[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 60 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2143-S2145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 636, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 636) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, 
     and for other purposes.

  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     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
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     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--3

     Boxer
     Lee
     Rubio

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cruz
     Sanders
       
  The bill (H.R. 636), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation to 
my colleagues for the passage of the Federal Aviation Administration 
Reauthorization Act of 2016. By passing this legislation, which I 
offered with the Commerce Committee's ranking member, Senator Nelson, 
and our Aviation Subcommittee leaders, Senator Ayotte and Senator 
Cantwell, the Senate is seeking to end a string of short extensions 
with a comprehensive reform proposal now on its way to the House of 
Representatives. Bipartisan efforts at both the Commerce Committee and 
on the Senate floor made an already strong bill even better.
  Only weeks ago, horrific attacks by ISIS created new concern for air 
travelers. Recognizing the need to enhance security, Senators from both 
sides of the aisle offered amendments to strengthen safety and security 
protections for passengers in this aviation bill. To guard against the 
threat of airport insiders helping terrorists, we added provisions that 
I authored along with Senator Nelson to improve the scrutiny of 
individuals applying to work in secure airport areas.
  For the first time, we put requirements in place so applicants 
needing access to secure areas of airports can be denied security 
credential if they have been convicted of embezzlement, racketeering, 
robbery, sabotage, immigration law violations, or assault with a deadly 
weapon.
  While very few criminals are terrorists, it is not at all uncommon 
for terrorists to get their start as criminals. The Brussels attackers, 
for example, were known to the police as criminals long before they 
carried out terrorist

[[Page S2144]]

