[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2294-S2323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to invoke 
cloture on the motion to proceed on H.R. 2028 is withdrawn and the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2028, which the clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations, with an amendment to strike all 
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to river and harbor, flood 
     and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, and related efforts.

                             investigations

       For expenses necessary where authorized by law for the 
     collection and study of basic information pertaining to river 
     and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore 
     protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related needs; 
     for surveys and detailed studies, and plans and 
     specifications of proposed river and harbor, flood and storm 
     damage reduction, shore protection, and aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration projects, and related efforts prior to 
     construction; for restudy of authorized projects; and for 
     miscellaneous investigations, and, when authorized by law, 
     surveys and detailed studies, and plans and specifications of 
     projects prior to construction, $109,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                              construction

       For expenses necessary for the construction of river and 
     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects 
     authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, and plans 
     and specifications, of such projects (including those 
     involving participation by States, local governments, or 
     private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by 
     law (but such detailed studies, and plans and specifications, 
     shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
     construction); $1,641,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the 
     Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived 
     from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by 
     Public Law 104-303; and of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover one-half of the costs of construction, replacement, 
     rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects 
     shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, except 
     as otherwise specifically provided for in law.

                   mississippi river and tributaries

       For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects 
     and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley 
     below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, 
     $330,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of 
     eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors 
     shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

                       operation and maintenance

       For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
     care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
     reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related 
     projects authorized by law; providing security for 
     infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including 
     administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor 
     channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public 
     agency that serve essential navigation needs of general 
     commerce, where authorized by law; surveying and charting 
     northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 
     clearing and straightening channels; and removing 
     obstructions to navigation, $2,909,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and 
     maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for 
     inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 
     Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available from the 
     special account for the Corps of Engineers established by the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived 
     from that account for resource protection, research, 
     interpretation, and maintenance activities related to 
     resource protection in the areas at which outdoor recreation 
     is available; and of which such sums as become available from 
     fees collected under section 217 of Public Law 104-303 shall 
     be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the 
     dredged material disposal facilities for which such fees have 
     been collected:  Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount 
     of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or 
     activities funded under this heading shall not be allocated 
     to a field operating activity prior to the beginning of the 
     fourth quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for 
     use by the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency 
     activities as the Chief of Engineers determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers 
     shall allocate during the fourth quarter any remaining funds 
     which have not been used for emergency activities 
     proportionally in accordance with the amounts provided for 
     the programs, projects, or activities.

                           regulatory program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

       For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites 
     in the United States resulting from work performed as part of 
     the Nation's early atomic energy program, $101,500,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and 
     other natural disasters and support emergency operations, 
     repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters 
     as authorized by law, $28,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                                expenses

       For expenses necessary for the supervision and general 
     administration of the civil works program in the headquarters 
     of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division 
     Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the 
     Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for 
     Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and 
     Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of 
     Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works 
     program, $178,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2017, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation purposes and only 
     during the current fiscal year:  Provided, That no part of 
     any other appropriation provided in this title shall be 
     available to fund the civil works activities of the Office of 
     the Chief of Engineers or the civil works executive direction 
     and management activities of the division offices:  Provided 
     further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 
     appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general 
     administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other 
     activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other 
     natural disaster.

     office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works

       For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), 
     $3,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

              (including transfer and rescission of funds)

       Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in title I of this 
     Act, or provided by previous appropriations Acts to the 
     agencies or entities funded in title I of this Act that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2016, shall be available for obligation or expenditure 
     through a reprogramming of funds that:
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by 
     this Act, unless prior approval is received from the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
       (4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity 
     for a different purpose, unless prior approval is received 
     from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
       (5) augments or reduces existing programs, projects or 
     activities in excess of the amounts contained in subsections 
     6 through 10, unless prior approval is received from the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
       (6) Investigations.--For a base level over $100,000, 
     reprogramming of 25 percent of the base amount up to a limit 
     of $150,000 per project, study or activity is allowed:  
     Provided, That for a base level less than $100,000, the 
     reprogramming limit is $25,000:  Provided further, That up to 
     $25,000 may be reprogrammed into any continuing study or 
     activity that did not receive an appropriation for existing 
     obligations and concomitant administrative expenses;
       (7) Construction.--For a base level over $2,000,000, 
     reprogramming of 15 percent of the base amount up to a limit 
     of $3,000,000 per project, study or activity is allowed:  
     Provided, That for a base level less than $2,000,000, the 
     reprogramming limit is $300,000:  Provided further,

[[Page S2295]]

     That up to $3,000,000 may be reprogrammed for settled 
     contractor claims, changed conditions, or real estate 
     deficiency judgments:  Provided further, That up to $300,000 
     may be reprogrammed into any continuing study or activity 
     that did not receive an appropriation for existing 
     obligations and concomitant administrative expenses;
       (8) Operations and maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming 
     authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to 
     respond to emergencies:  Provided, That the Chief of 
     Engineers must notify the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations of these emergency actions as soon thereafter 
     as practicable:  Provided further, That for a base level over 
     $1,000,000, reprogramming of 15 percent of the base amount a 
     limit of $5,000,000 per project, study or activity is 
     allowed:  Provided further, That for a base level less than 
     $1,000,000, the reprogramming limit is $150,000:  Provided 
     further, That $150,000 may be reprogrammed into any 
     continuing study or activity that did not receive an 
     appropriation;
       (9) Mississippi river and tributaries.--The same 
     reprogramming guidelines for the Investigations, 
     Construction, and Operation and Maintenance portions of the 
     Mississippi River and Tributaries Account as listed above; 
     and
       (10) Formerly utilized sites remedial action program.--
     Reprogramming of up to 15 percent of the base of the 
     receiving project is permitted.
       (b) De Minimus Reprogrammings.--In no case should a 
     reprogramming for less than $50,000 be submitted to the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       (c) Continuing Authorities Program.--Subsection (a)(1) 
     shall not apply to any project or activity funded under the 
     continuing authorities program.
       (d) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Corps of Engineers shall submit a report to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to establish 
     the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer 
     authorities for the current fiscal year:  Provided, That the 
     report shall include:
       (1) A table for each appropriation with a separate column 
     to display the President's budget request, adjustments made 
     by Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if 
     applicable, and the fiscal year enacted level;
       (2) A delineation in the table for each appropriation both 
     by object class and program, project and activity as detailed 
     in the budget appendix for the respective appropriations; and
       (3) An identification of items of special congressional 
     interest.
       Sec. 102. (a) Of the funds made available in prior 
     appropriations Acts for water resources efforts under the 
     headings ``Corps of Engineers-Civil, Department of the Army, 
     Construction'' that remain unobligated as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, including amounts specified in law for 
     particular projects, programs, or activities, $128,000,000 is 
     rescinded.
       (b) None of the funds under subsection (a) may be rescinded 
     from amounts that the Congress designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the 
     Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended.
       Sec. 103.  The Secretary of the Army may transfer to the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service 
     may accept and expend, up to $4,700,000 of funds provided in 
     this title under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' to 
     mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers 
     projects.
       Sec. 104.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of 
     Engineers during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, 
     to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any 
     change to the regulations in effect on October 1, 2012, 
     pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill material'' 
     or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

                        project deauthorization

       Sec. 105. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute a transfer 
     agreement with the South Florida Water Management District 
     for the project identified as the ``Ten Mile Creek Water 
     Preserve Area Critical Restoration Project'', carried out 
     under section 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3768).
       (b) The transfer agreement under subsection (a) shall 
     require the South Florida Water Management District to 
     operate the transferred project as an environmental 
     restoration project to provide water storage and water 
     treatment options.
       (c) Upon execution of the transfer agreement under 
     subsection (a), the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area 
     Critical Restoration Project shall no longer be authorized as 
     a Federal project.
       Sec. 106.  Section 5032(a)(2) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1205) 
     is amended by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20''.
       Sec. 107. (a) No funds made available in this Act or any 
     prior Act shall be available to reallocate water within the 
     Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) river basin, or any study 
     thereof, until the Corps of Engineers has executed a 
     Partnering Agreement with Alabama and Georgia outlining the 
     participation of each State in a water reallocation study for 
     the ACT river basin.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall apply to the 
     use of contributed or other non-Federal funds.

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                central utah project completion account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, $9,874,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be deposited into the 
     Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use 
     by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission:  Provided, That, of the amount provided under 
     this heading, $1,350,000 shall be available until September 
     30, 2017, for expenses necessary in carrying out related 
     responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior:  Provided 
     further, That, for fiscal year 2016, of the amount made 
     available to the Commission under this Act or any other Act, 
     the Commission may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for 
     administrative expenses.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

       The following appropriations shall be expended to execute 
     authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:

                      water and related resources

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, and others, $988,131,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $22,000 shall be available for transfer to 
     the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $5,899,000 shall be 
     available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin 
     Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary 
     may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund:  Provided, 
     That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the 
     overall appropriation under this heading:  Provided further, 
     That, of the total appropriated, the amount for program 
     activities that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or 
     the Bureau of Reclamation special fee account established by 
     16 U.S.C. 6806 shall be derived from that Fund or account:  
     Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 
     are available until expended for the purposes for which the 
     funds were contributed:  Provided further, That funds 
     advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this 
     account and are available until expended for the same 
     purposes as the sums appropriated under this heading:  
     Provided further, That, of the amounts provided herein, funds 
     may be used for high-priority projects which shall be carried 
     out by the Youth Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 
     U.S.C. 1706.

                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $49,528,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That the Bureau of 
     Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount 
     of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575:  
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of 
     water for in-stream purposes if the water is already 
     committed to in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or 
     order.

                    california bay-delta restoration

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply, 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent 
     with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     $37,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities 
     may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other 
     participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized 
     purposes:  Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be 
     used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program 
     management:  Provided further, That CALFED implementation 
     shall be carried out in a balanced manner with clear 
     performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in 
     achieving the goals and objectives of the Program.

                       policy and administration

       For expenses necessary for policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2017, 
     $58,500,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377:  Provided, That 
     no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and 
     administration expenses.

                        administrative provision

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be 
     available for purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor 
     vehicles, which are for replacement only.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in this title 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
       (4) restarts or resumes any program, project or activity 
     for which funds are not provided in this Act, unless prior 
     approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress;

[[Page S2296]]

       (5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits--
       (A) 15 percent for any program, project or activity for 
     which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year; or
       (B) $300,000 for any program, project or activity for which 
     less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year;
       (6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities 
     Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the 
     Resources Management and Development category to any program, 
     project, or activity in the other category; or
       (7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal 
     obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than 
     $5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor 
     claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated 
     rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
       (b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of 
     funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and 
     Rehabilitation category.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer'' 
     means any movement of funds into or out of a program, 
     project, or activity.
       (d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress detailing all the funds reprogrammed 
     between programs, projects, activities, or categories of 
     funding. The first quarterly report shall be submitted not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to determine the final 
     point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis 
     Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the 
     water quality standards of the State of California as 
     approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis 
     drainage waters.
       (b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program 
     and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
     shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment 
     Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department 
     of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future 
     obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or 
     providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the 
     San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit 
     beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal 
     reclamation law.
       Sec. 203.  Section 9504(e) of the Secure Water Act of 2009 
     (42 U.S.C. 10364(e)) is amended by striking ``$300,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
       Sec. 204.  Title I of Public Law 108-361 (the Calfed Bay-
     Delta Authorization Act) (118 Stat. 1681), as amended by 
     section 210 of Public Law 111-85, is amended by striking 
     ``2016'' each place it appears and inserting ``2020''.
       Sec. 205.  The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking ``Construction'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in section 5B, construction'' in section 3; and
       (2) inserting after section 5A (43 U.S.C. 509a) the 
     following:
       ``Sec. 5B.  Notwithstanding section 3, if the Secretary, in 
     her judgment, determines that additional project benefits, 
     including but not limited to additional conservation storage 
     capacity, are necessary and in the interests of the United 
     States and the project and are feasible and not inconsistent 
     with the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to 
     develop additional project benefits through the construction 
     of new or supplementary works on a project in conjunction 
     with the Secretary's activities under section 2 of this Act 
     and subject to the conditions described in the feasibility 
     study, provided the costs associated with developing the 
     additional project benefits are allocated to the authorized 
     purposes of the project that have a benefit, a cost share 
     agreement related to the additional project benefits is 
     reached among State and Federal funding agencies and repaid 
     consistent with all provisions of Federal Reclamation law 
     (the Act of June 17, 1902, 43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) and acts 
     supplemental to and amendatory of that Act.''.
       Sec. 206.  Section 5 of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act 
     of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 509) is amended in the first sentence--
        (a) by inserting ``and effective October 1, 2015, not to 
     exceed an additional $1,100,000,000 (October 1, 2003, price 
     levels),'' after ``(October 1, 2003, price levels),'';
       (b) in the proviso--
       (1) by striking ``$1,250,000'' and inserting 
     ``$20,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``Congress'' and inserting ``Committee on 
     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``For modification 
     expenditures between $1,800,000 and $20,000,000 (October 1, 
     2013, price levels), the Secretary of the Interior shall, at 
     least 30 days before the date on which the funds are 
     expended, submit written notice of the expenditures to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
     of the Senate that provides a summary of the project, the 
     cost of the project, and any alternatives that were 
     considered.''.
       Sec. 207.  The Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
     the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall--
        (a) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses 
     (i)(I) and (ii)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 
     108-361 (118 Stat. 1684) and submit such studies to the 
     appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate not later than December 31, 2015;
       (b) complete the feasibility study described in clause 
     (i)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and 
     submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30, 
     2016;
       (c) complete a publicly available draft feasibility study 
     for the project described in clause (ii)(I) of section 
     103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and submit such study to 
     the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate not later than November 30, 2016;
       (d) complete the feasibility study described in clause 
     (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and 
     submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30, 
     2017;
       (e) complete the feasibility study described in section 
     103(f)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 (118 Stat. 1694) and 
     submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than December 31, 
     2017; and
       (f) provide a progress report on the status of the 
     feasibility studies referred to in paragraphs (1) through (3) 
     to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and each 180 days thereafter until 
     December 31, 2017, as applicable. The report shall include 
     timelines for study completion, draft environmental impact 
     statements, final environmental impact statements, and 
     Records of Decision.
       Sec. 208.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     funds provided by this Act for California Bay-Delta 
     Restoration may be used to deliver water to the Trinity River 
     above the minimum requirements of the Trinity Record of 
     Decision or to supplement flows in the Klamath River.
       Sec. 209.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     funds made available by this Act for Central Valley Project 
     Restoration Fund may be used for all authorized activities 
     necessary to supplement or enhance the instream flow 
     requirements in the State of California that are mandated 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act.

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

              (including transfer and rescission of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,950,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended:  Provided, That, of such 
     amount, $160,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2017, for program direction:  Provided further, That, of the 
     amount provided under this heading, the Secretary may 
     transfer up to $45,000,000 to the Defense Production Act Fund 
     for activities of the Department of Energy pursuant to the 
     Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et 
     seq.).

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and 
     energy reliability activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $152,306,000, to 
     remain available until expended:  Provided, That, of such 
     amount, $27,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2017, for program direction.

                             Nuclear Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, $950,161,000, to remain available until 
     expended:  Provided, That, of such amount, $80,000,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2017, for program direction 
     including official reception and representation expenses not 
     to exceed $10,000:  Provided, That, of such amount, 
     $24,000,000 shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out 
     fossil energy research and development activities, under the 
     authority of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the acquisition of interest, 
     including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility acquisition 
     or expansion, and for conducting inquiries, technological 
     investigations and research concerning the extraction, 
     processing, use, and disposal of mineral

[[Page S2297]]

     substances without objectionable social and environmental 
     costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), $610,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That, of such amount, 
     $115,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for 
     program direction.

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary to carry out 
     naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities, 
     $17,500,000, to remain available until expended:  Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, unobligated 
     funds remaining from prior years shall be available for all 
     naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve facility development and operations and 
     program management activities pursuant to the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $200,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for Northeast 
     Home Heating Oil Reserve storage, operation, and management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $7,600,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                   Energy Information Administration

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out 
     the activities of the Energy Information Administration, 
     $122,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental 
     cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $244,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out 
     uranium enrichment facility decontamination and 
     decommissioning, remedial actions, and other activities of 
     title II of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and title X, 
     subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, $614,000,000, 
     to be derived from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
     Decommissioning Fund, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $32,959,000 shall be available in accordance with title 
     X, subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                                Science

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for science activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or 
     expansion, and purchase of not more than 17 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance and 
     one bus, $5,143,877,000, to remain available until expended:  
     Provided, That, of such amount, $185,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2017, for program direction.

