 
eventually the debris on the floor of the ocean.
  There is a dramatic presentation at the Kennedy Space Center in the 
Atlantis exhibit showing a part of the Challenger, and I would urge 
anybody who goes to the Kennedy Space Center to go and see that. It is 
a very moving exhibit. It is an exhibit about the crew. That exhibit is 
not only about the Challenger, which was 30 years ago, that exhibit is 
about the next space shuttle that we lost. That was some 16, 17 years 
later, and it was on February 1, 2003. It was the Space Shuttle 
Columbia, the one that had launched just previous to the Challenger and 
the one on which this Senator was privileged to be a part of the crew, 
but this time it was destroyed for a different reason. It had launched 
a couple of weeks earlier and everything was fine, or so we thought, 
but it was not to be. During the launch, the external fuel tank that 
was carrying the very cold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen--in order 
to keep that cold, it is surrounded with insulation--had part of its 
insulation break off. It is about the size of an insulated Styrofoam 
tub. It is about this big, and that small piece of insulation broke off 
right here as Columbia was on ascent. As it accelerated and the speeds 
became very high, that piece of foam fell with high velocity right at 
the leading edge of the left wing. That is a carbon-carbon fiber very 
light in weight but very resistant to heat. Upon reentry, the front 
engines of the wing and the tip of the nose, all carbon-carbon fiber, 
get up to 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Of course everything was fine at 
that moment, even though there was a hole in the left leading edge of 
the wing during Columbia's 8\1/2\-minute ascent into orbit.

  When it was time to go home on February 1, this crew of seven was 
about to meet their fate. As they were doing their deorbit burn, 
falling through space for half an hour and encountering the upper 
reaches of the atmosphere, the hot gases got in the leading edge of the 
wing--the orbiter had separated and was flying more like an airplane on 
descent--and heated it up, causing Columbia to burn up upon reentry. As 
a result, debris fell for miles and miles high over Texas.
  Rick Husband, the commander; Willie McCool, the pilot; Mike Anderson, 
payload commander; David Brown, mission specialist; Kalpana Chawla, 
mission specialist; Laurel Clark, mission specialist; and Ilan Ramon, 
payload specialist. As the test pilot and hero of the Israeli Air Force 
that led the strike on Saddam Hussein's nuclear plant outside of 
Baghdad, Ilan Ramon had been chosen to fly on the space shuttle.
  I remember when I met with the former President of Israel, Shimon 
Peres, the day before the reentry. He knew of my background, and he 
said: I want you to see this telecommunication that I got from Ilan 
Ramon. It said: Mr. President, on behalf of the Israeli people, I want 
to thank you for giving me this opportunity. The fact that you and then 
President Clinton have enabled me to be able to start in this astronaut 
program and fly in this mission is just incredible.
  President Peres shared how that was so meaningful to him only a few 
hours before Columbia did its deorbit burn and went into the pages of 
history.
  So it is with a heavy heart that I come to the Senate floor on the 
30th anniversary of the Challenger tragedy to pay tribute to the 
Challenger crew and also to the Columbia crew. It is solemn, but what 
they and the Apollo 1 astronauts sacrificed--and what so many other 
astronauts in training have sacrificed through training mishaps--is not 
forgotten and it is not in vain because we are going to Mars.
  It is not going to look like this because we learned our lesson. This 
was a fantastic flying machine, but it was an inherently risky design 
because the crew in the orbiter is on the same side as the stack of 
explosives, which resulted in two terrible tragedies that occurred. The 
new American rockets that will fly in September of 2017--in less than 2 
years--to and from the International Space Station look like they have 
gone back to the old Apollo design, but, in fact, the new rockets have 
updated crew compartments in the spacecraft that will sit on the top of 
the rocket so that in the event of an explosion, even on the pad or all 
the way into orbit, you can save the lives of the crew by detaching the 
explosive rockets from the spacecraft and getting them safely away from 
the explosion. It will save the crew either by landing under its own 
power or having parachutes that will let it down gently.
  The fact is that by our nature we are explorers and adventurers, and 
we never want to give that up. It is a part of our DNA, it is a part of 
our character, and it is a part of our vision. We used to go westward 
as we developed this country into that new frontier. Now we will 
continue to go upward. We are going to Mars in the 2030s, and that is 
going to be a great day in that decade.
  You will see us build on that in 2 years. Americans will have 
launches on new spacecrafts which will be on the top of rockets and in 
3 years a full-up test of the largest rocket ever put together by 
mankind on the face of this planet, the space launch system and its 
spacecraft, Orion. It will have its first up test flight in 2018.
  So in the memory of the Challenger crew, the Columbia crew, and the 
Apollo 1 crew, we stand on their shoulders as we continue to explore 
the heavens. We thank them for their courage, their sacrifice, and 
their pioneering spirit. That is what I wanted to share on this 30th 
anniversary of the tragedy of the Space Shuttle Challenger.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks, Senator Brown of Ohio be permitted to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Student Debt Crisis

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because I think 
that higher education should be a path to prosperity, not a path to 
suffocating debt; however, today in America we have a student debt 
crisis that demands action from Washington because it is holding back 
an entire generation and creating an economic drag on the growth of our 
country.
  Unfortunately, the Republican majority here in the Senate continues 
to ignore this crisis at a time when we really should be working across 
the party aisle to put in reforms that make college more affordable for 
students and their families who are struggling and in desperate need of 
action. That is why last week Senate Democrats officially launched our 
``In the Red'' campaign in order to confront the student debt crisis 
and address college affordability.
  Our legislative reform package includes three commonsense initiatives 
that deserve to be debated and deserve a vote. First, we are calling 
for action to address the significant loss in value of Pell grants by 
adjusting them for inflation; second, we are pushing to allow borrowers 
to refinance their existing student loans at lower rates; and third, we 
are making 2 years of community college or technical school free for 
students who are willing to work for it.