attacks. Ensuring that dangerous criminals don't work behind the scenes 
at airports is one important thing we can do to reduce the threats 
facing airport passengers. Tightening the vetting process for airport 
employees is especially critical, as many experts believe the recent 
bombing of a Russian passenger jet leaving Egypt had help from an 
aviation insider.
  Our bill also includes security provisions to better safeguard public 
areas outside the security checkpoints at airports and to help reduce 
passenger backups. These reforms could help prevent a future attack, 
like the one in the Brussels terminal last month, which targeted a 
crowd of passengers in an area where the attackers didn't even need 
tickets.
  While many of our security enhancements addressed problems 
highlighted by recent attacks, none of these proposals were cobbled 
together in a rush to do something. All of the security proposals added 
to this bill have existed for months and were developed as a result of 
congressional oversight, independent evaluations of agencies, and the 
study of existing problems. What recent attacks by ISIS did create is 
new urgency to enact these security safeguards as the threat of 
terrorism remains a menace.
  As I have mentioned more than once, this legislation has been praised 
for the many ways it helps airline passengers. Under this bill, 
airlines will be required to return fees if they lose or significantly 
delay delivery of passengers' luggage. We also require airlines to 
automatically return fees for services purchased but not delivered so 
travelers don't have to go through the hassle of trying to reclaim 
their money from an airline.
  Because many customers are frustrated by lengthy legal jargon that 
can make it difficult to understand add-on costs, our bill creates a 
new and easy-to-read uniform standard for disclosing baggage, ticket 
change, seat selection, and other fees. We even help families with 
children find flights where they can sit together without additional 
costs by requiring airlines to tell purchasers about available seat 
locations at the time of booking.
  A Washington Post consumer columnist called our bill ``one of the 
most passenger-friendly Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization 
bills in a generation.''
  I am proud that the FAA bill before the Senate today is the product 
of a bipartisan process. Over at the Commerce Committee, we approved 57 
amendments before this bill came to the floor, and 60 percent of those 
amendments came from Members of the minority. Here on the Senate floor, 
we approved an additional 19 amendments.
  In addition to helping passengers and enhancing security, this 
legislation addresses a number of other priorities, including the cyber 
security of aircraft, the aircraft design approval process, undue 
regulatory burdens on noncommercial pilots, airport infrastructure, 
rural air service, lithium battery safety, mental health screening for 
pilots, communicable disease preparedness, drone safety, and many other 
important areas. Without going through them in detail, the bill's 
provisions for unmanned aerial systems are groundbreaking.
  Twenty years from now, when drones play significant roles in our 
economy and making the public safer, Congress will look back at this 
bill as landmark legislation. Provisions in this bill will give the FAA 
authority to address safety issues unique to drones and advance the 
development of drone technology.
  Thanks to this legislation, the FAA will be able to consider and 
grant permission for new and safe drone usage, stop dangerous 
practices, and deploy new tools to put sensitive parts of our national 
airspace under restricted access for drones.
  Finally, as I have noted, Ranking Member Nelson, Senator Ayotte, and 
Senator Cantwell deserve high praise for their collaboration on this 
legislation. Senator Nelson, in particular, has been a real partner in 
the effort, and I want to express my sincere thanks to him and to his 
talented staff.
  I also want to acknowledge the important contributions of Finance 
Committee Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Wyden, and their staffs. 
Without the Finance Committee provisions they provided for revenue and 
expenditure authority, we would not have an FAA bill.
  I also want to thank Leader McConnell, his lead liaison to the 
Commerce Committee, Scott Rabb, and Leader Reid for helping us get this 
bill passed.
  I also appreciate the Senators and their staff members who worked 
with us so that we could include so many amendments here on the floor.
  Finally, it goes without saying that I want to thank my own staff for 
their great work on this bill, especially Nick Rossi, Adrian Arnakis, 
Bailey Edwards, Michael Reynolds, Jessica McBride, Missye Brickell, 
Suzanne Gillen, Jaclyn Keshian, Christopher Loring, Rebecca Seidel, 
Cheri Pascoe, Peter Feldman, Andrew Timm, Frederick Hill, and Lauren 
Hammond. Long hours and even a few all-nighters have been put into this 
bill over the course of many months. I am the first to say that nothing 
consequential or substantial gets done around this place without the 
important, hard work of the very talented and skilled staff. I am 
blessed on the Commerce Committee to be surrounded with people who care 
passionately about these issues, who work very diligently to get the 
best possible outcomes and results. I am grateful for the contributions 
of our staff and those of Senator Nelson's staff and of the many 
Members who were involved in shaping this bill. It is another 
accomplishment that we can all be proud of.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the feeling is mutual. I made my comments 
earlier, so I won't go into the substance of the bill. Senator Thune 
has certainly been a delight to work with, as was his committee staff.
  I wish to personally thank our staff: Tom Chapman, Jenny Solomon, 
Chris Day, Mohsin Syed, Melissa Alvarado, Laura Ponto, Dan Hurd, Renae 
Black, Maria Stratienko, Nick Russell, Christian Fjeld, Brian No, Peder 
Magee, Meeran Ahn, Brad Torppey, and our staff director Kim Lipsky. I 
also wish to thank the Democratic staff here on the floor--they make 
this place run day in and day out--Gary Myrick, Tim Mitchell, Trisha 
Engle, Dan Tinsley, and all the cloakroom staff.
  I thank the Senate for responding so affirmatively to this FAA bill. 
Now let's get the House to understand the importance of this bill so we 
can get it into law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 3799

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the title 
amendment at the desk be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3799) was agreed to, as follows:

                     (Purpose: To amend the title)

       Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend title 49, 
     United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2016 through 
     2017, and for other purposes.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make some remarks 
on the Burr-Tillis amendment No. 3175 to the Energy bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Corolla Wild Horses Protection Amendment

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President and colleagues, I am embarrassed that I am 
having to come to the floor to talk about an amendment that makes so 
much sense, that embraces everything that I think the legislative 
branch and, more importantly, the American people support: the 
protection of a species.
  I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the Corolla Wild Horses 
Protection Act. The amendment mirrors legislation Senator Tillis and I 
introduced, S. 1204. This bill passed the House twice, in 2012 and 
2013.
  Let me be specific. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior 
to enter into an agreement with the Corolla Wild Horses Fund to provide 
for the management of free-roaming wild horses in and around Currituck 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  As I have learned, North Carolina is mostly inhabited by people from 
Virginia and Maryland--up and down the east coast--in the summer. As a 
matter