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out 
     the activities authorized by section 5012 of the America 
     COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69), $291,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That, of such amount, 
     $28,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for 
     program direction.

         Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

       Such sums as are derived from amounts received from 
     borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b) of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005 under this heading in prior Acts, shall be 
     collected in accordance with section 502(7) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974:  Provided, That, for 
     necessary administrative expenses to carry out this Loan 
     Guarantee program, $42,000,000 is appropriated, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2017:  Provided further, That 
     $25,000,000 of the fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 shall be credited as 
     offsetting collections to this account to cover 
     administrative expenses and shall remain available until 
     expended, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $17,000,000:  Provided further, That fees collected 
     under section 1702(h) in excess of the amount appropriated 
     for administrative expenses shall not be available until 
     appropriated:  Provided further, That the Department of 
     Energy shall not subordinate any loan obligation to other 
     financing in violation of section 1702 of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005 or subordinate any Guaranteed Obligation to any 
     loan or other debt obligations in violation of section 609.10 
     of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.

        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

       For Department of Energy administrative expenses necessary 
     in carrying out the Advanced Technology Vehicles 
     Manufacturing Loan Program, $6,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2017.

                      Departmental Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), $248,142,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and official reception and representation expenses 
     not to exceed $30,000, plus such additional amounts as 
     necessary to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost 
     of work for others notwithstanding the provisions of the 
     Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.):  Provided, That 
     such increases in cost of work are offset by revenue 
     increases of the same or greater amount:  Provided further, 
     That moneys received by the Department for miscellaneous 
     revenues estimated to total $117,171,000 in fiscal year 2016 
     may be retained and used for operating expenses within this 
     account, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302:  Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $130,971,000:  
     Provided further, That, of the total amount made available 
     under this heading, $31,297,000 is for Energy Policy and 
     Systems Analysis.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, $46,424,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $8,882,364,000, to 
     remain available until expended:  Provided, That of such 
     amount, $97,118,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2017, for program direction.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear 
     nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,705,912,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                             Naval Reactors

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval 
     reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or 
     otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment, 
     facilities, and facility expansion, $1,300,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That of such amount, 
     $42,504,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for 
     program direction.

                     Federal Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for Federal Salaries and Expenses in 
     the National Nuclear Security Administration, $375,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2017, including 
     official reception and representation expenses not to exceed 
     $12,000.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one fire apparatus pumper truck and one armored 
     vehicle for replacement only, $5,180,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That, of such amount, 
     $281,951,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for 
     program direction:  Provided further, That the Office of 
     Environmental Management shall not accept ownership or 
     responsibility for cleanup of any National Nuclear Security 
     Administration facilities or sites without funding 
     specifically designated for that purpose in an Appropriations 
     Act at the time of transfer.

     Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities for Department of Energy 
     contributions for uranium enrichment decontamination and 
     decommissioning activities, $614,000,000, to be deposited 
     into the Defense Environmental Cleanup account which shall be 
     transferred to the ``Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
     Decommissioning Fund''.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense, 
     other defense activities, and classified activities, in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department

[[Page S2298]]

     of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), 
     including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $764,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended:  Provided, That, of such 
     amount, $249,137,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2017, for program direction.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     the Shoshone Paiute Trout Hatchery, the Spokane Tribal 
     Hatchery, the Snake River Sockeye Weirs and, in addition, for 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $5,000:  Provided, That, during fiscal year 
     2016, no new direct loan obligations may be made.

     Operations and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For expenses necessary for operations and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and for marketing electric 
     power and energy, including transmission wheeling and 
     ancillary services, pursuant to section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the 
     southeastern power area, $6,900,000, including official 
     reception and representation expenses in an amount not to 
     exceed $1,500, to remain available until expended:  Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944, up to $6,900,000 collected by the 
     Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of power and 
     related services shall be credited to this account as 
     discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available 
     until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual 
     expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration:  Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses 
     shall be reduced as collections are received during the 
     fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $0:  Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $66,500,000 collected by the Southeastern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to 
     recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures:  Provided further, 
     That, for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

     Operations and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For expenses necessary for operations and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and for marketing electric 
     power and energy, for construction and acquisition of 
     transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, 
     and for administrative expenses, including official reception 
     and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 
     in carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 
     (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power 
     Administration, $47,361,000, to remain available until 
     expended:  Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), 
     up to $35,961,000 collected by the Southwestern Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern 
     Power Administration:  Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $11,400,000:  Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $63,000,000 collected 
     by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant to the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 to recover purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as 
     offsetting collections, to remain available until expended 
     for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
     expenditures:  Provided further, That, for purposes of this 
     appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are 
     generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred 
     (excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, Western Area 
                          Power Administration

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7152), and other related activities including conservation 
     and renewable resources programs as authorized, $307,714,000, 
     including official reception and representation expenses in 
     an amount not to exceed $1,500, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $302,000,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund:  Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the 
     Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a), 
     up to $214,342,000 collected by the Western Area Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area 
     Power Administration:  Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $93,372,000, of which $87,658,000 is derived 
     from the Reclamation Fund:  Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $352,813,000 collected 
     by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant to the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project Act of 
     1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures:  Provided further, 
     That, for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operations, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $4,490,000, to remain available until expended, and to be 
     derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 
     Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in 
     section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255):  
     Provided, That, notwithstanding the provisions of that Act 
     and of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $4,262,000 collected by the 
     Western Area Power Administration from the sale of power and 
     related services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall be 
     credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric 
     facilities of these Dams and associated Western Area Power 
     Administration activities:  Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $228,000:  Provided further, That, for purposes 
     of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures 
     that are generally recovered in the same year that they are 
     incurred:  Provided further, That, for fiscal year 2016, the 
     Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration may 
     accept up to $460,000 in funds contributed by United States 
     power customers of the Falcon and Amistad Dams for deposit 
     into the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, 
     and such funds shall be available for the purpose for which 
     contributed in like manner as if said sums had been 
     specifically appropriated for such purpose:  Provided 
     further, That any such funds shall be available without 
     further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation for 
     use by the Commissioner of the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission for the sole 
     purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, 
     replacing, or upgrading the hydroelectric facilities at these 
     Dams in accordance with agreements reached between the 
     Administrator, Commissioner, and the power customers.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, official reception 
     and representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, and the 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, $319,800,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, not to exceed $319,800,000 of 
     revenues from fees and annual charges, and other services and 
     collections in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and used 
     for expenses necessary in this account, and shall remain 
     available until expended:  Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as 
     revenues are received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result 
     in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the general 
     fund estimated at not more than $0.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

             (including transfer and rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made 
     available by this title for the Department of Energy shall be 
     used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity 
     or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar 
     arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for 
     Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a 
     program, project, or activity if the program, project, or 
     activity has not been funded by Congress.
       (b)(1) Unless the Secretary of Energy notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress at 
     least 3 full business days in advance, none of the funds made 
     available in this title may be used to--
       (A) make a grant allocation or discretionary grant award 
     totaling $1,000,000 or more;
       (B) make a discretionary contract award or Other 
     Transaction Agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more, including 
     a contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
       (C) issue a letter of intent to make an allocation, award, 
     or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph (A) or 
     (B); or
       (D) announce publicly the intention to make an allocation, 
     award, or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B).
       (2) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 15 days 
     of the conclusion of each quarter a report detailing each 
     grant allocation or discretionary grant award totaling less 
     than $1,000,000 provided during the previous quarter.
       (3) The notification required by paragraph (1) and the 
     report required by paragraph (2) shall include the recipient 
     of the award, the amount of the award, the fiscal year for 
     which the funds for the award were appropriated, the account 
     and program, project, or activity from

[[Page S2299]]

     which the funds are being drawn, the title of the award, and 
     a brief description of the activity for which the award is 
     made.
       (c) The Department of Energy may not, with respect to any 
     program, project, or activity that uses budget authority made 
     available in this title under the heading ``Department of 
     Energy--Energy Programs'', enter into a multiyear contract, 
     award a multiyear grant, or enter into a multiyear 
     cooperative agreement unless--
       (1) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is funded 
     for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time 
     of award; or
       (2) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement includes 
     a clause conditioning the Federal Government's obligation on 
     the availability of future year budget authority and the 
     Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress at least 3 days in advance.
       (d) Except as provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g), 
     the amounts made available by this title shall be expended as 
     authorized by law for the programs, projects, and activities 
     specified in the ``Bill'' column in the ``Department of 
     Energy'' table included under the heading ``Title III--
     Department of Energy'' in the report of the Committee on 
     Appropriations accompanying this Act.
       (e) The amounts made available by this title may be 
     reprogrammed for any program, project, or activity, and the 
     Department shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress at least 30 days prior to the use of 
     any proposed reprogramming that would cause any program, 
     project, or activity funding level to increase or decrease by 
     more than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, during 
     the time period covered by this Act.
       (f) None of the funds provided in this title shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates, initiates, or eliminates a program, project, 
     or activity;
       (2) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act; or
       (3) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
       (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy may waive any requirement or 
     restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds 
     made available for the Department of Energy if compliance 
     with such requirement or restriction would pose a substantial 
     risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national 
     security.
       (2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of any waiver under 
     paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but not later than 3 
     days after the date of the activity to which a requirement or 
     restriction would otherwise have applied. Such notice shall 
     include an explanation of the substantial risk under 
     paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver.
       Sec. 302.  The unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be available to the 
     same appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with 
     funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter 
     may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
     originally enacted.
       Sec. 303.  Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or 
     made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2016 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
       Sec. 304.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used for the construction of facilities classified 
     as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830 
     unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of 
     Independent Enterprise Assessments to ensure the project is 
     in compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
       Sec. 305.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical 
     decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any 
     successive departmental guidance, for construction projects 
     where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a 
     separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the 
     project for that critical decision.
       Sec. 306. (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Affected indian tribe.--The term ``affected Indian 
     tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
       (2) High-level radioactive waste.--The term ``high-level 
     radioactive waste'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
       (3) Nuclear waste fund.--The term ``Nuclear Waste Fund'' 
     means the Nuclear Waste Fund established under section 302(c) 
     of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(c)).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (5) Spent nuclear fuel.--The term ``spent nuclear fuel'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Nuclear 
     Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
       (b) Pilot Program.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.), 
     the Secretary is authorized, in the current fiscal year and 
     subsequent fiscal years, to conduct a pilot program, through 
     1 or more private sector partners, to license, construct, and 
     operate 1 or more government or privately owned consolidated 
     storage facilities to provide interim storage as needed for 
     spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, with 
     priority for storage given to spent nuclear fuel located on 
     sites without an operating nuclear reactor.
       (c) Requests for Proposals.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue 
     a request for proposals for cooperative agreements--
       (1) to obtain any license necessary from the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission for the construction of 1 or more 
     consolidated storage facilities;
       (2) to demonstrate the safe transportation of spent nuclear 
     fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as applicable; and
       (3) to demonstrate the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel 
     and high-level radioactive waste, as applicable, at the 1 or 
     more consolidated storage facilities pending the construction 
     and operation of deep geologic disposal capacity for the 
     permanent disposal of the spent nuclear fuel.
       (d) Consent-Based Approval.--Prior to siting a consolidated 
     storage facility pursuant to this section, the Secretary 
     shall enter into an agreement to host the facility with--
       (1) the Governor of the State;
       (2) each unit of local government within the jurisdiction 
     of which the facility is proposed to be located; and
       (3) each affected Indian tribe.
       (e) Applicability.--In executing this section, the 
     Secretary shall comply with--
       (1) all licensing requirements and regulations of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and
       (2) all other applicable laws (including regulations).
       (f) Pilot Program Plan.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary issues the request for proposals 
     under subsection (c), the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a plan to carry out this section that includes--
       (1) an estimate of the cost of licensing, constructing, and 
     operating a consolidated storage facility, including the 
     transportation costs, on an annual basis, over the expected 
     lifetime of the facility;
       (2) a schedule for--
       (A) obtaining any license necessary to construct and 
     operate a consolidated storage facility from the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission;
       (B) constructing the facility;
       (C) transporting spent fuel to the facility; and
       (D) removing the spent fuel and decommissioning the 
     facility; and
       (3) an estimate of the cost of any financial assistance, 
     compensation, or incentives proposed to be paid to the host 
     State, Indian tribe, or local government;
       (4) an estimate of any future reductions in the damages 
     expected to be paid by the United States for the delay of the 
     Department of Energy in accepting spent fuel expected to 
     result from the pilot program;
       (5) recommendations for any additional legislation needed 
     to authorize and implement the pilot program; and
       (6) recommendations for a mechanism to ensure that any 
     spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste stored at 
     a consolidated storage facility pursuant to this section 
     shall move to deep geologic disposal capacity, following a 
     consent-based approval process for that deep geologic 
     disposal capacity consistent with subsection (d), within a 
     reasonable time after the issuance of a license to construct 
     and operate the consolidated storage facility.
       (g) Public Participation.--Prior to choosing a site for the 
     construction of a consolidated storage facility under this 
     section, the Secretary shall conduct 1 or more public 
     hearings in the vicinity of each potential site and in at 
     least 1 other location within the State in which the site is 
     located to solicit public comments and recommendations.
       (h) Use of Nuclear Waste Fund.--The Secretary may make 
     expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund to carry out this 
     section, subject to appropriations.
       Sec. 307. (a) Notification of Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     Drawdown.--None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any prior or subsequent Act, or funds made available in the 
     SPR Petroleum Account, may be used in this fiscal year or 
     each subsequent fiscal year, to conduct a drawdown (including 
     a test drawdown) and sale or exchange of petroleum products 
     from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve unless the Secretary of 
     Energy provides notice, in accordance with subsection (b), of 
     such exchange, or drawdown (including a test drawdown) to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       (b)(1) Content of notification.--The notification required 
     under subsection (a) shall include at a minimum--
       (A) the justification for the drawdown or exchange, 
     including--
       (i) a specific description of any obligation under 
     international energy agreements; and
       (ii) in the case of a test drawdown, the specific aspects 
     of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be tested;
       (B) the provisions of law (including regulations) 
     authorizing the drawdown or exchange;
       (C) the number of barrels of petroleum products proposed to 
     be withdrawn or exchanged;
       (D) the location of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve site or 
     sites from which the petroleum products are proposed to be 
     withdrawn;
       (E) a good faith estimate of the expected proceeds from the 
     sale of the petroleum products;
       (F) an estimate of the total inventories of petroleum 
     products in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve after the 
     anticipated drawdown;
       (G) a detailed plan for disposition of the proceeds after 
     deposit into the SPR Petroleum Account; and
       (H) a plan for refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
     including whether the acquisition will be of the same or a 
     different petroleum product.
       (2) Timing of notification.--The Secretary shall provide 
     the notification required under subsection (a)--
       (A) in the case of an exchange or a drawdown, as soon as 
     practicable after the exchange or drawdown has occurred; and
       (B) in the case of a test drawdown, not later than 30 days 
     prior to the test drawdown.