[[Page S321]]

  In his State of the Union Address--not the one he gave a couple of 
weeks ago but the one he gave last January in 2015--President Obama 
called on us here in Congress to make a bold investment in our Nation's 
students, in our Nation's workforce, and in the future of our economy 
by making 2 years of community college free.
  In July, I answered that call and introduced legislation, the 
America's College Promise Act, aimed at providing students with a 
stronger and more affordable opportunity to gain the skills they need 
to compete, succeed, and prosper by making an investment in our 
workforce readiness, our economy, and our future. I am proud that this 
legislation is a pillar of the Senate Democrats' effort to reduce 
student debt in 2016 and to put our country on a path toward debt-free 
college. Learning from successes in States such as Tennessee and 
Oregon, the America's College Promise Act will create a new partnership 
between the Federal Government and States to help them waive resident 
tuition for 2 years of community or technical college programs for 
eligible students. This new partnership will provide a Federal match of 
$3 for every $1 invested by the State to waive community college 
tuition and fees for eligible students. With this legislation, a full-
time community college student could save an average of around $3,800 
in tuition per year.
  As cochair of the Senate's career and technical education caucus, I 
am especially proud that this reform takes a critical step to 
strengthen workforce readiness at a time when America needs to out 
educate and compete with the rest of the world in a 21st century 
skills-based economy. The idea that the next generation will be able to 
go further and do better than the last is at the heart of the American 
dream, and the solutions that we are offering today deserve a vote in 
this Congress.
  It is my hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
join us in confronting the student debt crisis and supporting these 
commonsense reforms that not only make higher education affordable but 
can help give more Americans a fair shot at pursuing their dreams.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baldwin, especially for her 
terrific work on higher education. She knows the value of higher 
education to the residents of Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Ohio.
  I ask unanimous consent that after my remarks, the next speaker be 
Senator Reed of Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Earned Income Tax Credit Awareness Day

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, tomorrow is Earned Income Tax Credit 
Awareness Day--a day, as we approach the tax season, for getting the 
word out about this tax credit that is a lifeline for working families.
  The EITC provides an incentive to work. It puts thousands of dollars 
back into the pockets of low-wage and moderate-wage workers every year. 
President Reagan called it ``the best anti-poverty measure to come out 
of Congress.''
  The work that Senator Reed and others and I did on the earned-income 
tax credit this year to permanently expand it was called by some 
organizations the most important anti-poverty initiative, except for 
the Affordable Care Act, in the last 20 years that Congress has done.
  Last year 27 million American households--950,000 households just in 
my State alone, in Ohio--claimed the EITC and received an average 
refund of $2,400. So for somebody making $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 
a year, when they file their taxes in February or March, they literally 
can get a check from the Federal Government, on average--I am not 
promising everybody specific amounts because each situation is 
different--on average, they will get a check for $2,400.
  One of the best things this body did last year was to permanently 
expand the earned-income tax credit, but there is still more we need to 
do. There is one glaring hole in the program we need to fix. Under 
current law--back up a little bit.
  The earned-income tax credit was aimed primarily at families with 
children but not entirely. Under current law, workers without children, 
somebody making $15,000 a year or somebody making $11 an hour, making 
$22,000, $23,000 a year but having no children--no spouse, no 
children--those workers making minimum wage barely receive any earned-
income tax credit. Childless workers under 25 don't qualify for these 
credits at all. That means that a young worker--somebody making $9 or 
$10 an hour without children--can actually be taxed deeper into 
poverty. Why is that? Well, if a worker is making $9 an hour working 
full time--doing their best, not getting paid much--they are paying the 
payroll tax, the Social Security tax. The taxes they pay actually push 
them down below the poverty line. Why would we possibly in this 
country--we say in this body we value work. We say we care about people 
who are working hard and playing by the rules and we want them to get 
ahead, but then we fail to provide that earned-income tax credit and we 
tax them back below the poverty line. Why would we do that? Part of the 
reason is that last year when we were successful in expanding the 
earned-income tax credit permanently, there was resistance from some 
sort of ultraconservatives in this body--some tea party Republicans--
there was resistance to expanding it to these workers who are working 
hard but don't have children. How are they going to plan families or 
plan for the future if they are always struggling paycheck to paycheck 
and get no help?
  We need to do more to ensure that families who are currently eligible 
know about the EITC. Right now, even with the discussion--I appreciate 
the Presiding Officer from Louisiana and his interest in this. I know 
people in Louisiana, like people in Ohio--not everybody knows about it. 
One-fifth of families in this country who are eligible, who can claim 
the earned-income tax credit when they file their taxes, 20 percent of 
them don't know and don't file for it. That means those 20 percent are 
leaving about $2,000 on the table that they could use to fix their car 
or pay off a payday loan, buy their kids shoes or maybe occasionally go 
out to a restaurant once a month and get a nice dinner.
  With Federal tax filing season opening last week, we need to make 
sure that every American gets as much of her hard-earned money back 
into her pocket as possible; that every American gets as much of his 
hard-earned money back in his pocket as possible. We need to get the 
word out about tax credits that working families can claim and the 
services available to help them get their maximum refund. Filing taxes 
is complicated, and it can be particularly challenging for families 
claiming the earned-income tax credit, but getting help doesn't need to 
be expensive. Here is how.
  One tool that is available is the IRS Free File Program. If you go to 
the irs.gov Web site or, if you live in Ohio, go to the 
brown.senate.gov Web site and type in your ZIP Code, the commercial 
partners of the IRS offer free brand-name software to individuals and 
to families with incomes of $62,000 or less.
  For families claiming the EITC, they can visit what is called the 
Voluntary Income Tax Assistance--the VITA site--the Voluntary Income 
Tax Assistance site. Go into brown.senate.gov if you live in Ohio or go 
to irs.gov, type in your ZIP Code, and you can see what VITA sites are 
available.
  Someone just told me yesterday they entered their ZIP Code and found 
out that a VITA site--the Voluntary Income Tax Assistance site--was 
within walking distance from her home. Ohioans, as I said, can go to my 
Web site, brown.senate.gov, type in their ZIP Code, and they will find 
a map and the nearest site.
  VITA sites are not only free, they are more reliable. The majority of 
EITC errors result from returns filed by paid tax preparers. All VITA 
volunteers are trained by an organization partnering with the IRS.
  So if you make less than $60,000 a year, you can go to one of these 
VITA sites, the Voluntary Income Tax Assistance sites, and you will 
find out--they will do your taxes with you for free, and they will find 
out if you are eligible for the earned-income tax credit. If you are 
eligible for the earned-income tax credit this year and you didn't 
file, it is possible you can claim your tax credit from calendar year 
or