[[Page S2145]]

of fact, as to the homes in the northern portion of the Outer Banks 
where the wild horses are found, where there isn't a road, 60 percent 
of the homes are owned by Virginians, not North Carolinians. These 
horses have existed there for hundreds of years. As a matter of fact, 
these horses have been such an important part of North Carolina's 
history that in 2010 it was made North Carolina's State horse.
  People have seen these horses on the beach and between cottages. They 
have co-existed with the habitat for over 200 years. The turtles, 
ducks, and wildlife have thrived. The species of that habitat have 
survived because there is no better protector of the species than these 
animals. They eat what they need without removing the roots, which is 
what helps them to repopulate and stay alive.
  Here is the problem: This herd has been mandated to be held at 60 
horses, and every scientific study on genetics shows you have to have 
more than 100 or 120 to have genetic sustainability.
  What are we proposing? This act proposes that we bring 20 horses from 
the Shackleford reserve and integrate them with the horses on the Outer 
Banks, which is a mere 2 hours away. This herd is similar from the 
standpoint of its creation. By doing this, we will begin to inject 
genetics into this so we don't have the genetic deformities that are 
beginning to be experienced with the Corolla horses. If we don't act 
now, we could lose these horses, and it is all due to genetic 
inbreeding.
  The reason I am embarrassed to be here is that this is something that 
ought to be done by unanimous consent. Every person in this body should 
embrace this legislation. Yet the Fish and Wildlife Service is opposed 
to this. And there is nothing that says that Fish and Wildlife can't 
build a fence around the wildlife reserve. It existed for hundreds of 
years in the wildlife reserve before and after it was designated as a 
wildlife reserve. As a matter of fact, 70 percent of the land on which 
these horses roam is private. The land for the wildlife refuge is only 
30 percent, but 70 percent of the land is privately owned, and the 
private landowners are all for making this herd genetically 
sustainable.
  If we don't do this legislatively, let me assure you that the Fish 
and Wildlife Service is going to hold the number at 60. If they hold 
the herd at 60, the herd will genetically burn out. I don't know what 
Fish and Wildlife is going to do. The herd is at 80 today. The herd 
needs new genetics entered into it to change the trend, but Fish and 
Wildlife could go out tomorrow and shoot 20 horses. I am sure they 
would probably tell us that they would take 20 horses and put them 
somewhere else. Where are they going to put them? Inject them into 
another genetic herd and increase their sustainability? Maybe so. But 
if you do it somewhere else, why wouldn't you do the same thing here?
  No landowners are clamoring to let this herd die out. As a matter of 
fact, there are a million and a half people in this country who have 
expressed support for the sustainability of this herd. But this is 
where science dictates. Science says that it is not sustainable if you 
leave this herd without a genetic injection from somewhere else.
  This is not a new proposal. It passed in the House twice. It is not a 
new proposal. Fish and Wildlife has done this in other places. For some 
reason, they don't want to do it in North Carolina.
  The last test for any Member of Congress and anybody in this country 
should be: What will it cost us to do this? What am I asking you to pay 
to do this? The answer is zero. There is no Federal cost to this 
legislation. We can sustain the herd for the future, and it will not 
cost taxpayers anything. We have a private entity that will take 
responsibility for the management of the fund.
  We don't in any way, shape, or form limit Fish and Wildlife from the 
standpoint of their ability to fence off whatever they believe is 
environmentally sensitive. And we have horses that have lived with 
ducks, geese, and sea turtles for over 200 years and have never seen a 
problem with it.
  The Presiding Officer has been patient. I say to my colleagues: Don't 
make a mistake. Support this legislation. It is the right thing to do. 
It doesn't cost the taxpayers money, and it embraces everything that I 
think America stands for, and that is the preservation of the history 
of this country. Believe it or not, these horses represent over 200 
years of history in North Carolina, and that is why we made it our 
State horse.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield back my time.

                          ____________________