[[Page S2300]]

       (c) Post-Sale Notification.--In addition to reporting 
     requirements under other provisions of law, the Secretary 
     shall, upon the execution of all contract awards in this 
     fiscal year and each subsequent fiscal year associated with a 
     competitive sale of petroleum products, notify the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the actual 
     value of the proceeds from the sale.
       (d)(1) New regional reserves.--The Secretary may not 
     establish any new regional petroleum product reserve unless 
     funding for the proposed regional petroleum product reserve 
     is explicitly requested in advance in an annual budget 
     submission and approved by the Congress in an appropriations 
     Act.
       (2) The budget request or notification shall include--
       (A) the justification for the new reserve;
       (B) a cost estimate for the establishment, operation, and 
     maintenance of the reserve, including funding sources;
       (C) a detailed plan for operation of the reserve, including 
     the conditions upon which the products may be released;
       (D) the location of the reserve; and
       (E) the estimate of the total inventory of the reserve.
       Sec. 308. (a) Unobligated balances available from 
     appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2010 are hereby 
     permanently rescinded from the following accounts of the 
     Department of Energy in the specified amounts:
       (1) ``Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy'', $16,677,000.
       (2) ``Energy Programs--Electricity Delivery and Energy 
     Reliability'', $900,000.
       (3) ``Energy Programs--Nuclear Energy'', $1,665,000.
       (4) ``Energy Programs--Fossil Energy Research and 
     Development'', $12,064,000.
       (5) ``Energy Programs--Science'', $4,717,000.
       (6) ``Power Marketing Administrations--Construction, 
     Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
     Administration'', $4,832,000.
       (b) No amounts may be rescinded by this section from 
     amounts that were designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       Sec. 309. (a) Unobligated balances available from 
     appropriations are hereby permanently rescinded from the 
     following accounts of the Department of Energy in the 
     specified amounts:
       (1) ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear 
     Security Administration--Weapons Activities'', $65,135,000.
       (2) ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear 
     Security Administration--Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'', 
     $19,324,000.
       (3) ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear 
     Security Administration--Naval Reactors'', $628,000.
       (b) No amounts may be rescinded by this section from 
     amounts that were designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       Sec. 310.  Of the amounts made available by this Act for 
     ``National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons 
     Activities'', up to $50,000,000 may be reprogrammed within 
     such account for Domestic Uranium Enrichment, subject to the 
     notice requirements in section 301.

                          technical correction

       Sec. 311. (a) Contracts for Storage.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary is authorized, in this year and 
     each subsequent fiscal year, to enter into contracts to store 
     spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as 
     applicable, to which the Secretary holds the title or has a 
     contract to accept title, at any facility licensed by the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission for such storage.
       (b) Transfer of Title.--Delivery, and acceptance by the 
     Secretary, of any spent nuclear fuel or high-level 
     radioactive waste for storage under this section shall 
     constitute a transfer of title to the Secretary of such spent 
     fuel or waste.
       (c) Contract Modification.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     enter into new contracts or modify existing contracts with 
     any person who generates or holds title to high-level 
     radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel, of domestic origin 
     for the acceptance of title, subsequent transportation, and 
     storage of such high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear 
     fuel at a facility described under subsection (a).
       Sec. 312.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     provisions of 40 U.S.C. 11319 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated in this title to Federally Funded Research and 
     Development Centers sponsored by the Department of Energy.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, 
     notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, and for expenses necessary 
     for the Federal Co-Chairman and the Alternate on the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment of the Federal 
     share of the administrative expenses of the Commission, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, $105,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $29,150,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017.

                        Delta Regional Authority

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Delta Regional Authority and 
     to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta 
     Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections 
     382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, $25,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                           Denali Commission

       For expenses necessary for the Denali Commission including 
     the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and 
     capital equipment as necessary and other expenses, 
     $11,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     notwithstanding the limitations contained in section 306(g) 
     of the Denali Commission Act of 1998:  Provided, That funds 
     shall be available for construction projects in an amount not 
     to exceed 80 percent of total project cost for distressed 
     communities, as defined by section 307 of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998 (division C, title III, Public Law 
     105-277), as amended by section 701 of appendix D, title VII, 
     Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-280), and an amount not 
     to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.

                  Northern Border Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary for the Northern Border Regional 
     Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle 
     V of title 40, United States Code, $7,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That such amounts shall 
     be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding 
     section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, $990,000,000, including official 
     representation expenses not to exceed $25,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That, of the amount 
     appropriated herein, not more than $7,500,000 may be made 
     available for salaries, travel, and other support costs for 
     the Office of the Commission, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017, of which, notwithstanding section 
     201(a)(2)(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5841(a)(2)(c)), the use and expenditure shall only be 
     approved by a majority vote of the Commission:  Provided 
     further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $872,864,000 in fiscal year 2016 shall be retained and used 
     for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available 
     until expended:  Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues 
     received during fiscal year 2016 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2016 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $117,136,000.

                      office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $12,136,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2017:  Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, 
     inspection services, and other services and collections 
     estimated at $10,060,000 in fiscal year 2016 shall be 
     retained and be available until September 30, 2017, for 
     necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code: 
      Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 
     2016 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $2,076,000:  
     Provided further, That, of the amounts appropriated under 
     this heading, $958,000 shall be for Inspector General 
     services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 
     which shall not be available from fee revenues.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $3,600,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2017.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Sec. 401. (a) The amounts made available by this title for 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be reprogrammed for any 
     program, project, or activity, and the Commission shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress at least 30 days prior to the use of any proposed 
     reprogramming that would cause any program funding level to 
     increase or decrease by more than $500,000 or 10 percent, 
     whichever is less, during the time period covered by this 
     Act.
       (b)(1) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may waive the 
     notification requirement in (a) if compliance with such 
     requirement would pose a substantial risk to human health, 
     the environment, welfare, or national security.
       (2) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of 
     any waiver under paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but 
     not later than 3 days after the date of the activity to which 
     a requirement or restriction would otherwise have applied. 
     Such notice shall include an explanation of the substantial 
     risk under paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver and shall 
     provide a detailed report to the Committees of such waiver 
     and changes to funding levels to programs, projects, or 
     activities.
       (c) None of the funds provided for the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission shall be available for obligation or expenditure 
     through a reprogramming of funds that increases funds or 
     personnel for any program, project, or activity for which 
     funds are denied or restricted by this Act.
       (d) The Commission shall provide a monthly report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of

[[Page S2301]]

     both Houses of Congress, which includes the following for 
     each program, project, or activity, including any prior year 
     appropriations--
       (1) total budget authority;
       (2) total unobligated balances; and
       (3) total unliquidated obligations.
       Sec. 402.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall comply 
     with the July 5, 2011, version of Chapter VI of its Internal 
     Commission Procedures when responding to Congressional 
     requests for information.
       Sec. 403.  Public Law 105-277, division A, section 101(g) 
     (title III, section 329(a), (b)) is amended by inserting, in 
     subsection (b), after ``State law'' and before the period the 
     following: ``or for the construction and repair of barge 
     mooring points and barge landing sites to facilitate pumping 
     fuel from fuel transport barges into bulk fuel storage 
     tanks.''.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence 
     congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
     matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to 
     Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
       Sec. 502. (a) None of the funds made available in title III 
     of this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government, except 
     pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided 
     in this Act or any other appropriations Act for any fiscal 
     year, transfer authority referenced in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, or any 
     authority whereby a department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the United States Government may provide goods or services to 
     another department, agency, or instrumentality.
       (b) None of the funds made available for any department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government 
     may be transferred to accounts funded in title III of this 
     Act, except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer 
     authority provided in this Act or any other appropriations 
     Act for any fiscal year, transfer authority referenced in the 
     report of the Committee on Appropriations accompanying this 
     Act, or any authority whereby a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government may provide 
     goods or services to another department, agency, or 
     instrumentality.
       (c) The head of any relevant department or agency funded in 
     this Act utilizing any transfer authority shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a 
     semiannual report detailing the transfer authorities, except 
     for any authority whereby a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government may provide 
     goods or services to another department, agency, or 
     instrumentality, used in the previous 6 months and in the 
     year-to-date. This report shall include the amounts 
     transferred and the purposes for which they were transferred, 
     and shall not replace or modify existing notification 
     requirements for each authority.
       Sec. 503.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, carry out, modify, revise, 
     or enforce Executive Order 13690 (entitled ``Establishing a 
     Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for 
     Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input'').
       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 3801

       (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I call up the substitute amendment No. 
3801.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3801.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                Amendment No. 3804 to Amendment No. 3801

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 3804.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3804 to amendment No. 3801.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To modify provisions relating to Nuclear Regulatory 
                            Commission fees)

       Beginning on page 55, line 23, strike ``Provided'' and all 
     that follows through page 56, line 13, and insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That revenues from licensing 
     fees, inspection services, and other services and collections 
     estimated at $823,114,000 in fiscal year 2017 shall be 
     retained and used for necessary salaries and expenses in this 
     account, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United 
     States Code, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated under this 
     heading, not less than $5,000,000 shall be available for 
     activities related to the development of regulatory 
     infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor technologies, and 
     $5,000,000 of that amount shall not be available for fee 
     revenues, notwithstanding section 6101 of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214): Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by 
     the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 2017 so as 
     to result in a final fiscal year 2017 appropriation estimated 
     at not more than $115,886,000.''.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. The senior Senator from Louisiana is here to speak, 
but I thank Senator Feinstein for her remarks and her leadership.
  I would remind our colleagues we are open for business, in terms of 
amendments. Fortunately, 77 of the Senators had made requests that we 
were able to accommodate in our basic bill. We have talked to maybe a 
dozen more since then, and are accommodating amendments whenever we 
can.
  We would like to begin voting on any other amendments that we need to 
vote on this afternoon, if possible, so we can move on through the bill 
and hopefully get to the next appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I thank especially the staff of Senator Feinstein--
Doug Clapp, Chris Hanson, Mark Mendenhall, and Samantha Nelson--for the 
way they have worked with us, whether we are in the majority or the 
minority. I also would like to thank my own staff--Tyler Owens, Adam 
DeMella, Meyer Seligman, Jen Armstrong, and Hayley Alexander--for 
extraordinarily good work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


    Commemorating the 6th Anniversary of the ``Deepwater Horizon'' 
                         Explosion and Oilspill

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the sixth 
anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oilspill that took 
the lives of 11 men and devastated so many gulf coast communities. It 
was a horrible event, but I think it is very important and appropriate 
that we always recognize the lives lost in that disaster.
  The 11 lives lost were Jason Anderson, then 35, of Midfield, TX; 
Aaron Dale ``Bubba'' Burkeen, 37, of Philadelphia, MS; Donald Clark, 
49, of Newellton, LA; Stephen Ray Curtis, 40, of Georgetown, LA; Gordon 
Jones, 28, of Baton Rouge, LA; Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27, of Jonesville, LA; 
Karl Dale Kleppinger, Jr., Natchez, MS; Keith Blair Manuel, 56, of 
Gonzales, LA; Dewey Revette, 48, of State Line, MS; Shane Roshto, 22, 
of Liberty, MS; and Adam Weise, 24, of Yorktown, TX.
  The gulf coast is one of the most resilient parts of the country, of 
the world, having faced a variety of disasters and yet always bounces 
back, always continues to push forward. In Louisiana, offshore oil and 
gas development is more than just our State's largest economic driver, 
it is a way of life, supporting countless jobs and families across the 
region. That is why our top priority must always be maintaining the 
highest level of safety standards. In the last 6 years, we have been 
working to make sure this kind of human tragedy that we commemorate 
today on this sixth anniversary never happens again.
  It has been a real uphill battle, but the good news is that we have 
had a few solid wins during that time. Louisiana's resilience and 
recovery cannot be easily measured in terms of numbers and figures, but 
I can say with confidence that each and every Louisianian should be 
proud of how far we have come, including in these last 6 years. That is 
why as a region it continues to be imperative that we fight misguided 
attempts coming out of Washington that would hinder the progress we 
have made. From fighting President Obama's misguided drilling 
moratorium to working to pass the RESTORE Act, our region has 
continually shown our ability to work together to produce the right 
positive results, but the battle certainly is ongoing.
  The current dramatic downturn in energy production has had ripple 
effects across Louisiana and the country, which is why the very last 
thing the government should be doing now is imposing new obstructive 
rules and regulations. Instead, we should be focusing

[[Page S2302]]

on finding commonsense solutions to improve safety and buoy our 
Louisiana-based businesses and preserve thousands of crucial jobs. We 
must support policies that create a strong balance between having a 
solid regulatory scheme that certainly promotes strong safety standards 
while also allowing the energy industry to thrive and prosper.
  In the 6 years since the tragic Deepwater Horizon explosion and 
spill, Louisiana has done what we do best: recover, rebuild, and 
progress. In order to build a broader future for our families, 
businesses, and communities, we must also protect the symbiotic 
relationship between Federal regulations and the oil and gas industry 
and not allow the former to strangle the positive livelihood so many 
depend on in that industry.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Climate Change Agreement

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on Friday, representatives from more 
than 130 countries are going to be gathering at the United Nations in 
New York to sign a broad new climate change agreement. This is the same 
agreement that countries negotiated in Paris last year.
  Back in December, President Obama said that it was a ``strong'' 
agreement. Hillary Clinton called it a ``historic step forward.'' But 
for many Americans, it is actually going to be a giant step backward.
  First, I believe this agreement is terrible for our economy. The 
Obama administration is using this international agreement to force new 
regulations on American energy producers and new restrictions on the 
American people. There are new rules on coal producers, and there are 
new rules on exports of American crude oil and liquefied natural gas.
  This administration has spent years--years--targeting the men and 
women who produce American energy, energy in our country. Well, 
Democrats and Republicans in Congress rejected the President's radical 
ideas. We knew that all of these regulations would cripple America's 
energy industries and would throw Americans out of work, many in my 
home State of Wyoming. We knew that all of these destructive rules 
would cost billions of dollars and produce little or no positive 
benefit. The Obama administration went ahead and ignored what the 
people wanted, and they wrote these destructive new rules anyway.
  All of these regulations have consequences. My home State of Wyoming 
has seen thousands of hard-working men and women lose their jobs in the 
energy fields. Just over the past few years, people working in oil, 
gas, coal, and uranium--just a few weeks ago, two of the largest coal 
mines in Wyoming announced that they would let go 15 percent of their 
workers. Some 465 families were affected by the job losses.
  Despite all of this pain, the Obama administration went out and 
promised the rest of the world that it was going to keep pushing for 
more restrictions on American energy, on red, white, and blue energy. 
The other countries getting together in New York on Friday need to be 
aware that there are serious doubts about whether this administration 
is actually going to be able to actually do that.
  This administration has promised huge cuts to America's greenhouse 
gas emissions, but the promise has already run into legal problems. The 
Supreme Court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to stop 
enforcing the so-called Clean Power Plan--stop enforcing it 
completely--until the courts can decide if it is even legal. I believe 
it is not legal.
  Now the Obama administration has promised $3 billion to the United 
Nations for its climate change efforts. Well, it turns out that giving 
away this money will violate U.S. law. The money the administration 
pledged was supposed to go to the Green Climate Fund. This is the money 
the United Nations plans to use to coerce--really coerce--developing 
countries to go along with the climate change--what I believe is a 
sideshow.
  President Obama asked for $500 million for this fund in his budget 
last year. So what happened when the budget came here to the Senate 
where the President had a request? Congress rejected the President's 
budget 98 to 1. Talk about bipartisan rejection. That is it. But the 
administration went ahead and transferred the money anyway, even though 
the money was never authorized by Congress. Now the President wants to 
give this Green Climate Fund another $750 million in taxpayer money.
  There is a second climate change organization; it is called the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This 
organization is the foundation for funding this whole climate change 
agreement. The administration has contributed to it in the past. It 
wants to send another $13 million next year.
  Here is the problem and the legacy the administration faces: As the 
administration tries to give away money to these international climate 
change groups, it is now prohibited by law. You may ask why. Well, it 
is because last month, on March 17, the United Nations officially 
recognized the so-called State of Palestine. They said that the State 
of Palestine is a full member of the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change. Well, according to a 1994 law passed by 
the House, passed by the Senate, and signed into law, the United States 
cannot give any money to any affiliated organization of the United 
Nations that grants the Palestinians membership as a state. It is 
called the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
  These climate change groups are clearly affiliated organizations of 
the U.N. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change--the 
organization that the Palestinian group, this so-called State of 
Palestine, just joined as a member state--says on its own Web site that 
it is institutionally linked to the United Nations. There is no denying 
it. It says that the Green Climate Fund is one of its ``constituted 
bodies.'' So there is a direct link. The law of the United States on 
this is clear, it is simple, and it is unmistakable.
  The pipeline of money the Obama administration is planning to send to 
these organizations is shut off. That is what happened in 2011 when the 
Palestinian group joined the United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization, commonly known as UNESCO. That triggered a 
similar 1990 law, and the United States has not given any money to 
UNESCO ever since.
  The Palestinians have been trying to get international organizations 
connected to the United Nations to recognize them as a state for a long 
time. It is part of their strategy. They think that if they can get the 
rest of the world to recognize the ``State of Palestinian,'' then it 
strengthens their hand in negotiations with Israel.
  That strategy absolutely undercuts U.S. policy that says the 
Palestinians and the Israelis should be negotiating these things on 
their own without the rest of the world getting involved. That is the 
best way for Middle East peace negotiations to go forward, and that is 
what both the Palestinians and the Israelis have agreed to in the past. 
So U.S. law says that when the Palestinians try to go around that 
process, as we just saw with this climate change organization, there 
are legal consequences. That is why a group of 28 Senators wrote to 
Secretary of State John Kerry earlier this week. We wrote to demand 
that he follow the law, obey the law of the land. We wanted to make 
sure the rest of the world understands clearly that it is unlawful for 
the United States to give another dime to these U.N. climate change 
groups.
  The Obama administration has skirted the will of Congress in the past 
when it sent $500 million of U.S. taxpayer money to these groups. It 
will not get away with sending any more money in violation of the law. 
The administration needs to understand this fact, and so do the rest of 
the countries getting together in New York on Friday.
  The American people do not support shutting down our economy, hurting 
our economy, to support the administration's promises on greenhouse 
gasses. The American people don't support