[[Page S322]]

tax year 2014 also. So you may get a $3,000 credit this year--a check. 
You may get another $2,000 for last year. It is money you earned. It is 
money you earned because you worked hard, you did your best, you maybe 
only made $25,000 a year, but you are eligible for this tax credit.
  Millionaires and billionaires and Members of Congress and people who 
are doing pretty well financially in life, most people like that have 
an army of lawyers and accountants and people who do their taxes for 
them, and they claim every possible tax credit, every possible tax 
deduction, every possible tax advantage they can get. People who fill 
out their own earned-income tax credit--their own taxes, if they are 
making $20,000 or $30,000 a year, don't have that sophistication and 
don't have the money to hire those lawyers and accountants, so 
oftentimes they are not getting every tax credit or every tax deduction 
they can get. That is why it is so important for people to visit these 
VITA sites and it is why it is so important that people have that 
opportunity.
  We need to ensure that working families know about the resources 
available to help them claim their refunds, including the earned-income 
tax credit and the child tax credit--refunds that, I repeat, they have 
earned. We reward work. We give people a little help when they are 
working hard for low wages. We should raise the minimum wage. We should 
do some other things. We should push the Department of Labor to move a 
little faster on its overtime rule so people who are working more than 
40 hours are getting time and a half that they have earned. As much as 
wages have been stagnant in this country, I want to see people who are 
working hard be able to get ahead and get every advantage they possibly 
can.
  This body took a strong stand in December in support of an expanded 
permanent earned-income tax credit and a permanent child tax credit. I 
hope on EITC Awareness Day we will recommit ourselves to doing the same 
thing this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me commend Senator Brown for his 
very thoughtful and articulate comments on the earned-income tax 
credit.
  Mr. President, I am very glad that the Senate is taking up the issue 
of energy this week. The bill we are debating takes positive steps 
forward to encourage energy efficiency in Federal and commercial 
buildings, modernize the electric grid, and boost renewable sources of 
energy.
  I am particularly pleased that provisions I have worked on, on a 
bipartisan basis with Senators Coons and Collins, to enhance the 
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program are 
included. These provisions improve these programs that help low-income 
Americans reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy 
efficient, and many of these individuals are senior citizens who are 
day-by-day struggling on fixed incomes, trying to pay not just a 
heating bill but the grocery bill and many other bills. I have long 
championed these cost-effective programs that are helping families 
across my State and across the Nation to provide a warm and safe home 
while also increasing energy efficiency.
  Indeed, weatherization to me is one of the most sensible steps. It is 
in some respects the low-hanging fruit. If we can reduce demand, then 
we can go a long way not only in terms of our energy situation but also 
our environmental situation.
  We are here today because of the great work of the Chairwoman, 
Senator Murkowski, and the Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell. They have 
done an extraordinary job. I am not surprised, as they are 
extraordinary Members of this body. I want to personally thank them and 
commend them for what they have done not just in this effort but in 
many other efforts. Indeed, I have joined Senator Cantwell as a 
cosponsor of her bill that goes so much further than the current bill 
on the Senate floor to modernize our current electrical infrastructure 
and promote greater use of domestic energy and renewable energy. I 
would like to extend my thanks and commendations to both Senators.
  One area that I believe needs further focus as we move forward is the 
issue of energy storage. I am glad to be working with my colleague from 
Nevada, Senator Heller, on amendments that support more efficient use 
of Federal funding for energy storage research at the Department of 
Energy and encourage energy storage usage in public utilities.
  Advances in energy storage, advances in batteries--and sometimes it 
is the same thing--can help improve the reliability, resiliency, and 
flexibility of the grid as well as reduce the potential for future rate 
increases, saving us all money on our utility bills.
  Senator Heller and I have submitted two amendments that we hope will 
spur action in this area. One amendment would give the Secretary of 
Energy the ability to coordinate energy storage research and 
development projects among the existing programs at DOE to maximize the 
amount of funding that goes toward research and minimize administrative 
costs. We feel it does not have that flexibility at the moment.
  I also joined Senator Heller in offering another amendment, in which 
he is indeed the lead sponsor, which amends the Public Utility 
Regulatory Policies Act so industry and State regulators must consider 
energy storage when making their energy efficiency plans.
  I also, in addition to these proposals, would like to use this 
opportunity to encourage greater attention to the financial impacts of 
climate change caused by energy consumption. It is clear not only that 
the SEC needs to do more when it comes to critically reviewing 
disclosures being filed by publicly traded companies, but also that the 
SEC's disclosure industry guides for mining companies and oil and gas 
companies should be updated to reflect the growing risk of climate 
change to these companies and, in effect, to their shareholders.
  That is why I am offering an additional amendment that directs the 
SEC to update these industry guides as well as to consider and 
incorporate appropriate suggestions from the United Nations Environment 
Programme Finance Initiative's report entitled ``Climate Strategies and 
Metrics: Exploring Options for Institutional Investors,'' which was 
published in 2015.
  These disclosures are important to institutional investors such as 
Allianz Global Investors, for example, which is a global diversified 
active investment manager with $477 billion in assets under management, 
which has specifically called for ``achieving better disclosure of the 
effects of carbon costs on the oil and gas companies.'' What we are 
trying to do is respond to the growing demand of investors and 
shareholders so they can make better judgments about their investments.

  It is also important for us to continue to invest in our energy 
infrastructure and support cutting-edge technological advancements 
while effectively monitoring the effects of our energy consumption on 
our economy and our environment. One way of doing this is once again to 
have assurances that investors have the knowledge they need to make 
wise decisions about their investments.
  All told, this is very responsible and appropriate legislation. We 
can make improvements. I hope the amendments I have proposed, along 
with Senator Heller, can get favorable consideration as we move 
forward.
  Once again, let me thank Senators Murkowski and Cantwell for 
extraordinary leadership.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, modernizing our Nation's energy policy is 
vital to protecting our national security. The bill that we are 
discussing today advances our Nation's energy independence and provides 
for new measures to defend our critical infrastructure. Specifically, 
cyber threats challenge the security of our Nation and the integrity of 
our energy infrastructure. This bill will formally introduce the 
foundational principles of cyber security into our Nation's energy 
security calculus.
  However, challenging the Department of Energy to enhance the cyber 
security of our Nation's electric grid is not enough if the Department 
of Energy does not have the requisite cyber experts to fulfill the 
mission. The amendment I submitted today, amendment 3119, will address 
the gap between the Department of Energy's mission to

[[Page S323]]

keep our Nation's energy infrastructure safe from cyber attacks and the 
Department of Energy's ability to actually do it.
  Currently, the bill provides for a 21st Century Energy Workforce 
Advisory Board composed of nine members. The purpose of this board is 
to anticipate the needs of the future energy workforce. While the bill 
requires that the board members be representative of disciplines such 
as labor organizations, education, and minority parties, nowhere does 
the bill require that a single member of the board have any background 
on cyber.
  My amendment requires the membership of the 21st Century Energy 
Workforce Advisory Board to include representation from the cyber 
security discipline. This amendment better positions the advisory board 
to integrate cyber security into the energy sector's workforce 
development strategy for the 21st Century and ultimately provides a 
mechanism to bring cyber security expertise to the energy sector.
  Hardening the electric grid and the Nation's energy supply chains 
against cyber security threats is a critical component to protecting 
our national energy infrastructure. This amendment lays the foundation 
to ensure that the Department of Energy has the right cyber security 
experts to defend these vital national security assets.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
amendment.
  Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.


              Ambassador Nominations to Norway and Sweden

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I came to the Senate floor earlier this 
month to talk about the importance of moving forward on the nominations 
of the Ambassadors to two important allies to the United States of 
America, and that is Norway and Sweden. These are countries that have 
been our true friends through many wars. They have been our true 
friends economically--some of the top investors in America--and they 
have been countries that are good examples of democracy and good 
examples of countries that believe in human rights. Yet we have not 
been able to confirm an ambassador to either country.
  I do want to, first of all, say that in the case of Sweden, it has 
been 462 days since the President nominated Azita Raji to be 
Ambassador, and in the case of Norway, it has been 853 days since that 
country has had a U.S. Ambassador. I will get to those details. In this 
case, the nominee is Sam Heins from the State of Minnesota, where, by 
the way, we have over 1 million people of Scandinavian descent--1.5 
million people who do not understand why every major nation in Europe 
has an ambassador but not these two Scandinavian countries.
  I thank Senator McConnell, the majority leader, and Senator Reid for 
their work in trying to advance these nominees to the floor. They have 
negotiated. Senator Corker and Senator Cardin are both supportive of 
these nominees.
  I think it is important to note that this is not a typical story of 
delay. These nominees went through the committee without any objection. 
They were not controversial, nor are they controversial today. It is a 
fact that Senator Cruz has some issues that are completely unrelated to 
these nominees but also completely unrelated to Norway and Sweden. The 
issue is that while Senators do from time to time put temporary holds 
on nominees, this has gone on too long, and I am hopeful--in an article 
today in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about irked Scandinavians in our 
State, Senator Cruz's staff has said that they are engaged in good-
faith discussions with other Senators and have made clear there have 
been no issues raised with these particular nominees in this story. I 
think that is very important, and we hope we are going to move forward.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Star Tribune, Jan. 27, 2016]