[[Page S2303]]

the administration spending billions of their hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars to support this alarming climate change agreement. What the 
American people expect is their President and his administration to 
follow and to obey the law.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Working Together in the Senate

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday this Chamber passed a bill to 
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, another bipartisan 
accomplishment that without a doubt has helped return this Chamber to 
operating the way that I think we all believe it should function. After 
that, today we were finally able to move forward with an energy bill, 
the Energy Policy Modernization Act. We have all been working on that 
legislation for some time now, and I am pleased we got it done earlier 
today. I give special credit to Chair Murkowski, the bill manager, and 
her counterpart Senator Cantwell for their incredible patience and 
diligence in dealing with this legislation that had been stuck on this 
Senate floor for some time.
  Senator Murkowski, in particular, didn't shy away from addressing 
some of the most difficult challenges head on. Needless to say, her 
tirelessness, her diligence, and hard work finally paid off earlier 
today.
  This legislation is important to the country because it helps update 
our energy policies and helps America produce more energy, use it more 
efficiently, and save money in the process. One of the most significant 
portions of that legislation was streamlining the approval process for 
the liquefied natural gas export. This is really an example of how our 
energy future has been transformed so dramatically.
  You may recall that years ago there were terminals being built around 
the country on the shorelines that were going to be the recipients of 
natural gas produced in some other part of the world and then brought 
to the United States. But thanks to modern drilling technology and the 
use of fracking--I know in some quarters this is a dirty word, but we 
have been doing it successfully in the United States for 70 or more 
years. Thanks to horizontal drilling in fracking and modern drilling 
technologies, America is now producing more natural gas than we have 
any use for. It is good for our economy, good for our jobs, and good 
for the world, really, for America to be able to export more of its 
natural gas--and oil, for that matter. It is something we dealt with at 
the end of last year when we lifted the antiquated export ban on crude 
oil.
  This legislation, like the Federal Aviation Administration 
reauthorization bill, is another example of how the Senate is back to 
work. When I talk to constituents and folks back home, I say: Well, you 
may not have heard--or if you heard it, you may not actually believe 
it--but we are actually getting some work done in this Congress under 
new leadership. I think it has been beneficial not only to the country, 
not just to those directly affected by the legislation we are passing--
things such as the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act to deal 
with the opioid prescription drug abuse and heroin issue--not only are 
the people directly affected by the legislation benefiting, but the 
entire country is, and particularly Members of the Senate. We have 
actually been able to debate, discuss, and ultimately vote on 
legislation. What a concept.
  It was not too long ago--when the Democratic leader was majority 
leader--that this Senate was virtually shut down. Even if you were in 
the majority party, even if you were a Democrat when Democrats held the 
majority in the Senate, basically because of the decision to shut down 
the legislative process and to deny anyone an opportunity to offer an 
amendment, when it came to election time, many of our Democratic 
colleagues didn't have anything to show for their service representing 
their constituents in the Senate, even though they were in the majority 
party.
  Under the new leadership of the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, 
the Senate majority leader is committed to an open process that 
benefits all Members of the Senate and all 320 million or so people in 
the United States who we represent. Now any Senator, regardless of 
whether they are in the majority or minority, can call up and seek 
votes on amendments to legislation to help make legislation better. I 
think we have learned an invaluable lesson from the mistakes of the 
past. Only by working together in a bipartisan way can we try to find 
consensus and get things done. The American people deserve that.
  Now that we have finished our work on the Energy bill, I hope we can 
work together to address other problems facing the country. One of the 
most fundamental jobs the Congress has to perform is the appropriations 
process because somebody has to pay for the policies to actually make 
the policies that we pass work.
  This week we have a chance to start that process with the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill. This is another example of great bipartisan 
work and commitment, a bill that unanimously passed out of committee. 
This legislation will invest in our Nation's waterways and fund 
critical infrastructure projects.
  Yesterday I spoke about the flooding that has been affecting much of 
Texas this week, particularly the Houston area, and that we are 
struggling to deal with. This appropriations bill, for example, would 
invest in projects to mitigate risks associated with flooding like that 
which Texas has been experiencing over this week. It would also invest 
in our nuclear arsenal to make sure we are ready to meet existing and 
future nuclear threats.
  To put it simply, this appropriations bill plays a big role, not only 
in terms of our national security but also in terms of our public 
safety. That is both at home and abroad.
  Last year we got stuck. We tried to move the appropriations bills 
through the regular process, but because of a dispute over spending 
levels, our Democratic friends basically blocked any ability we had to 
move the appropriations bill through the regular order or the regular 
process. Unfortunately, at the end of the year, what that left us with 
was the need to pass one big Omnibus appropriations bill, something 
that nobody said they liked. In fact, on the Senate floor I called it 
not an Omnibus appropriations bill but an ominous appropriations bill. 
The problem with that is there is very little transparency, and only a 
handful of people are really directly involved in crafting a bill that 
spends over $1 trillion. That is a terrible way to do business. Now we 
are trying to get back to the old-fashioned way--one bill at a time.
  I commend Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Feinstein for the 
good work they have done so far. This is going to take a little bit of 
cooperation and maybe even a little bit of self-restraint, something 
that Washington isn't necessarily known for. Even though all 12 
appropriations bills were sent out of their respective committees last 
year for the first time since 2009, we weren't able to get it done. I 
am hoping this year will be different.
  So far our colleagues across the aisle have said they believe we 
ought to proceed with a markup of different appropriations bills, 
voting on them one at a time. This is our first test. Believe me, 
people are watching to see how we proceed on this legislation and on 
other appropriations bills, including our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives.
  Stop passing some stopgap funding bill at the brink at the end of a 
fiscal year where people are talking about shutdowns. That is not the 
way we are supposed to work. We could do better and we could avoid 
those pitfalls if we would just do our best, show a little restraint, 
and get our work done.
  I hope the Energy and Water bill is the first of 12 appropriations 
bills that we consider, discuss, and ultimately pass because that is 
what the American people deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, while the assistant Republican leader 
is on the floor, I wish to say a word

[[Page S2304]]

about this chart that I mentioned earlier.
  He mentioned this is the first bill where we are spending $1 
trillion. Most of us on both sides of the aisle, I know especially on 
the Republican side of the aisle, are concerned about the Federal debt, 
which is $19 trillion, and we make great speeches about it. But as we 
begin to talk about the $1 trillion we are about to appropriate in 12 
bills, I would like to invite my colleagues to look once again at the 
bottom line. That is the money we are talking about. This is the $1 
trillion that we are working on. It has been flat since 2008. It is 
going up at the rate of inflation or a little less, but that is $1 
trillion.
  We are spending $4 trillion this year. The other $3 trillion is not 
what we are working on in these 12 bills; the other $3 trillion is 
automatic mandatory spending and interest on the debt. If we add 
interest to that red line, it would be even higher. So I may offer an 
amendment at some point--maybe not on this bill--to turn the entire 
budget over to the Appropriations Committee because we are doing our 
job. We have kept spending down. That is not the problem.
  I hear that some people may want to say: Well, let's further reduce 
the blue line. I invite my friends and colleagues to say--we have 
letters from more than 80 Senators requesting support for projects 
important in their States, for flood control, nuclear weapons, national 
labs, deepening harbors, and for inland waterways. We have included in 
our bill requests from all those Senators.
  If we cut that blue line by $2 billion, we will need to ask for 
requests from those 80 Senators about what they would like to cut--
which flood would they like not to clean up, which lock would they like 
to close, and which nuclear operation needs to be slowed down. We need 
to be reasonable about this, and we need to be straightforward about 
it.
  I want to see us deal with that red line. That is where the real 
spending problem is. I would like to see us be responsible on the blue 
line.
  Senator Feinstein and I have cut a $125 million program. We have 
control of one big construction project; we are getting control of two 
others. We are doing our job.
  As we enter into this discussion, I respectfully ask my colleagues: 
Let's keep a focus on the two lines. The $1 trillion is the blue line. 
It is under control; it is not the problem. If that were the debt, we 
wouldn't have a problem. It is that red line that we are not doing 
anything about on either side of the aisle.
  Senator Corker and I have a bill to reduce the growth of that 
spending by $1 trillion. We are the only two cosponsors.
  After we do these 12 bills, we can talk about the blue line. But I am 
going to make sure during this whole process that, if Senators want to 
talk about cutting spending, they focus on where the problem is. It is 
the red line--not the blue line--that we are working on, starting with 
this bill.
  I thank the Senator for his remarks.
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would just ask the distinguished Senator 
from Tennessee, the bill manager--the point he makes is exactly right, 
and I think most Americans would be surprised at this blue line and the 
fact that this is the money the appropriations process spends each 
year, but it is only about 30 percent of what the Federal Government 
spends--to his point.
  My recollection is that under current projections, that red line is 
growing at about 5.3 percent, it seems like, over the next 30 years or 
so, while the blue line remains roughly flat. But that is a product of 
a lot of things that need to be fixed, such as the fact that for every 
$1 put into Medicare, $3 is spent, and the fact that in the not too 
distant future, the Social Security trust fund is going to run out of 
money because people are getting older, more people are benefiting, and 
fewer people are paying into it.
  But the Senator is exactly right. We actually have been pretty 
disciplined in dealing with discretionary spending because of the 
Budget Control Act and sequestration. And many people have decried the 
fact that we actually renegotiated the sequester numbers, but one 
reason we did that is for national security purposes, that about half a 
trillion dollars of the money we spend is for national security.
  I know the Senator is aware, as I am, that there is good work being 
done at the Budget Committee level to come up with some budget reforms, 
but unless we get control of not just the discretionary spending but 
the nondiscretionary--the mandatory spending, that red line--we are 
going to continue to see the deficits and the debt grow. And when 
interest rates go back up to normal levels, we are going to be spending 
more money on interest on the debt than we will, perhaps, on national 
security.
  I told the Senator this was a question and I guess it is more of a 
statement, but I just wanted to thank him and Senator Feinstein and the 
Committee on Appropriations for getting us back to regular order and 
back to work, and I hope we will take up and pass this legislation 
without undue delay.
  I would also add that this is not an opportunity for people to empty 
their out basket on different pieces of legislation they would like. 
Because of the rules of the Senate, that would create a lot of 
problems. So, again, I guess we would counsel for some of the self-
restraint that was talked about earlier.
  I thank the Senators from Tennessee and California for bringing this 
important piece of legislation to us. I hope we can get this done 
sometime today or tomorrow.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his 
leadership and for his comments. He is exactly right. Over the next 10 
years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that red line is 
projected to increase by nearly 80 percent--nearly 80 percent. The blue 
line--the one that is reasonably under control--will go up about 23 
percent. But the bigger problem is that the blue line, as a share of 
the Federal budget, will decrease from 33 percent to 22 percent. That 
is the money for national defense in an unsafe world. That is the money 
for national laboratories in an economy that needs the job growth that 
comes from that research. That is the money that cleans up after the 
Missouri River, the Tennessee River, and the Mississippi River flood. 
It deepens the harbors in Savannah, Los Angeles, San Diego, Gulf Port, 
and all around.
  After a big spring flood, I have been to Environmental and Public 
Works Committee hearings where we have had 17 U.S. Senators come in and 
ask for more money. Well, we have record levels of funding for the Army 
Corps of Engineers in this budget for the purpose of locks, dams, 
flooding, and environmental cleanup, and it is all within the Budget 
Control Act. We set priorities. We reduced projects. We cut some out 
that weren't as important. And we have kept that blue line flat. We 
have done our job on financial oversight.
  There are a number of advantages to having a full 10 or 12 weeks to 
deal with appropriations bills.
  The first advantage is that it allows Senators, such as the Senator 
from Nebraska, who is not a member of the Appropriations Committee, to 
have a chance on the floor to offer their amendments if they would like 
to. The way our system works, Senators may ask us--and, as I mentioned, 
77 did ask us--to include some of their ideas and policies in our bill, 
and we did in every case in some way--in some way. Now we are up in the 
eighties. Everybody has had a shot at this and will have more of a shot 
in the next day or two on the floor. So the whole Senate will be 
involved. That is one advantage.
  The second advantage is that it will show the American people that we 
are doing our job, that we are conducting oversight of the government 
agencies, that we have had four hearings, that we have set priorities, 
that we have cut out lower priority projects and are getting other 
projects under control.
  The third advantage is that maybe we can put a spotlight on the 
difference between the top line and the bottom line--the red line and 
the blue line. The blue line is an example of good government. The red 
line is an example of malpractice. By whom? By us. By which party? By 
both. By both.

[[Page S2305]]