 Minnesotan Scandinavians Irked as Ted Cruz Blocks Ambassador Nominees

                          (By Allison Sherry)


Norway has been without an ambassador for more than 800 days and Sweden 
              tops 400 days without a U.S. representative

       Washington.--Presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz is blocking 
     a vote in the U.S. Senate to confirm the Norwegian and 
     Swedish ambassador nominations.
       The move by the Texas Republican has angered some members 
     of Minnesota's sizable Scandinavian communities, as Norway 
     has been without an ambassador for more than 800 days and 
     Sweden tops 400 days without a U.S. representative.
       Staffers from Cruz's office didn't say anything negative 
     about the people appointed by President Obama to the posts, 
     including Norway ambassador nominee Sam Heins from Minnesota. 
     Cruz has continued to block the nominees as he has worked to 
     build support for another initiative that is putting him at 
     odds with the White House.
       Cruz, who is critical of the Chinese government, has 
     lobbied his Senate colleagues to rename a street in 
     Washington, D.C., after a polarizing Chinese dissident--an 
     idea that has been thwarted by fears of crippling diplomatic 
     efforts between the two countries.
       ``Senator Cruz remains engaged in good-faith discussions 
     with his colleagues regarding the holds he announced because 
     of his serious concerns about the Obama administration's 
     foreign policy,'' said Cruz spokesman Phil Novack.
       The White House renewed its calls for a swift vote on the 
     ambassador nominees.
       ``The president has nominated two unquestionably qualified 
     individuals to be the U.S. ambassadors to Sweden and 
     Norway,'' said White House press secretary Eric Schultz. ``We 
     urge the Senate to act.''
       Minnesotans closely watching the issue are angered by the 
     delay, saying it is souring relations with two staunch U.S. 
     allies.
       ``There's a crisis in a relationship between our two 
     countries,'' said Bruce Karstadt, president and CEO of the 
     Minneapolis-based American Swedish Institute. ``I don't 
     really quite understand that any statement is being made 
     other than we're ignoring you.''
       Cruz's office says he remains in negotiations about lifting 
     the procedural blocks on the nominations, citing a July 2015 
     letter to the Obama administration outlining concerns about 
     the Iran nuclear deal as one of the reasons he is objecting 
     to political appointments.
       Since that letter, though, two political appointments--
     state appointees to Barbados and the U.N. Economic Council--
     have passed the Senate without Cruz's hold.
       Temporary holds are relatively common and are also used by 
     Democrats to protest administration policy. Earlier this 
     week, for example, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward 
     Markey placed a hold on Obama's nominee to head the Food and 
     Drug Administration unless the administration agrees to 
     reform its process for approving painkiller medications.
       Cruz's protests delaying votes on the Scandinavian 
     ambassador nominations irks Democratic U.S. Sen. Amy 
     Klobuchar, who points out that Minnesota is home to the 
     second-largest number of Norwegians in the world, outside of 
     Norway. The two nominees passed through the GOP-controlled 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so Klobuchar wants a vote 
     on the Senate floor even if Cruz votes against them.
       Klobuchar points out the business relationships between the 
     countries and that Norway and Sweden have shouldered much of 
     the burden of the European refugee crisis in recent years. 
     ``It's no way to treat your friends,'' she said. ``The point 
     is all these other European nations have ambassadors. Why 
     would you put a hold on two of our best allies from having 
     ambassadors?''
       Democratic U.S. Sen. Al Franken said he also would increase 
     pressure for a vote. ``We need to move on ambassador openings 
     for both Norway--where there's a highly qualified Minnesota 
     nominee who has yet to be confirmed--and Sweden,'' Franken 
     said. ``I'm going to continue pressing to get these positions 
     filled.''
       Norway and Sweden are two of the largest investors in the 
     U.S. economy. Norway is invested in more than 2,100 American 
     companies, which amounts to about $175 billion. It also has 
     about $94 billion in U.S. bonds and $5 billion worth of U.S. 
     real estate. Meanwhile, the U.S. exports $9 billion in goods 
     and services to Sweden, a country that supports about 330,000 
     American jobs annually, embassy officials said.
       Leif Trana, a minister counselor at the Norwegian Embassy 
     in Washington, pointed out that his country just committed to 
     52 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin--all of them made at a 
     Lockheed plant in Cruz's home state of Texas.
       ``Norwegians have long had a great affinity for the United 
     States,'' Trana said. ``After the E.U., this is our place 
     where most Norwegians both travel to [and] study.''
       The Norwegian post has been a beleaguered one for years.
       President Obama first nominated businessman George Tsunis, 
     a New York contributor who had raised more than $1 million in 
     campaign cash for him. Tsunis quickly proved unqualified for 
     the job. During an appearance before the Senate Foreign 
     Relations

[[Page S324]]

     Committee, Tsunis referred to Norway's prime minister as 
     ``president'' and could not identify potential U.S. trade 
     opportunities with Norway. One member of the Norwegian 
     parliament was so offended by Tsunis that he demanded an 
     apology from Obama.
       Minnesota's delegation, led by the Democrats, urged Obama 
     to withdraw the nomination. He did, and in May 2015 he 
     nominated Heins, a Minnesota lawyer and human rights 
     advocate. Heins, too, was a major contributor and bundler for 
     the president's election campaigns.
       For the Sweden post, Obama nominated Azita Raji, an 
     Iranian-born former Wall Street executive. Her nomination has 
     been mostly uncontroversial and passed out of the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee last summer.
       Jon Pederson, board chairman of the Minneapolis-based 
     Norway House, said it's shameful to play politics with the 
     ambassador posts.
       ``This position is important,'' Pederson said. ``Left 
     unfilled like this is a slap in the face to Norway.''

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. There are just a few quotes from people who are not in 
politics at all.

       ``There's a crisis in a relationship between our two 
     countries,'' said Bruce Karstadt, president and CEO of the 
     Minneapolis-based American Swedish Institute. ``I don't 
     really quite understand that any statement is being made 
     other than we're ignoring you.''

  I will give another example. Leif Trana, a Minister Counselor at the 
Norwegian Embassy in Washington, pointed out that his country just 
committed to 52 fighter jets. I believe each one is over $200 million. 
Norway is purchasing these jets from Lockheed Martin, a U.S. company, 
and all of them are going to be made in a Lockheed Martin plant in the 
State of Texas. Imagine how many jobs this provides and that we would 
consider not sending an ambassador to a country that not only sees us 
as an ally--and is allied, by the way, in our issues we have in our 
conflict with Russia.
  The Minister Counselor at the Norwegian Embassy goes on to say:

       Norwegians have long had a great affinity for the United 
     States. After the E.U., this is our place where most 
     Norwegians travel to and study.

  This is the last quote I will give you from this article today:

       Jon Pederson, board chairman of the Minneapolis-based 
     Norway House, said it's shameful to play politics with the 
     ambassador posts. ``This position is important,'' Pederson 
     said. ``Left unfilled like this is a slap in the face to 
     Norway.''

  Let's go through what has been going on--853 days in the case of 
Norway. The first nominee who was nominated, as explained in this 
article, did not go well. There were issues on both sides of the aisle. 
That person withdrew his name. That is part of the delay, and we will 
acknowledge that, but a big chunk of the recent delay is because there 
has been a hold--not at the committee level--that went through quickly 
with Senator Corker and Senator Cardin's guidance--but on the floor. In 
the case of Sweden, it has been a delay of 462 days for a 
noncontroversial nominee. At the same time, in the last few months, 
Ambassadors have been confirmed for 38 countries. Two of those were 
actually political appointees. They were not career, as the rumor is; 
two were considered political appointees. Barbados, Ecuador, Poland, 
and Thailand all have Ambassadors. There is an ambassador from the 
United States in France, of course. There is an ambassador in England, 
of course. There is an ambassador in Italy. There is an ambassador in 
Germany. There is an ambassador in Bulgaria but not in Sweden and 
Norway. We, in fact, have an ambassador in nearly every European nation 
but not in these two Scandinavian countries.
  There have been no questions about the qualifications of these two 
nominees. I will put those qualification on the record, but I wanted to 
focus more on the actual countries, Norway and Sweden. They are 
incredibly important allies and trading partners. They deserve to be 
treated like other European nations. They deserve to have an ambassador 
from the United States of America, and it is time to get this done.
  Diplomatic relations between the United States, Norway, and Sweden 
are almost 200 years old. For 200 years we have had Ambassadors in 
these countries. Holding a vote to confirm frontline Ambassadors 
hostage is not in the best interest of our country.
  Let's start with Norway. Norway was a founding member of the NATO 
alliance, and its military has participated in operations with the 
United States in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Norwegians work 
alongside Americans in standing up to Russia's provocations in Ukraine, 
in countering ISIS and the spread of violent extremism, and in 
strengthening regional cooperation in the Arctic. Norway has been 
especially strong on working to check Russian aggression against 
Ukraine.
  Norway has also played an important role in the Syrian refugee 
crisis. Norway has a proud history of providing support to those 
fleeing conflict. It expects to take in as many as 25,000 refugees this 
year. It has already provided more than $6 million to Greece to help 
respond to the influx of refugees seeking a way to enter Europe.
  All of us on both sides of the aisle have talked about the importance 
of a strong Europe during these trying times. Yet now we have no 
Ambassadors in two of the countries that are on the frontlines of 
combatting extremism and addressing the refugee crisis.
  Sweden, like Norway, plays an important role in national security and 
on the international stage. Sweden is a strong partner and close friend 
of the United States, helping in our fight against ISIS, promoting 
democracy and human rights, and cooperating on global initiatives 
related to clean energy and the environment.
  Sweden is a partner in NATO and is an active global leader, from its 
long-term investment in Afghanistan, to its role as an international 
peacemaker. Sweden has supported Ukraine against Russian aggression, 
has made significant contributions in Afghanistan, and has aided in the 
fight against terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Kosovo, and the current fight 
against ISIS.
  Sweden is a member of the counter-ISIL coalition and is on the 
frontlines of the Syrian refugee crisis. More than 1,200 refugees seek 
asylum in Sweden every day, and Sweden accepts more refugees per capita 
than any other country in the EU. That is what is happening right now. 
They are accepting more refugees per capita than any other country in 
the EU. Yet we don't have an ambassador to that country. We have an 
ambassador to Germany. We certainly know they are playing a role in 
this refugee crisis. We have an ambassador, of course, to Greece. But 
we don't have an ambassador to this country.
  The United States has collaborated with Sweden to strengthen human 
rights, democracy, and freedom in countries emerging from oppressive 
and autocratic regimes. Sweden's commitment to promoting human 
democracy, human rights, gender equality, and international development 
and sustainability make it a respected leader in international affairs.
  Now let's look at economic partnerships.
  I do hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have all 
been very supportive of this will talk to Senator Cruz the next time 
they see him. I plan on asking for unanimous consent to get these 
nominees through repeatedly in the next month. I am hoping Senator Cruz 
will be here to explain this, and I am hoping we can find some 
agreement on this because, again, this is not a typical case where 
these nominees have been criticized or questioned, including by his own 
office. This is a case of simply some other issues that are not related 
to the nominees or to the countries, and these countries should not be 
held hostage.
  Norway is an important economic partner. According to the American 
Chamber of Commerce, Norway represented the fifth fastest growing 
source of foreign direct investment in the United States between 2009 
and 2013. Of course, visiting Senator Hoeven's and Senator Heitkamp's 
State of North Dakota, I have seen the investments in oil and in 
drilling in North Dakota from the Scandinavian countries because of 
their history in that industry.
  Norway is the 12th largest source of foreign direct investment in the 
United States. Think about that. There are over 300 American companies 
with a presence in Norway, including 3M of Minnesota, Eli Lilly, 
General Electric, IBM, McDonald's, and others. By not having an 
ambassador to Norway, we are sending a message to some of the top 
investors in our own country. The Ambassadors in these countries, as we 
know, are our trading partners and help businesses in America do 
business