  So let's be specific. If you are a surgeon, you don't cut off the 
left arm because your nose is hurting; you work on the left arm. And we 
don't need to cut off the blue line if the red line is the problem--if 
the red line is the problem.
  So as often as I have a chance over the next 2 days, I am going to do 
my best to remind our colleagues and the American people that we are 
doing our job on the $1 trillion we appropriate, and Senators will have 
a chance to help us do our job if they come to the floor with their 
suggestions.
  We are not doing our job on the red line, which is mandatory 
spending, and if we don't do our job, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff has said it is our greatest national security problem.
  So maybe it will help over these 12 weeks to have a contrast: the way 
we should be doing it, the bottom line; and the way we shouldn't be 
doing it, which is that line that is growing out of control.
  I welcome the opportunity, and I thank both the majority leader and 
the Democratic leader for getting things in order so we can have a 
regular appropriations process for the first time.
  I remind our colleagues that this is the earliest we have started an 
appropriations process since the Budget Control Act became law in 1974.
  The Senator from California has suggested that I remind our 
colleagues and their staff members that if they have amendments, bring 
them to our staff, and we will work with them and see if we can include 
them in the bill, or if Senators would like to offer the amendments, we 
would like to do that today or tomorrow. There is no need to waste time 
here. We have 11 other bills we can get to very quickly and other 
important legislation that is awaiting the Senate's action.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to rise to express 
my support for the open debate we are going to have on the fiscal year 
2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill.
  I would certainly like to thank the Senator from California and my 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, and I would like to thank 
Senator Alexander for his leadership and work on their collaboration. 
As a person who has only been in the Senate for a year and a half and 
on the Appropriations Committee for about that amount of time, it has 
been fun for me to watch seasoned pros as they weave their way through 
the appropriations process. So I thank them for that. But this is what 
our constituents sent us here to do: to legislate, to express an 
opinion, to amend and debate. And I appreciate my colleagues' 
willingness to do that with this piece of legislation.
  This is a fiscally responsible, bipartisan bill which unanimously 
passed out of the Committee on Appropriations last week.
  It is also worth noting--and I have heard it noted already today and 
will probably hear it many more times--that we are considering 
appropriations bills on the Senate floor at the earliest point since 
1974. I look forward to the bill passing with many priorities that are 
important to my home State of West Virginia, and I also look forward to 
passing the other 11 appropriations bills as we move through this 
process.
  We can all agree that governing by continuing resolution is not 
ideal. The leadership in the Senate, and through the work of the 
Appropriations Committee, of which I am a proud member, has put us on a 
path to passing bills that will fund our government in a reasoned 
manner, in a transparent manner, and in a manner which is an open, 
deliberative, fair, and responsible process. Today marks an important 
step forward--one of many to come, I hope.
  The bill before us has enormous importance to every State and 
particularly my State of West Virginia. It includes resources that 
ensure safe and stable infrastructure, promotes and stimulates research 
in the fossil fuel industry, and provides resources for rural areas 
most negatively impacted by the economic downturn and continued assault 
against coal-producing areas in Appalachia, where I live.
  A few weeks ago, I visited the Bluestone Dam in Hinton, WV. It is an 
engineering marvel. It was built in the late 1940s and completed in the 
1950s. But we must maintain and modernize to make sure we have the 
safest and the most technologically superior dams for the prevention of 
flooding. The importance of the Bluestone Dam to its surrounding area--
and really all of West Virginia--cannot be overstated. It is protecting 
the neighboring capital city of Charleston, where I live, from massive 
and catastrophic flooding.
  This bill provides construction funds for the Army Corps of Engineers 
for projects such as Bluestone, as well as operation and maintenance 
funds for hundreds of locks and dams across the country, including many 
in my State besides Bluestone--from Elkins, to Beech Fork Lake, to 
Tygart Lake. Disappointingly, the President's budget cut funding for 
the Corps of Engineers. I don't know how you can do that. That 
irresponsible action is eliminated in this bill. We restore the cut and 
fund the Army Corps of Engineers by more than $1 billion above the 
President's request.
  A smaller but equally important investment in West Virginia is the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, known as the ARC. I am pleased the 
Senate is again proposing to boost funding for the ARC following the 
increase in last year's omnibus bill. While it might not be familiar to 
a lot of people, the ARC really spearheads many worthwhile efforts in 
the Appalachian region, including actions to help communities impacted 
by the downturn of the coal industry through worker training, economic 
diversification, and job services.
  One way to provide our citizens with greater opportunities is to 
provide them with broadband access. West Virginia is not wired for 
broadband like a lot of our other States. We need to meet the 
acceptable standards set by the FCC. We understand we have mountains 
and it is difficult, but if we don't do this, if we don't make this 
change, West Virginia will be left further behind. This is an economic, 
educational, and health care tool.
  The ARC is one of the entities that are helping West Virginia connect 
to the Internet, and by doing so, it connects the possibilities for 
commerce, education, health care, and other things that all of us--
particularly these young people in front of me--have come to think of 
as essential to life as bread and water.
  This bill maintains the funding level for fossil fuel energy research 
and development at $632 million. Sixty-seven percent of the electricity 
generated in the United States is from fossil fuels--coal, natural gas, 
and petroleum--and this will not change anytime soon. The Department of 
Energy's own Energy Information Administration predicts that coal will 
still make up about one-third of U.S. electricity generation for 
decades to come.
  If the administration itself acknowledges that fossil fuels will be 
critical to electricity generation, we must ensure that we are using 
these in the cleanest way possible. Therefore, we must continue to make 
that investment in research and development for clean coal 
technologies, which is a large component of this funding. This funding 
is $272 million above the President's request. The President's proposed 
cut and those proposed by some of my colleagues--and as we move through 
the markup we anticipate proposed cuts to fossil fuel research--in my 
view, are shortsighted because they fail to realize the value of the 
research being done in places like the National Energy Technology Lab 
in Morgantown, WV, known as NETL.
  NETL has reorganized and restructured its budget to be more 
transparent, so we can understand what is actually going on, where the 
dollars are being appropriated, and better focus on research and 
maximize those funds. I applaud these efforts. Frankly, I think we 
should all applaud them. Their work is very important to each and every 
one of us.
  There are many other provisions in this bill that are very 
noteworthy, but I wish to close with this: For West Virginia, this 
legislation provides funding and support that will help us in many 
ways. I am proud to have supported it in committee and now on the 
floor. I will be very excited to see my first appropriations bill 
actually come to the Senate floor. Well, we maybe did do one last year, 
but this will be the first time Energy and Water has been on the floor. 
I look forward to this debate by my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

[[Page S2306]]

  



                          FAA and Energy Bills

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I first wish to congratulate my 
colleagues for the work they have accomplished this week, work on 
reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration. For those in 
Colorado, it is important work. For Denver International Airport and 
for multiple airports around the State, the aviation industry in 
Colorado accounts for tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars 
of revenue generated by not only DIA, but whether it is Vail, Durango, 
Grand Junction, or any number of airports across the State, we have 
benefited from the work this FAA reauthorization has accomplished. I 
commend the chairman, Senator Thune, for his work, as well as the 
chairman, Senator Murkowski, for the work she has accomplished on the 
Energy bill--legislation that will accomplish greater opportunities for 
the United States to achieve North American energy security, including 
thousands of jobs that can be created by legislation I was able to 
secure within the bill on performance contracting--a very great 
accomplishment for the Senate. I urge the House and the Senate to come 
together quickly in order to find a compromise on the Energy bill and 
to get this signed into law.


                         Cheyenne Mountain Day

  Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an event I 
participated in last week with General Hyten in Colorado Springs, based 
in Cyber Command, to talk about an event that was shared by Governor 
Hickenlooper as well from the great State of Colorado.
  Since 1966, the U.S. Air Force at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station 
in Colorado Springs has been at the forefront of our Nation's capacity 
to track foreign threats worldwide, providing an essential component of 
North American defense and global security.
  Today we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the operational capability 
of Cheyenne Mountain, an event General Hyten, Governor Hickenlooper, 
and I were able to participate in last week.
  Many people across this country probably know Cheyenne Mountain Air 
Force Station. They know it through popular culture, they know it 
through movies like ``Dr. Strangelove'' or through ``WarGames,'' for 
those who aren't quite of the ``Dr. Strangelove'' generation, and 
perhaps for newer generations yet, they know Cheyenne Mountain Air 
Force Station from ``Stargate.''
  Colorado is proud to be at the center of the effort to provide for 
the defense of North America through this facility which has far-
reaching consequences and whose multiuse services are critical to 
national and global security.
  Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station is one of the greatest 
engineering marvels of its time, representing an $18 billion facility, 
unrivaled anywhere in the world, bored into the front range of the 
Rocky Mountains. At this world-class facility, countless space and 
ground sensor data collections are assimilated to provide our Nation's 
national security leadership apparatus key information to determine 
threat assessments and ensure the safety and security of millions of 
people around the world.
  The 21st Space Wing at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs 
provides operational support and infrastructure sustainability, the 
721st Mission Support Group provides the dedicated daily sustainment to 
more than 13 mission partners performing the national security mission 
inside the mountain complex--or the ``mountain fortress,'' as it has 
been nicknamed--and over 1,000 U.S. and Canadian military members and 
civilians remain vigilant around the clock to defend our great Nation 
at this facility.
  I am proud the Senate came together last week to approve my 
resolution, which designates today, April 20, 2016, as Cheyenne 
Mountain Day, to recognize the 50th anniversary of Cheyenne Mountain 
achieving full operational capability.
  Today we recognize the strategic importance of Cheyenne Mountain and 
celebrate the efforts of the 21st Space Wing, the 721st Mission Support 
Group, and the men and women who work for the common defense of North 
America at Cheyenne Mountain.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Prescription Drug Abuse

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to once again share the 
devastating story of the nationwide opiate epidemic that America 
currently faces, which is pain pills. It is a crisis I have been 
dealing with since my days as Governor of the great State of West 
Virginia, and each and every one of us as Senators representing our 
great States are dealing with it also.
  It is ravaging my State. West Virginia has been hit harder than most 
States in our country. The drug overdose deaths have soared by more 
than 700 percent since 1999. Just last year, we lost 600 West 
Virginians alone to opiate abuse. That is prescription drug abuse.
  Let me explain what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a 
product that is manufactured legally by pharmaceutical companies, a 
product that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration--the 
Federal Government--a product that is distributed and prescribed by our 
doctors--the most trusted people we have in our lives. It goes on and 
on.
  Basically, people don't understand and have not understood for the 
last two decades the devastating effect that it has. But our State is 
not unique. This is happening everywhere, and 51 Americans die every 
day. Every day, 51 Americans die. You have to think about that. Every 
30 minutes or less, someone is dying because of an overdose from a 
prescription drug to which they became addicted. Since 1999, we have 
lost almost 200,000 Americans to prescription opioid abuse. We need a 
serious culture change in America to get to the root of the problem. We 
need to change the approval of all these new, more potent painkillers 
coming on the market.

  The scope of the problem is this: In the United States of America, we 
have less than 5 percent of the world population. Seven billion people 
live on this beautiful planet Earth of ours. We have approximately 330 
million people. How in the world can we explain how 5 percent of the 
population consumes 80 percent of all the addictive opioids produced in 
the world? Our country is the most addicted country on Earth. There is 
not another one like us. We allow pharmaceuticals to advertise their 
products on television. We are the only ones who allow drugs that are 
addictive and have the ability to destroy lives to be advertised, and 
so naturally people are asking for them. They want to go out and buy 
something because the market is so slick. How we approach this is 
totally wrong. There needs to be an overhaul of our culture.
  My office continues to get flooded with letters. Today I will read a 
letter from my State of West Virginia and the Presiding Officer's State 
of Georgia. We are encouraging people to continue to share their 
experiences. The reason I am encouraging people to share their letters 
is because for far too long this has been a silent killer. There is not 
a person watching this or a person in this Chamber who doesn't know 
somebody in their immediate family or extended family who has been 
affected by drug abuse. Most of the time, it is legal prescription drug 
abuse. We have an epidemic on our hands.
  We talk about Ebola, Zika, and all the other things that are of 
concern to us, but not one of those is killing 51 Americans every day, 
and people are still silent about it. Well, people are breaking their 
silence and sending these letters to me. I will read them every week so 
I can put a personal touch on this epidemic we face. I don't want 
people to be ashamed. We have all had it happen to us. It could be your 
father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, cousins, or children.
  We basically have to look at addiction as an illness. For far too 
long, we have looked at addiction as a crime. We put people in jail 
because they have committed a crime. Most of them are charged with 
grand larceny because they had to steal to support their habit and as a 
result end up with a felony on their record. When they get out of jail, 
they are no better. They are still addicted, and now they have a felony 
and

[[Page S2307]]

can't get a job. We have taken them out of the productive part of our 
society. Our society is losing a whole generation of productive, 
unbelievable, beautiful people.
  This is Debbie's story. Debbie is from West Virginia. She said:

       My daughter started using drugs off and on around the age 
     of 13. It really escalated after her second child was born, 
     her ``husband'' being from Baltimore, MD with access to lots 
     of different kinds of drugs.
       She told me that after the birth of her baby the doctor 
     prescribed percocet after a vaginal birth. She started off 
     snorting and then injecting them. Her drug abuse spiraled out 
     of control to using meth, on to heroin and cocaine, and who 
     knows what else. Then she started buying Suboxone illegally, 
     supposedly to get off the other drugs.

  Suboxone is supposed to help you get off your addiction, but it is 
also an opioid.

       When she had her third child, CPS stepped in, but then they 
     walked away 90 days later. She took off to Baltimore, MD, 
     putting her two youngest children in danger, leaving her 
     oldest behind with us. However, we finally got her to bring 
     the children back to us, but she wasn't willing to stay with 
     her children. The drugs were more important. We now have 
     temporary guardianship and she is finally taking steps in 
     recovery.
       I don't understand why these doctors hand out opioid drugs 
     like it's candy.

  I can tell Debbie why they do it. They don't have the training. They 
don't understand the effects these drugs are having on people. They are 
basically told whatever the manufacturer or salesperson has told them. 
If the drug is a 30-day prescription, they give you 30. If it is 60, 
they will give you the maximum of 60.
  Her letter continues:

       I have another daughter that was in a car accident and 
     broke her leg. She had to have surgery and the doctor 
     prescribed her 80 percocet all at one time.

  Can you believe that?

       Already battling one child with addiction I VERY closely 
     monitored her medication. Not all people are strong willed.
       This has to stop. These are dangerous drugs and they lead 
     to more dangerous drugs! These drugs are killing our 
     children, pulling our families apart!
       Why are doctors prescribing so many at a time?
       Why do we have Suboxone, another addictive drug to treat 
     addiction?

  Methadone is another one, methadone clinics. They are the same thing.

       Why isn't Suboxone an in care monitored drug so it can't be 
     sold on the streets?
       Why don't we have free treatment centers in every county to 
     help with addiction so our children aren't dying?

  I am going to talk about the treatment centers--or lack of treatment 
centers--and what we can and what we should be doing as a country.

       My daughter is 24 years old with a lifetime of fighting 
     addiction. My mom and sister had to bury their sons because 
     of addiction. I DON'T want to bury my daughter!!!

  That was Debbie's story from West Virginia.
  This is Winnie's story from Augusta, GA.

       My name is Winnie Garrett.

  She wanted me to use her full name because she is not ashamed and she 
wants to fight this addiction and she needs help.

       I have been living in Augusta, GA, for 15 years with my 
     husband, son, and daughter. My daughter Erin is 21 and a 
     heroin addict. She started opiates when she was 16. She met a 
     guy who was shooting pills and heroin, so in September of 
     2014 she started shooting too.
       She had a great job, an apartment, and was a highly 
     functioning addict. In May she asked if her boyfriend and she 
     could come and move into our house so they could save money 
     and get an apartment together.
       In July, her boyfriend attempted suicide and was 
     hospitalized and then sent to rehab. Erin's heroin use 
     skyrocketed at that time.
       In September, we caught Erin and her friends in our house 
     about to shoot up together, but we intervened. Erin agreed 
     that she needed help and she started methadone at a methadone 
     clinic.

  So we have methadone and Suboxone.

       In October of 2015, one of her ``friends'' that was in our 
     house back in September overdosed and died at her 
     grandmother's house. Erin started to abuse opioids again. In 
     December, she lost her job. By Christmas she had no new job 
     and no money to pay for methadone. She was going downhill 
     fast.
       On January 2, 2016, she called me and asked me to come and 
     get her. Her friends had left her alone, she had no phone, 
     and she was sick. My husband and I found her and told her she 
     must go to the hospital as we were not prepared to help her 
     go through withdrawal. We just didn't have the ability or the 
     knowledge to do it. She fought with us and didn't want to go.
       As we drove closer to the hospital and stopped for a light, 
     she jumped out of our moving vehicle and proceeded to walk 
     away from us. We had to walk her into the hospital and commit 
     her.
       After the hospital went through her belongings, she was 
     civilly committed for a minimum of 72 hours. Erin went 
     through withdrawal and was clean for about 2 weeks but 
     wouldn't consider going to a rehab place because she wouldn't 
     want to leave her ``friends.'' She has relapsed, and I have 
     tried to talk to her, but she is not ready for rehab.
       It breaks my heart to see my baby girl now. It has affected 
     our entire family. Her brother wants nothing to do with her 
     and her father and I can only pray that God will look after 
     her and keep her safe from harm.
       She is living on the streets and at anyone's house who will 
     take her in for a day or two. My daughter graduated from Fine 
     Arts Magnet School and was accepted to Savannah College of 
     Art and Design. Erin is smart, beautiful and very capable 
     when she is clean. I don't recognize my little girl on drugs. 
     Something must be done.
       Thank you for listening.

  Three or four years ago, these people probably wouldn't have written 
these letters to us. They are desperate and need help. They are willing 
to put their names to it. They want to put a face on this epidemic. 
They really do.
  Let me tell you the problem. We do not have--Georgia and West 
Virginia--treatment centers. When people are begging for help, there is 
no place to send them. We have day courts and drug courts, but there is 
really no treatment center. They end up with a felony on their record. 
I am not talking about those who have a violent or sexual crime; I am 
basically talking about grand larceny. They end up getting a felony. If 
we do get them clean, they can't get a job with that felony.
  There are some things we have to do. Let me tell you what we can do. 
The first thing we can do is address the treatment centers. Think about 
this: We have a fee on cigarettes. We know cigarettes are dangerous. 
They have proved that cigarettes are addictive and dangerous to your 
health, and you pay a tax when you buy cigarettes. Most of those States 
use those taxes for their health clinics. We know alcohol is dangerous. 
We shouldn't drink alcohol, but we partake in it, and they charge a 
tax.
  We have no way of funding or supporting the treatment centers. We are 
looking at and working on this almost every day. I am going to propose 
to my colleagues that one penny per milligram of every opioid produced 
by manufacturers be used to go to a treatment fee. It strictly cannot 
be used for anything except for treatment centers throughout the United 
States of America so we can help the people who need help.
  We should also consider how to get people back to having a productive 
lifestyle. Let's say they go through an approved treatment center for 1 
year and then go into a mentoring program. Not only do they become 
clean, but they are mentoring and helping other people become clean. 
They don't have a violent or sexual crime against them, but they have a 
crime of larceny. Should that person not be considered--basically from 
their good standing of finishing a 1-year rehabilitation program, which 
they passed with flying colors and are clean and have committed another 
year of their lives to giving back and helping other people through 
mentoring--to have that felony basically expunged from their record so 
they can get back into the workforce? If not, we are losing a whole 
generation of quality workers. These are all bright, smart people who 
can do something and contribute back to the economy.
  I will be coming down here every week, and I will make sure the 
people of America know they are not alone. We hear you and we are going 
to do something.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for listening.
  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. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Paris Climate Agreement

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as Secretary of State John Kerry prepares 
to

[[Page S2308]]

sign the United States on to the Paris climate agreement on April 22--
that is Earth Day--2 days from now, there are lessons from past 
international climate agreements, namely the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, that 
we would be remiss to ignore.
  Let's keep in mind that the meeting they had was the 21st annual 
meeting. This is the big United Nations meeting, when everyone tries to 
get 196 countries to come in and have mandatory emissions reductions. 
It hasn't worked in 21 years, and it will not work this year either.
  The situation they are facing now is kind of embarrassing. Let's just 
call the Paris Agreement what it is. It is a political stunt for the 
President to do what President Clinton was going to do in the Kyoto 
Protocol back in 1997. To recap, in 1997, the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set 
forth binding targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emission 
reductions for developed countries such as the United States and the 
European Union. Meanwhile, developing countries such as China, India, 
and Brazil got a free pass. In fact, the Kyoto Protocol exempted 80 
percent of the world from greenhouse gas emission reductions. That was 
back in 1997.
  I could talk extensively about how it was known then that without 
developing countries, Kyoto would produce no meaningful impact on 
global climate change or reductions. What is most important in advance 
of the Paris Agreement signing, which is 2 days from now, is holding 
the Obama administration accountable to the lessons learned from the 
fallout of Kyoto.
  Let's not forget that the Kyoto Protocol--which was a legally binding 
treaty, as opposed to the Paris treaty, which is all voluntary--was 
signed by the Clinton administration in late 1998 but was never 
submitted to the Senate for ratification. This was because the Senate 
had already voted, and they knew they weren't going to ratify it.
  About that time in 1997, we had the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which 
warned that if the United States came back from Kyoto with a signed 
product that economically harmed the United States or exempted 
developed countries from participating, we would not ratify it. The 
resolution passed 95 to 0 in this Chamber. They knew when they came 
back that it wasn't going to be signed. With a vote of 95 to 0, not one 
Senator would have voted to ratify.
  Ultimately, the 36 developed countries were legally bound to the 
greenhouse gas targets, and 17 of them failed to meet the greenhouse 
gas targets. First of all, they are not even meeting the targets. Some 
countries that joined Kyoto, like Iceland, had targets that actually 
granted increases in greenhouse gas emissions, while others, like 
Russia, had a target of zero that required them to do nothing.
  The same thing is true for Russia today with the Paris Agreement. 
Russia pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 percent but made 
their promise based on emission levels from 1990, not their current 
emission levels today. So they could actually increase their emissions 
and still comply with the commitment that they made in Paris.
  Of course, they were looking at--and I remember from all the other 
meetings that Russia is sitting back there with areas such as Siberia, 
without any development, and they could use that as land that is not 
being developed, where there are no emissions, so it sounded as though 
they are really doing something.
  I had an occasion many years ago to fly a small Cessna airplane 
around the world, emulating the trip of Wiley Post, the aviator from 
Oklahoma. He was the one who was flying the airplane when Will Rogers 
was killed. I was emulating his flight around the world. I will never 
forget going all the way from Moscow to Provideniya, across Siberia. 
There is time zone after time zone, and there is nothing down there. It 
is bare down there--no houses, no industry, nothing down there. That is 
the land Russia has been using to give them the advantage that they 
have.
  Others, including Japan, the host country for the signing of the 
Kyoto Protocol significantly missed its greenhouse gas reduction 
targets, and instead they increased. Here is the host country, and they 
increased their emissions.
  There were warning signs that the countries would fail to meet the 
Kyoto targets. For example, in 2005, the year Kyoto went into force, as 
then-chairman of the EPW committee, I held hearings on Kyoto where I 
questioned the U.S. senior climate change negotiator, Harlan Watson, 
about the European Union countries meeting their targets. Watson 
testified at the time that only two of the EU countries, the U.K. and 
Sweden, were on track to reach their targets. In other words, they all 
had targets, but only two countries met them.
  Another witness, Dr. Margo Thorning of the American Council for 
Capital Formation, told the Committee at the hearing that the European 
Union ``policymakers are beginning to worry about the additional steps 
required to meet the targets.''
  We now know they were right. The EU, one of the staunchest advocates 
for the global greenhouse gas emission cuts, barely reached half of the 
targets required by Kyoto.
  If developed countries like those in the European Union have ignored 
legally binding gas emission targets in Kyoto, it is highly unlikely 
that they would meet the voluntary reductions that are in the Paris 
Agreement. Within the EU, some individual countries, such as Poland, 
have already shown fierce opposition to the Paris Agreement due to the 
fact that they are relying on coal power to run their country. There 
also has been vigorous debate over EU emissions reductions, and so far 
further cuts are off the table due to climate leadership fatigue from 
Kyoto. Everybody is tired of it.
  Some have said Paris is different because developing countries like 
China agreed to the greenhouse gas targets. However, as is normally the 
case, you have to read a little bit closer. China's climate change 
commitment to peak their emissions by 2030 is business as usual. Yes, 
they signed on. They are a developing country. But what did they sign? 
They agreed to increase their emissions until 2030, and then they will 
reconsider.
  After making their pledge, the New York Times uncovered that China 
dramatically underreported the amount of coal it burns per year, 
burning 17 percent more than what China had previously reported during 
climate talks. Just last month, a London School of Economics and 
Political Science researcher found that it is possible that Chinese 
emissions have already peaked. It is no wonder when the country is 
bringing online a new coal-powered powerplant every 10 days.
  We keep hearing from all of our do-good friends: Just give China a 
chance. They are going to follow our leadership. Yes, they are going to 
follow our leadership, all right. They are anxious for us to meet our 
reductions as we chase our manufacturing base to someplace like China, 
which would be the recipient of it.
  China is putting online a new coal-fired plant every 10 days. Why 
would China bother putting forth such a commitment and why would the 
Obama administration promote it as historic? First, it is in the 
interest of China to ensure this commitment is ratified because it 
makes it more difficult for the United States and the European Union to 
get out of economically damaging regulations. Second, it is in the 
interest of President Obama to sign this agreement since his own legacy 
hinges on its ratification. For the agreement to come into force, 55 
countries representing at least 55 percent of emissions are going to 
have to sign.
  We have seen this before. Think back to Kyoto. Clinton did not have 
the support of the Senate, yet Clinton delegated his U.S. Ambassador to 
sign it.
  That is exactly what is happening today. President Obama doesn't want 
to go there because President Obama is fully familiar with the fact 
that they can't reach their targets, and besides that, we have the U.S. 
Supreme Court stepping in and saying that they can't do it.
  The Obama administration should take note that history does repeat 
itself. If Secretary Kerry signs the Paris Agreement--which he will--it 
will be an act in defiance of the lessons from the past and in defiance 
of the best interests of the American people, all while achieving no 
meaningful impact on global temperatures.
  Just like Kyoto, countries will not comply. Here at home, the 
President's

[[Page S2309]]

means to force the United States to achieve a 26- to 28-percent 
reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025--primarily through the so-called 
Clean Power Plan, which is likely to get struck by the courts--is 
extremely limited. Its implementation has already been blocked by the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  We have 27 countries that have filed lawsuits against the plan. We 
actually had someone from the National Chamber of Commerce and the 
Sierra Club come before our committee just a few weeks ago saying: 
Look, there is no way in the world that you can have this kind of a 
reduction. So it is dead in the water anyway, with 40 percent doing 
business as usual. Only 15 percent could have an effect from the power 
plan, and then the rest--45 percent--are not even in the middle of it. 
Besides that, the Supreme Court has now said that until all the 
litigation has cleared up, nothing is going to happen. They intervened 
in that as well as the WOTUS regulations--the waters of the United 
States. So it is not going to happen. They are going to have their 
party there. The President is embarrassed, and he is sending John Kerry 
to do his dirty work.
  I hope all 196 of the countries send their representatives to New 
York because I would love to have them get to know America, travel 
around, spend their money, and go down historic Highway 66 that goes 
through my State of Oklahoma. They will have a wonderful time while 
they are here, but they might as well skip the New York part.
  I see my good friend from Indiana, and, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


             Nominations of mark McWatters and Adam Szubin

  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, for more than a month, many of my 
colleagues and I have come to this floor to talk about our 
responsibility as Senators to do our job and consider the President's 
Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. That is right. Here in one of 
the world's greatest deliberative bodies, where we have debated war and 
peace, civil rights, and the right of women to vote, we are now engaged 
in a debate about whether the Senate should carry out one of its most 
basic constitutional responsibilities.
  Even more troubling than the refusal of some Senators to consider the 
Supreme Court nominee is that this is one in a series of failures over 
the past year. It is not an isolated incident; it is a pattern.
  Back home in Indiana, our priorities are clear. We want good jobs and 
safe communities. Hoosiers are asking important questions of their 
elected officials, such as: What is the Senate doing to strengthen our 
economy? What are we doing to keep Americans safe?
  Today I want to talk about two additional simple things that the 
Senate can do to strengthen our economy and to keep our country 
safe. Both have strong bipartisan support already. We just have to do 
our job. The first relates to the Export-Import Bank. Last December, 
after months of negotiations, and a 5-month lapse, Congress agreed, 
with bipartisan support, to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, the 
official export credit agency of the United States of America, which 
helps American companies, including small businesses from my home State 
and from everyone else's, compete in the global economy.

  It does not get more common sense than approving an agency whose sole 
purpose--sole purpose--is to help create more American jobs at no cost 
to taxpayers. In fact, in 2014, the Bank supported $27.5 billion in 
U.S. exports and more than 164,000 American jobs and returned over $675 
million to the U.S. Treasury.
  The Bank creates jobs, reduces the deficit, and spurs economic 
growth. It is a win-win-win. Yet, despite bipartisan approval last 
December, Senate inaction continues to hamstring the Bank, which keeps 
it from fully functioning. You see, in order to approve certain 
financing, the Bank needs a minimum of three Senate-approved board 
members. Today, we have only two.
  That is because board nominee Mark McWatters, a Republican, has been 
stuck in the Senate Banking Committee for more than 3 months. At a time 
when American companies are struggling to compete in an economy that is 
often rigged by other countries manipulating their currency, by 
intellectual property theft, and by insurmountable foreign regulatory 
barriers, there are a few Members of this body who are intent on 
obstructing this important economic tool by refusing to consider Mr. 
McWatters' nomination in order to advance an extreme ideological 
agenda.
  So here we are again, willfully allowing an important tool for 
economic growth to sit idle simply because some in the Senate refuse to 
do their job. While most Americans find it hard to believe we cannot 
agree on something as common sense as supporting the American economy, 
perhaps more troubling is the refusal to confirm an official to lead 
our Nation's efforts to combat terrorist financing around the world.
  Mr. Adam Szubin is the nominee to be Treasury Under Secretary for 
Terrorism and Financial Crimes. His job is to identify and to disrupt 
the lines of financial support to international terrorist 
organizations, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, narcotics 
traffickers, and other actors posing a threat to U.S. national security 
or foreign policy.
  It is a critical job. Just about anyone you ask will tell you that 
Adam Szubin is the guy we want doing this job. He has helped shape and 
enforce U.S. sanctions against our adversaries for nearly a decade, 
under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He is recognized 
as a leading expert on terrorism financing and is widely considered one 
of our Nation's best tools in taking the financial footing out from 
under terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda and countering 
adversaries like Iran, North Korean, and, increasingly, Russia.
  Today marks 1 year since Mr. Szubin was nominated--an entire year. 
For 1 full year, our country has worked to combat terrorist financing 
and enforce and expand sanctions against key adversaries without a 
confirmed official to lead the charge. At a time when our sanctions 
regimes are critical to countering Iran's ballistic missile program, 
North Korea's nuclear weapons development, and Russia's renewed 
aggression, and at a time when U.S. military personnel are serving in 
harm's way in locations around the world, combatting ISIS and Al Qaeda 
and their affiliates, the Senate is undermining the ability of one of 
our Nation's top counterterrorism officials to do his job.
  By failing to act on the nomination of Mr. Szubin, who people on both 
sides of the aisle agree is the perfect person for the job, we are 
undermining his credibility with the very countries we need on our side 
to effect these sanctions and to cut off funding flows to terrorists.
  The American people expect us to use every single resource--every 
single resource we have--to keep our Nation safe. Yet, when it comes to 
putting our strongest team on the field to fight back and to cut off 
terrorist financing, some in this body continue to put politics ahead 
of our national security.
  Why has Mr. Szubin not yet been confirmed as the Under Secretary for 
Terrorism and Financial Crimes? Simply put, the Senate refuses to do 
its job, to have a vote. I understand it is an election year and there 
is much discussion in Washington about what is good political strategy 
for the different parties. While the timing may be inconvenient for 
some, I will remind my colleagues that every day outside of Washington, 
law enforcement officers, among many others, rely on a fully 
functioning Supreme Court for the legal guidance that serves as the 
basis of our founding promise of liberty and justice for all.
  I remind my colleagues that every day across our country, millions of 
hard-working men and women go to work to support their families, many 
of whom rely on jobs supported by the Export-Import Bank. Every day 
across the globe, our service men and women put their lives on the line 
to protect our country from terrorists and from foreign nations intent 
on doing us harm.
  Many of those terrorists and foreign nations are targets of the 
crippling sanctions the U.S. Treasury implements and enforces to help 
keep Americans safe. Adam Szubin is leading that team. These men and 
women who go to work to support their families, the law enforcement 
officers who protect our communities, and the service men and