[[Page S325]]

in that country. While there are national security issues, there is 
also an economic purpose of having an ambassador.
  In October, Norway reiterated its commitment to invest in American 
businesses by purchasing an additional 22 F-35s from Lockheed Martin. 
That is a total of 52 fighter jets Norway is committing to buy from 
Lockheed Martin. The first will arrive in 2018. This is the biggest 
investment Norway has ever made in the country's history, and they are 
investing in a company in our country, in the State of Texas. These are 
warplanes that will be built at Lockheed's facility in Fort Worth. I 
called attention to this fact. I know it is a cost of almost $200 
million per plane. This country is investing in American jobs--$200 
million per plane--and they are buying 22 more. You can do the math.

  Lockheed Martin and other American companies that do business with 
Norway would like to see an ambassador there to help facilitate 
relations.
  Now let's get to Sweden. Sweden, like Norway, is also one of the 
biggest investors in the United States. Sweden is actually the 11th 
largest direct investor in the United States, while Norway is 12th. I 
would think some people might be surprised by that fact that these two 
Scandinavian countries are that high on the list when you look in the 
world, but, in fact, it is true. They are the 11th and 12th investors 
in the United States. Sweden's foreign direct investment in the U.S. 
amounts to roughly $56 billion and creates nearly 330,700 U.S. jobs.
  U.S. companies are the most represented foreign companies in Sweden. 
Swedish-Americans have contributed to the fabric of our great Nation 
and built successful companies such as Walgreens, Greyhound, and 
Nordstrom.
  Economically, Sweden is highly dependent upon exports and is one of 
the most internationally integrated economies in the world. The United 
States is Sweden's fourth largest export market, with Swedish exports 
valued at an estimated $10.2 billion. Now, does this sound like a 
country where we just decide we are not going to have an ambassador, 
yet we give ambassadors to all these other nations all across the 
world? That just doesn't seem right.
  Sweden is a significant export market for my State of Minnesota, with 
$131.5 million in sales through November of last year. Sweden, like 
Norway, deserves to have an ambassador.
  Speaking of the Minnesota ties here, the economic and cultural 
influence of Norway and Sweden is strongly felt throughout the United 
States. I will say that Minnesota has a special one. In fact, one of 
the most notable attractions in Madison, MN, is a giant 25-foot-long 
fiberglass cod named ``Mr. Lou T. Fisk.'' That is a little Scandinavian 
joke here late in the afternoon. That is a lutefisk--``Mr. Lou T. 
Fisk.'' Anyone from Norway or Sweden knows that lutefisk is a 
traditional Norwegian food. Madison, MN, is so proud of its Nordic 
heritage that they once took Lou, the giant fish, on a national tour in 
the back of a truck. That was many, many years ago, but the fiberglass 
cod--the largest fiberglass cod in the world--is still displayed in our 
State.
  We have about 100,000 people of Norwegian heritage in Minnesota, 
second only to Norway itself. We have 500,000 Swedish Minnesotans. 
Think of how many. That is a good chunk of our population. So we are 
very proud of our Nordic heritage.
  That is my State. I think you could go around any State in the United 
States and there you would find proud Norwegians and Swedes. They may 
not always be the loudest voices, and maybe that is part of the 
problem. Maybe they have been too nice. But I can tell you that these 
two countries are the 11th and 12th biggest investors in the United 
States of America. One of them has been willing to buy 52 fighter 
planes valued at nearly $200 million each from our Nation.
  They certainly deserve an ambassador. They have been very clear to 
me--the representatives of these companies--that they would like to see 
an ambassador. At some point this looks like a ``dis'' from our 
Nation--that we are ``dissing'' them because we allow every other 
Nation to have an ambassador.
  We look forward to working with Senator Cruz. Again, I thank Senator 
McConnell and Senator Corker for their support. We haven't seen any 
other concerns that people have that have not been taken care of. So I 
am hopeful we can get Sam Heins and Azita Raji immediately confirmed.
  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.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 3029, 2984, 3001, 3063, 3020, and 3067 to Amendment No. 
                                  2953