[[Page S2310]]

women who fight for our great country every single day do not stop 
doing their job because it is an election year. They do not pass on 
confirmations because it is inconvenient timing.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again. Most Americans 
believe Congress can do something to help move our country forward. At 
the very least, we should do no harm. We are falling short of this most 
basic standard. But we can change that right now by simply doing our 
job, by considering Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, 
by doing our job to support the economy by considering the nomination 
of Mark McWatters to sit on the board of the Export-Import Bank, and by 
doing our job to support our troops and protect our country by 
considering the nomination of Adam Szubin to be Under Secretary of the 
Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
  This should be the very least that we do. We need to do it now. Let's 
follow the example of those who elected us, who roll up their sleeves 
every day and go to work. It is time for us to roll up our sleeves and 
go to work and do our job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I just wanted to compliment the 
Senator from Indiana on the remarks he has just made and thank him very 
much.
  I also want to urge Members: Please bring amendments to the Energy 
and Water appropriations bill to the floor. We hope to finish this 
bill. The only way we are going to do it is if Members bring and file 
their amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, 1 year ago today, the President nominated 
Adam Szubin to serve as Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial 
Crimes at the Treasury Department. Mr. Szubin's nomination was pending 
in the Banking Committee for more than 11 months before we finally 
acted on it.
  So far in this Congress--not this session, but the entire Congress--
the Senate has not acted on a single nominee from the Banking 
Committee, even those who play critical national security roles like 
Mr. Szubin. We have not even acted yet on certain nominees eligible for 
expedited consideration by the full Senate. In the past, the Senate 
acted on these ``privileged nominees'' as a routine manner.
  The hard-working people of Ohio, Arkansas, and Georgia expect the 
Senate to do its job. Part of our job is to give the President's 
nominees fair, respectful, and timely consideration. Unfortunately, the 
unprecedented partisan obstruction we have seen over Judge Merrick 
Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court has been a fact of life 
longer than that at the Banking Committee.
  The Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes is one of the 
most important national security posts in our government. Mr. Szubin 
serves in an acting capacity in that position. Despite having 
bipartisan support, as evidenced by the vote out of committee and as 
evidenced by his initial appointment to the executive branch by 
President Bush, his nomination has languished for a year--a full year--
because of one thing: Republican obstruction.
  Allowing this proven leader to remain unconfirmed weakens his 
position and undermines American influence in our efforts to track 
terrorists and stop them from raising money on the black market or 
elsewhere. The mission of Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial 
Intelligence is too important right now for us to have anything less 
than our best person in that role with the full backing of this Senate.
  Mr. Szubin served Republican and Democratic administrations in senior 
positions related to economic sanctions and countering terrorist 
financing. His job is focused on leading our country's efforts to 
disrupt terrorist financing by ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other groups.
  There is absolutely no question that he is qualified. Over the last 
decade and a half, Mr. Szubin has distinguished himself as a tough and 
aggressive enforcer of our Nation's sanctions laws against Russia, 
Iran, and North Korea, against money launderers and terrorists and 
narcotraffickers.
  Given all the concerns surrounding terrorist financing, you would 
think a nomination for this position would be a priority. In the Senate 
Banking Committee and in the Senate in 2015 and 2016, that has not been 
the case.
  I repeat. One year ago he was nominated. One year ago the Senate 
Banking Committee got his nomination.
  Mr. Szubin's mentor, Bush administration Under Secretary Stuart Levy, 
was confirmed by the Senate 3 weeks after his nomination came to the 
Banking Committee, when the Democrats were in control of this Senate. 
Mr. Szubin's immediate predecessor took the Senate just 2\1/2\ months 
to consider.
  This is a critical national security post that must be filled 
permanently. Szubin heads what is, in effect, Treasury's economic war 
room, managing U.S. efforts to combat terrorist financing and fight 
financial crimes. He leads the charge to choke off ISIL's funding 
sources and prevent it from developing additional capacity to strike 
targets around the world.
  Cutting off the money supply, including profits from illicit oil 
sales, money-laundering extortion, and other crimes by ISIS actors is a 
critical part of our strategy to defeat this terrorist organization. He 
works to hold Iran to its commitment under the nuclear deal and to lead 
a campaign against the full range of Iran's other terrorizing, 
destructive, and destabilizing activities, including its support for 
Hezbollah and other terror proxies.
  He has broad support across the political spectrum. Even groups 
opposed to the Iran nuclear deal support his nomination. Banking Chair 
Shelby described Szubin as ``eminently qualified.''
  The recent Panama Papers scandal shows how some of the richest and 
most powerful people may have used shell companies in offshore accounts 
to evade taxes, launder money, and dodge sanctions. The leak of these 
documents underscores the role that Mr. Szubin and the Office of 
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence play in combatting money 
laundering and terrorist finance networks. It is yet another reminder 
of why Szubin's confirmation is so urgent.
  Mr. Szubin is well-regarded around the world for his intellect, his 
courage, his experience, his expertise, and his integrity. He deserves 
the strong backing of the Senate. Confirming him would demonstrate the 
commitment of the United States to disrupt and destroy the global 
financial networks of terrorist organizations. Without it, his ability 
to operate here and abroad is undermined.
  Treasury must have in place an experienced watchdog with the know-how 
and with the authority to lead U.S. efforts to track and choke off the 
financial lifeblood of terrorist organizations.
  The bottom line is Republicans in Congress need to stop holding our 
national security apparatus hostage to political demands. We need to 
allow Adam Szubin and other national security nominees to be approved. 
The Senate needs to do its job.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider Calendar No. 478, the nomination of Adam 
J. Szubin to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes; 
that the Senate proceed to vote on the nomination without intervening 
action or debate; and that following disposition of the nomination, the 
Senate resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Reserving the right to object, and I will object.
  Until just a few weeks ago, I did not object to Mr. Szubin's 
nomination.
  I did oppose the nomination in the Banking Committee because he 
supports a clearly inconsistent interpretation of the Iran threat 
reduction act because it would hinder the implementation of the Iran 
nuclear deal. To be fair to Mr. Szubin, he is well respected on both 
sides of the aisle, having worked in the former Bush administration. I 
suspect this is not his interpretation. This is the interpretation of 
the

[[Page S2311]]

community organizer, the failed novelist, and the political operative 
who are in charge of implementing these parts of the Iran nuclear deal. 
However, I couldn't, in good conscience, support the nomination given 
that clearly flawed interpretation.
  But just 2 or 3 weeks ago, Secretary Jack Lew gave a speech in which 
he all but announced that the U.S. Government would allow Iran access 
to the U.S. dollar. This would truly unravel every last sanction we 
have against Iran, not just for their nuclear program but for their 
campaign of aggression and terror throughout the Middle East.
  This is in direct contradiction to what Secretary Lew said and in 
direct contradiction to what Mr. Szubin said. In fact, I would note Mr. 
Szubin's testimony before the Banking Committee last summer:

       Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars 
     through New York, hold correspondent account relationships 
     with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing 
     arrangements with U.S. banks. . . . In short, Iran will 
     continue to be denied access to the world's principal 
     financial and commercial market.

  Further, in another quote, he said:

     . . . nor will Iran be able to access the U.S. banking 
     sector, even for that momentary transaction to, what we call, 
     dollarize a foreign payment.

  Yet Secretary Lew has all but announced that the U.S. Government will 
allow Iran to dollarize their foreign transactions. In fact, Secretary 
of State John Kerry just this week is meeting with his Iranian 
counterpart to try to figure out more ways we can heap economic 
benefits on the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
  So until President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Secretary Lew publicly 
and conclusively renounce any intent to allow Iran to dollarize a 
foreign transaction, I will object to this nomination.
  If the Senator from Ohio and 41 other Democrats don't like that, they 
should have considered that before they voted for a deal that gave over 
$100 billion to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I find it ironic. This is the first time we 
have actually heard specific reasons--all seeming fairly recent, mostly 
seeming fairly recent about objections to Mr. Szubin. But I also find 
it interesting that they talk about sanctions not being fully enforced. 
Well, don't you need someone in place who has the imprimatur of a full 
appointment to the position, not just nomination and serving as interim 
or acting but full appointment with Senate confirmation?
  I just stand puzzled by that, but I also understand the partisan 
nature of this. I remember my colleague's letter to the country of Iran 
that 46 Republican Senators signed saying, for all intents and 
purposes: Don't negotiate with President Obama.
  This is a lot about President Obama, but I don't care about that. 
What I care about is that he is acting in that position, and not 
confirming him makes no sense for our country.
  A full year has gone by. I intend to continue to press for approval 
of Adam Szubin and others before our committee in the weeks ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the conflict over the 
Supreme Court vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice Antonin 
Scalia. This conflict has two dimensions, one focusing on the nominee 
and the second focusing on the confirmation process.
  America's Founders established a system of government that preserves 
liberty by limiting government and including a defined role for judges. 
Three of America's Founders provide principles helping to define that 
judicial role. James Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence, 
helped draft the Constitution, and was one of the six original Supreme 
Court Justices appointed by President George Washington. He explained 
our system of government by saying that ``here, the people are the 
masters of the government.''
  The second principle is from President Washington himself, who said 
in a farewell address, on behalf of our system of government, that the 
basis of our system of government is that authority to control the 
Constitution belongs to the people.
  Alexander Hamilton served in the Continental Congress, helped draft 
the Constitution, and became the first Secretary of the Treasury. He 
wrote 51 of the 85 installments of the Federalist Papers, the single 
most important reference for understanding the Constitution. In 
Federalist No. 78, he wrote that the judiciary is the weakest and least 
dangerous branch because judges exercise judgment but not will.
  These three principles outline the proper role for judges in our 
system of government. The people are the masters of government. They 
alone have the authority to control the Constitution, and judges may 
exercise judgment but not will. Our system of government and the 
liberty it makes possible requires judges who leave control of the law 
in the hands of the people.
  The conflict over the appointment of judges is really a conflict over 
the power of judges--a conflict over whether this should still be the 
proper judicial job description. Those whose political agenda fares 
poorly with the American people and their elected representatives want 
a very different kind of judge. They want willful judges who will 
impose their political agenda by manipulating statutes or the 
Constitution.
  This is the first dimension of the conflict over filling the Scalia 
vacancy. I have spoken and written extensively about how the Senate 
owes the President some deference regarding nominees who are qualified 
by both legal experience and judicial philosophy. Those considerations 
are relevant when the confirmation process takes place.
  However, the second dimension in the conflict over filling the Scalia 
vacancy focuses on the process, rather than the nominee. When and how 
the nomination process should occur is rarely a question at all, but it 
is a serious one under the circumstances we face today. Ignoring the 
integrity of the process, acting as if the ends always justify the 
means, would be a serious dereliction of the Senate's duty.
  The President has the constitutional power to nominate judges, but he 
cannot appoint them without the advice and consent of the Senate. 
However, the Constitution does not tell either the President or the 
Senate how to exercise their powers. Deciding when and how to conduct 
the confirmation process is as valid an exercise of the Senate's 
advice-and-consent power as is taking a final confirmation vote at the 
end of that process.
  Our late colleague Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York once said that 
everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. The 
majority leader recently offered a similar axiom when he said that ``no 
matter how many times you tell a falsehood, it is still false.'' When 
it comes to falsehoods, Democrats and their liberal allies are telling 
some real whoppers. For example, the minority leader has said the 
Senate's obligation to hold a hearing and a floor vote for President 
Obama's nominee is ``in the Constitution.'' He has made that claim in 
different forms on the Senate floor more than 40 times.
  I understand Democrats want the Senate to confirm the President's 
nominee to the Scalia vacancy, but I cannot understand why they would 
put all their eggs in this completely fictional basket. As falsehoods 
go, this one is especially easy to expose because the Constitution 
obviously says no such thing. This is why the Washington Post Fact 
Checker called the Democrats' claim that the Constitution requires 
Senate consideration a politically convenient fairytale.
  One of the reasons the Constitution says nothing about Judiciary 
Committee hearings is that the committee was not created until 29 years 
after the Constitution was written. In fact, the committee's practice 
of nominees regularly appearing in public hearings did not begin until 
the 1960s. During the

[[Page S2312]]

110th Congress, Chairman Patrick Leahy denied a hearing to dozens of 
President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. If the minority leader is 
right that the Constitution requires such a hearing, then Chairman 
Leahy was guilty of serially violating the Constitution.
  Between 2003 and 2007, Senators Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, and 
Richard Durbin voted dozens of times to deny floor votes to Republican 
judicial nominees. So did Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, and 
John Kerry. If the minority leader is right that the Constitution 
requires a floor vote on every nominee, then these Senators were guilty 
of deliberately attempting to violate the Constitution over and over 
again. So was the minority leader, himself, because he voted 25 times 
to deny the very floor votes that today he claims the Constitution 
requires.

  The Constitution does not require committee hearings, and it does not 
require floor votes. The Constitution leaves to the Senate the judgment 
about when and how to conduct the confirmation process in each 
situation. Republicans have made that judgment by deciding that the 
confirmation process for filling the Scalia vacancy should be deferred 
until after the Presidential election season is over. We are following 
the recommendation of Vice President Joe Biden in 1992, when he chaired 
the Judiciary Committee. The circumstances compelling his 
recommendation to defer the confirmation process exist in equal or 
greater measure today.
  Neither Democrats nor their leftwing allies have even attempted to 
argue that the 1992 Biden speech and his recommendation do not apply 
today. Instead, they have had three different reactions. First, some 
have simply dismissed it as not worth taking seriously. For example, 
President Obama responded by saying that ``we know Senators say stuff 
all the time.'' Others have complained that Republicans are 
misconstruing that speech or somehow taking it out of context. Just as 
anyone can test the minority leader's claim about the Constitution by 
reading the Constitution, however, they can test our discussion of 
Chairman Biden's 1992 speech by reading that speech--a rather long one 
indeed. The Washington Post read it, and reported this on February 23:

       Biden's remarks were especially pointed, voluminous and 
     relevant to the current situation. Embedded in the roughly 
     20,000 words he delivered on the Senate floor were rebuttals 
     to virtually every point Democrats have brought forth . . . 
     to argue for the consideration of Obama's nominee.

  In his 1992 speech, Chairman Biden addressed how the confirmation 
process should be conducted in two different scenarios. First, he spoke 
about a Supreme Court vacancy in a Presidential election year. This was 
his recommendation:

       It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the 
     political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme 
     Court nomination must be put off until after the election 
     campaign is over.

  That was then-Senator Biden, chairman of the committee.
  Second, Chairman Biden separately discussed how the confirmation 
process ``might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a 
Democrat or a Republican.'' He used the phrase ``the next 
administration'' no less than four times. This was his recommendation:

       If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or 
     moderates his selections absent consultation, then his 
     nominees may enjoy my support. . . . But if he does not, as 
     is the President's right, then I will oppose his future 
     nominees as is my right.

  Two separate scenarios, two separate recommendations. The first 
scenario involved a Supreme Court vacancy in a Presidential year like 
1992, and the recommendation involved the entire appointment process. 
Those circumstances and that recommendation apply fully today.
  The second scenario Chairman Biden addressed involved the next 
administration, outside a Presidential election year, and his 
recommendation involved his personal support or opposition. Those 
circumstances and that recommendation do not apply today.
  I understand Chairman Biden's recommendation for deferring the 
confirmation process in a Presidential election year is a very 
inconvenient truth for his party today. However, the only ones 
misconstruing that speech today are those trying to create confusion 
where none exists by conflating these two separate scenarios and 
recommendations.
  The third reaction to Chairman Biden's 1992 speech is to pretend that 
he said something he simply did not say. For example, I have heard the 
claim that Chairman Biden would have gone forward with the confirmation 
process in 1992 if the President consulted the Senate before choosing a 
nominee. Let me once again quote the minority leader. It is pretty 
clear: ``No matter how many times you tell a falsehood, it is still 
false.'' Read the speech. Chairman Biden said no such thing.
  I also want to comment on the President's recent remarks at the 
University of Chicago on the Scalia vacancy. For example, he said that 
``there has not been a circumstance in which a Republican President's 
appointee did not get a hearing.'' Of course, the Senate's power of 
advice and consent applies across the board. If the Constitution 
requires hearings and floor votes for some nominees, it requires them 
for all nominees.
  Last month, the Congressional Research Service confirmed in a new 
memo that during the 102nd Congress, when Democrats controlled the 
Senate, 52--52--Republican judicial nominees never even got a hearing. 
Vice President Biden chaired the committee and denied those hearings. 
In September 1992, the New York Times reported on page 1 that this was 
part of a deliberate strategy to keep judicial vacancies open in the 
hope that Bill Clinton would be elected.
  The President also said there has not been a circumstance when a 
Republican President's nominee did not get a floor vote. Obviously, 
none of the dozens of nominees denied a hearing ever got a floor vote. 
The 52 Republican judicial nominees I just mentioned were not only 
denied a hearing, they were never confirmed at all. When the President 
served in this body, he voted to deny floor votes to multiple 
Republican judicial nominees. In fact, he has the distinction of being 
the only President ever to have voted to filibuster a Supreme Court 
nominee. The President was a Senator during the 110th Congress, when 
Chairman Leahy denied a hearing to dozens of Republican nominees. I 
could find no record that then-Senator Obama objected in any way that 
these nominees were being denied full consideration.
  The President also said that the increasing use of the filibuster to 
defeat nominees is unacceptable. Democrats first used the filibuster to 
defeat a majority-supported judicial nominee in 2003. They are the ones 
who started this. They led nearly two dozens filibusters during the 
108th Congress alone, preventing one appeals court nominee after 
another from being confirmed. President Obama should know this because, 
as I mentioned, he participated in and supported this filibuster 
campaign. The President should also know filibusters of judicial 
nominees declined by 65 percent after he took office in January 2009. 
That did not matter to Democrats who, in November of 2013, abolished 
the very filibusters they had used so aggressively.
  The President also expressed concern that an increasingly partisan 
confirmation process would erode the judiciary's institutional 
integrity and that the American people would lose confidence that 
courts can fairly decide cases. I submit that the kind of judge a 
President advocates has a much bigger impact on the American people's 
view of the courts.
  When he was a Senator, the President said judges decide cases based 
on their personal views, core concerns, and what is in their hearts. 
When he ran for President, he told Planned Parenthood that he would 
appoint judges who have empathy for certain groups. As President, he 
has nominated men and women who share this politicized, activist 
approach, believing that judges may make the Constitution conform to 
current social practices and evolving cultural norms. I think our 
fellow citizens can easily see that relying on personal empathy and 
personal concerns is the opposite of impartiality.
  Since President Obama took office, the percentage of Americans 
disapproving of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job has risen 
by more than 20 points, and the percentage saying the Court is too 
liberal has