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are now ready to process a handful 
of amendments with a series of voice votes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up 
and reported by number: Barrasso amendment No. 3029; Baldwin amendment 
No. 2984; Wyden amendment No. 3001; Capito amendment No. 3063; Daines 
amendment No. 3020; and Hirono amendment No. 3067.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for others, 
     proposes amendments numbered 3029, 2984, 3001, 3063, 3020, 
     and 3067 to amendment No. 2953.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3029

  (Purpose: To provide for the modernization of the energy policy for 
                          Indian tribal land)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of January 27, 2016, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')


                           Amendment No. 2984

 (Purpose: To include water and wastewater treatment facilities among 
 energy-intensive industries and to expand the role of the institution 
 of higher education-based industrial research and assessment centers)

       On page 125, strike lines 3 through 7 and insert the 
     following:
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); 
     and
       (ii) by inserting before subparagraph (F) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       ``(E) water and wastewater treatment facilities, including 
     systems that treat municipal, industrial, and agricultural 
     waste; and'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       On page 129, strike line 4 and insert the following:
     ment of Energy.
       ``(7) Expansion of technical assistance.--The Secretary 
     shall expand the institution of higher education-based 
     industrial research and assessment centers, working across 
     Federal agencies as necessary--
       ``(A) to provide comparable assessment services to water 
     and wastewater treatment facilities, including systems that 
     treat municipal, industrial, and agricultural waste; and
       ``(B) to equip the directors of the centers with the 
     training and tools necessary to provide technical assistance 
     on energy savings to the water and wastewater treatment 
     facilities.''.


                           Amendment No. 3001

    (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to national goals for 
             geothermal production and site identification)

       In section 3005(2), insert ``, through a program conducted 
     in collaboration with industry, including cost-shared 
     exploration drilling'' after ``available technologies''.


                           Amendment No. 3063

  (Purpose: To require a study of the feasibility of establishing an 
       ethane storage and distribution hub in the United States)

       At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 310__. ETHANE STORAGE STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Commerce, in consultation with other relevant Federal 
     departments and agencies and stakeholders, shall conduct a 
     study of the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage 
     and distribution hub in the Marcellus, Utica, and Rogersville 
     shale plays in the United States.
       (b) Contents.--The study conducted under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) an examination of, with respect to the proposed ethane 
     storage and distribution hub--
       (A) potential locations;
       (B) economic feasibility;
       (C) economic benefits;
       (D) geological storage capacity capabilities;
       (E) above-ground storage capabilities;

[[Page S326]]

       (F) infrastructure needs; and
       (G) other markets and trading hubs, particularly hubs 
     relating to ethane; and
       (2) the identification of potential additional benefits of 
     the proposed hub to energy security.
       (c) Publication of Results.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall--
       (1) submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committees on Energy and 
     Natural Resources and Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate a report describing the results of the study 
     under subsection (a); and
       (2) publish those results on the Internet websites of the 
     Departments of Energy and Commerce, respectively.


                           Amendment No. 3020

   (Purpose: To provide for the reinstatement of the license for the 
                          Gibson Dam project)

       On page 229, after line 22, add the following:
       (c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period 
     required for commencement of construction of the project 
     described in subsection (b) has expired before the date of 
     enactment of this Act--
       (1) the Commission shall reinstate the license effective as 
     of the date of the expiration of the license; and
       (2) the first extension authorized under subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on that expiration date.


                           Amendment No. 3067

      (Purpose: To modernize certain terms relating to minorities)

       At the end of subtitle H of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 47__. MODERNIZATION OF TERMS RELATING TO MINORITIES.

       (a) Office of Minority Economic Impact.--Section 211(f)(1) 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7141(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``a Negro, Puerto Rican, 
     American Indian, Eskimo, Oriental, or Aleut or is a Spanish 
     speaking individual of Spanish descent'' and inserting 
     ``Asian American, Native Hawaiian, a Pacific Islander, 
     African-American, Hispanic, Puerto Rican, Native American, or 
     an Alaska Native''.
       (b) Minority Business Enterprises.--Section 106(f)(2) of 
     the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
     of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6705(f)(2)) is amended in the third 
     sentence by striking ``Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, 
     Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts'' and inserting ``Asian 
     American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders, African-
     American, Hispanic, Native American, or Alaska Natives''.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now vote on these amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I will 
not object. I just want to thank my colleague from Alaska for her hard 
work in working on both sides of the aisle today on these amendments: 
the Barrasso amendment about energy reported out of the Indian Affairs 
Committee, the Baldwin amendment about water treatment, the Wyden 
amendment on U.S. geothermal, the Capito amendment on ethane storage 
facilities, the Daines amendment on hydro license issues, and the 
Hirono amendment on removing offensive language in the DOE Organization 
Act.
  Members have worked very hard throughout the day on these issues, and 
I just want to make this point, as my colleague and I try to finish 
working through the rest of this week and into next week to wrap up 
this bill, and thank all our colleagues for helping us on this.
  I will not object and am glad we got to this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3029, 2984, 3001, 3063, 3020, and 3067) were 
agreed to en bloc.

                          ____________________