[[Page S2313]]

risen steadily. Three-quarters of Americans now believe Supreme Court 
Justices decide cases based on their personal or political views, even 
though most Americans think they should not do so. The kind of judge 
President Obama and other liberals favor has much more to do with such 
trends than how we handle some procedural matters within the United 
States Senate.
  Finally, I want to respond to the minority leader's recent attack on 
the Judiciary Committee and its distinguished chairman, Senator 
Grassley. The minority leader recently made the bizarre claim that 
Chairman Grassley ``forced his committee members to sign loyalty 
oaths.'' I first thought I must have heard wrong. That statement is 
completely detached from reality, and, I thought, no Senator would 
utter something so strange on the Senate floor, but there it is in the 
Congressional Record.
  The minority leader may be referring to the letter dated February 23, 
signed by the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee affirming 
that there will be no hearing for any nominee from President Obama for 
the Scalia vacancy. The chairman did not force anyone to sign anything. 
It may come as a surprise to the minority leader, but we sincerely and 
freely came to the conclusion that the confirmation process should be 
deferred.
  If the minority leader really wants to characterize Senators acting 
together as evidence of a ``loyalty oath,'' then I have another example 
for everyone to consider. When Democrats led 20 filibusters of 
President George W. Bush's judicial nominees during the 108th Congress, 
not a single Democrat voted even once to end debate--not one. Every one 
of the 868 total votes for those filibusters was cast by a Democrat, 20 
of them by the minority leader himself. Now, that is loyalty.
  I have yet to hear an argument from the other side regarding the 
Scalia vacancy that is not contradicted by present facts, by their own 
past actions or both. The Constitution assigns to this body the 
responsibility of advice and consent as an important check on the 
President's power to appoint. Advice and consent begins with a judgment 
about the best way to exercise that power in each situation. We have 
done so in different ways, at different times, under different 
circumstances.
  Democrats and their leftwing allies are peddling the false claim that 
the Constitution requires the Senate to conduct the confirmation 
process now for this President's nominee to the Scalia vacancy. Of 
course, they are free to claim the Constitution requires today the very 
hearings and floor votes they denied to Republican nominees in the 
past. They may say those falsehoods as often as they wish, but they are 
still false.
  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.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Adam Szubin

  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise today to remind everybody that 
today is the 1-year anniversary of Adam Szubin's nomination to a key 
Federal post that works to stop financing for terrorism; yet he still 
waits a confirmation vote in the full Senate.
  Mr. Szubin, if you have met him--I think almost anyone would agree he 
is one of the most qualified people for this job to enforce U.S. 
sanctions on terrorism, finance laws against countries such as Syria, 
Iran, North Korea, as well as against terrorist organizations, 
narcotraffickers, and money launderers. The Senate needs to do its job 
by holding a vote on Mr. Szubin's nomination, as well as the 
nominations of so many other Federal nominees. We have to stop putting 
politics above national security.
  Exactly 1 year ago today, Adam Szubin was nominated to serve as the 
U.S. Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial 
Crimes. For 1 year, Adam Szubin and his family have been waiting for a 
vote in the Senate--and his family. I think way too often when we delay 
votes, when we string out these nomination processes, we forget that it 
is not just the nominee, it is also the families of the nominees who 
are waiting for a final decision. Mr. Szubin received a vote in the 
Senate Banking Committee in March. Now the Senate needs to do its job 
and vote up or down on his confirmation.
  I have a particular soft spot for Adam because I am convinced that he 
is one of the most intelligent people I have ever had in my office, and 
especially in this critical and important job. He has 15 years of 
experience countering the financing of terrorism in both Republican and 
Democratic administrations. During Mr. Szubin's confirmation in the 
Senate Banking Committee last September, Chairman Shelby called Mr. 
Szubin eminently qualified.
  If we are serious about enforcing sanctions against Iran and 
defeating terrorist organizations such as ISIL and Al Qaeda, we have to 
stop the financing of terrorism. That means we need Adam Szubin to be 
able to do his job at the U.S. Department of Treasury.
  In January, I visited the Mideast on an official Senate trip with 
seven other Senators. We visited Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and 
Austria. The goal was to learn more about the ongoing threats posed by 
terrorist groups such as ISIL and the progress we have made to roll 
back Iran's nuclear program. We met with allies in the region to learn 
more about how to best prepare the United States to face these issues. 
This trip was about protecting the safety and well-being of our 
country.
  During our meetings, the issue that came up over and over again was, 
how do we stop the financing of terrorism? We know that financing is 
the linchpin of a terrorist organization being able to do everything 
they do, threatening our country and threatening the world. For the 
United States to ably and effectively do that work, Adam Szubin needs 
to be confirmed to the job for which he has been recommended.
  Some would say that it doesn't really matter, that Adam Szubin is 
still at the Department of the Treasury and we really don't need to do 
this. I think we need to look at, No. 1, what it means for the 
individuals and their families when we delay these confirmation votes. 
I am not saying--and Members on both sides of the aisle will have to 
make up their minds on how they are going to vote on that confirmation, 
but why is it that we can't even get a vote? Why is it that we can't 
even get our job done?
  Here is a position which most people in this body would say is 
absolutely critical to the security of our country. If Adam Szubin 
isn't the right guy for the job, the right person for the job, then 
let's find that out--according to the advice and consent of this body--
and nominate somebody else. But why are we holding back on this 
critical job against a nominee who I would tell you is eminently 
qualified? We should be so lucky as to have someone with his 
qualifications, his capability helping protect our country. Yet we ask 
him to wait. We ask other nominees to wait. We ask that they sit by the 
sidelines with their professional lives in limbo while we have 
political discussions here in the Senate.
  Is this a political decision? It might be. You know what. Let's take 
the vote. Why is this so hard? Why is it so hard to actually put up a 
number of nominees, take the vote, make the decision, and move on? I 
think that as I and many of my colleagues spend a lot of time talking 
to young people, encouraging them to be involved in public service, 
encouraging them to be part of a system that really does benefit all 
the people of this country. We ask people to go into public service, 
and then, when they aspire and work to achieve some of the highest 
positions in our country, we say: Not only are we not going to consider 
your nomination, we are not going to vote on it even after it comes out 
of committee. That is not a formula that speaks well to our recruitment 
of the best and brightest to serve the American people.
  A year later, Adam Szubin remains in limbo. His family remains in 
limbo. His confirmation remains in limbo. Please, let's just vote. 
There are plenty of votes probably on the other side to say ``We are 
not going to confirm you,'' but it is not right. It is not right. It is 
not fair to his family, it is not fair to him, and it is not fair to 
the people of this country to not have a confirmed

[[Page S2314]]

person in the position for which Adam Szubin has been nominated.
  I hope we can take a look at all of these nominees, break this 
logjam, and eventually get folks put in positions that are essential 
for American security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from 
California and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-
reported substitute to H.R. 2028 be withdrawn and that amendment No. 
3801 remain pending and be considered the committee-reported substitute 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. TOOMEY. 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.


                       Prescription Opioid Abuse

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about a huge 
problem that I am pretty sure is affecting every one of our States. It 
is certainly affecting my State in a very serious way, and the abuse of 
opioid painkillers often leads to the abuse of heroin, overdoses, and 
death. This is wreaking havoc all across Pennsylvania. It is affecting 
every geographic part of the State. It is in urban areas, suburban, and 
rural areas. It affects every demographic group and every age group. 
The scale of the problem is shocking. The increase in the number of 
people who are overdosing and becoming addicted is disturbing. I began 
hearing about this issue immediately when I became a Senator in 2011, 
and frankly this problem is getting worse.
  I recently became the chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on 
Health, and that has given me an opportunity to delve into this ever 
more deeply. We have had a series of hearings across Pennsylvania to 
get as much expertise as possible so we can learn about what is causing 
this and how we should deal with it. There are three areas that have 
come to my attention--three directions--that I think the Federal 
Government can pursue to help deal with this very complex and very 
widespread problem of opioid addiction. No. 1, we need to improve the 
access and quality of treatment for people who are addicted. There is 
no question that this is a very difficult disease to treat. There is so 
much we don't understand. We don't understand what predisposes someone 
to be more likely to develop an addiction. We don't understand the 
genetic implications. We know there are some behavioral issues, but we 
don't understand as much as we need to know about it. We do know there 
are often underlying mental health issues which contribute to this 
problem. Whatever these causes are, we need to learn more so we can 
treat and prevent them better, and we need to treat the people who 
currently find themselves in the very difficult situation of facing 
addiction. As I said, that is category No. 1.
  There is another thing we can do in the Federal Government. We need 
to take steps to reduce the diversion of these powerful prescription 
narcotics to the black markets. In fact, prescription opioids are 
available on the street for a price. There is a market for them, and 
they contribute to the addiction problem we have. They don't get there 
because a burglar broke in and stole them from a pharmacy. That is not 
the typical way these narcotics get to the street. They get there 
because someone prescribed it and a prescription was filled. We need to 
look at ways to reduce that phenomenon.
  I introduced legislation with Senator Casey, my Pennsylvania 
colleague, Senator Portman, Senator Brown, and Senator Kaine. That 
legislation is designed to reduce the frequency and occurrence of 
prescription opioids finding their way into the black market. Our bill 
provides Medicare with a tool that Medicaid and private insurers have 
long had, and that tool is called Lock-In. When an insurer--in the case 
of our legislation it would be Medicare--discovers that a patient is 
doctor shopping, which is systematically going to multiple doctors and 
getting multiple prescriptions for opioids, filling them at multiple 
pharmacies, and ending up with a commercial scale quantity, our 
legislation would allow Medicare to lock that patient into a single 
prescriber and single pharmacy. Any person with a legitimate need can 
get that need met, but we can put an end to some of these very large 
quantities reaching the black market.
  The good news is our legislation was offered as an amendment. Senator 
Casey and I offered it as an amendment to the CARA legislation a few 
weeks ago. It was adopted by the Senate, and of course the underlying 
CARA legislation was passed by the Senate. I am hoping the House will 
take this up, pass it, and get it to the President, and I am confident 
he will sign it. That would be a big step in the right direction.
  The third category of action that I think we need to consider are 
steps that would reduce overprescribing in the first place. One of the 
things I have learned from the many hearings I have had across 
Pennsylvania are doctors who have told and described to me a culture 
within medicine in recent decades which has put so much emphasis on 
eliminating all pain that doctors are tending to prescribe these 
opioids in far greater quantities than would have been imagined a 
couple of decades ago. That is an important piece.
  I have raised questions about whether it is appropriate to use 
opioids to treat long-term chronic pain as opposed to short-term acute 
pain. That is another area we ought to be raising questions with health 
care professionals so they can help us understand so we have an answer. 
There is yet another way I think we can address this in the Senate, and 
that is an unintended consequence of ObamaCare--a provision in 
ObamaCare that I think is encouraging doctors to overprescribe opioids 
in the hospital setting. That is what I want to talk about today.
  First, a little background on this. ObamaCare created a system that 
provides financial rewards to hospitals that perform well on certain 
outcomes, such as reducing readmissions and hospital-acquired 
infections, for instance. If they do badly in those areas, then they 
are penalized and get lower reimbursements. It is a financial set of 
incentives to get better outcomes. Those two examples I just mentioned, 
readmissions and hospital-acquired infections, are objective, 
measurable, quantifiable, and there is little doubt we want to see less 
of those things. You can argue that it makes sense to have financial 
incentives to deal with that.
  ObamaCare also links reimbursement for hospitals to a much more 
subjective outcome separate and apart from the ones I just mentioned; 
that is, patient satisfaction as defined by the government. 
Specifically, the Federal Government mandates that hospitals survey 
their patients about their stay at a hospital using a form known as the 
Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems, or 
HCAHPS. It is known as HCAHPS. That is the survey hospitals are 
required by ObamaCare to administer to their patients. Hospitals that 
have a higher score on this survey get more money and hospitals that 
have lower scores on this survey get less money. There is a roughly 
$500 million swing nationally across the country based on these 
personal patient satisfaction scores alone.
  It is not just that the government is saying these scores are 
important, the government is making it financially important to these 
hospitals. This raises a question, and the question is, Is the hospital 
score on some bureaucrat's test always in the patient's best interest? 
It is not clear to me that it always is. There is no doubt that 
hospitals, physicians, nurses, and health care providers generally want 
to have satisfied patients. We all do. We want to be a satisfied 
patient when we go to see a doctor or go to a hospital. It is obviously 
a good thing if a patient has as good an experience as possible, but it 
is specifically the survey questions on pain management per se that are 
raising a lot of red flags and not just with me but with health care 
professionals and those who have been studying it. There was a recent 
Time magazine article entitled ``How ObamaCare is Fueling America's 
Opioid Epidemic.''

[[Page S2315]]

This article is a lengthy investigation into the unintended but as I 
said predictable consequences of this ObamaCare-created HCHAP survey 
and specifically the questions in the survey that relate to pain 
management and the prescription of opioids.
  One of the questions from the study is: ``During this hospital stay, 
did you need medicine for pain?'' Second question: ``During this 
hospital stay, how often was your pain well controlled?'' Finally, 
during this hospital stay: ``How often did the hospital staff do 
everything they could to help you with your pain?''

  These are the questions that patients respond to, and they contribute 
to the overall score on the test. The score on the test determines, in 
part, the level at which the hospital is reimbursed by Medicare. There 
is a very powerful financial incentive for hospitals to make sure that 
patients are answering these questions in a way that will get the 
desired response from CMS--from Medicare. They are graded on these 
questions. So it is a big incentive. When you tie the measurement of 
these kinds of questions to reimbursement, you are very likely to get 
changes in behavior. In fact, that seems to be what is happening.
  I think we need to ask ourselves whether we are striking the 
appropriate balance here when 27,000 people are dying from heroin and 
prescription painkiller overdoses. Many of the people who are dying 
from heroin overdoses began with prescription opioids, and they moved 
on to heroin when they discovered that it was cheaper and more 
available than the prescription opioid that they got addicted to in the 
first place.
  So there is increasing evidence now that physicians and hospitals 
are, in fact, responding to these financial incentives, and they are 
responding by prescribing more opioids.
  Dr. Nick Sawyer, a health policy fellow at the UC Davis Department of 
Emergency Medicine told Time Magazine:

       The government is telling us we need to make sure a 
     patient's pain is under control. It's hard to make them happy 
     without a narcotic. This policy is leading to ongoing opioid 
     abuse.

  A survey by the South Carolina Medical Association found that almost 
half of over 150 doctors responding reported that they were prescribing 
inappropriate narcotic pain medication because of the patient 
satisfaction questions. One doctor wrote that drug seekers ``are well 
aware of the patient satisfaction scores and how they can use these 
threats and complaints to obtain narcotics.''
  Here are two examples from a story entitled ``Patient Satisfaction is 
Overrated,'' published by the Pennsylvania Academy of Family 
Physicians, about Press Ganey, a company that administers patient 
satisfaction surveys that often include these HCAHPS questions.
  One doctor reported that he had to give Dilaudid--and that is a 
powerful prescription opioid--for minor pain because his score on this 
test was too low in the previous month.
  An emergency room doctor with poor survey scores started offering 
hydrocodone goody bags to discharged patients to improve his ratings.
  Now, as I said, I have had multiple field hearings across 
Pennsylvania to hear firsthand from health care providers, recovering 
addicts, law enforcement--people who are dealing with this epidemic in 
a variety of ways. One of our witnesses in Pittsburgh last October was 
Dr. Jack Kabazie. He is the system director of Allegheny Health 
Network's Division of Pain Medicine. He testified: ``Physicians who 
have compensation or employment tied to patient satisfaction scores may 
feel pressured to prescribe opioids in response to patient pain 
complaints.''
  Another ER doctor told my office how his hospital administrator 
informed him that the ER patient satisfaction scores are in the 50th 
percentile--or average--and that he should find a way to get them 
higher or ``I'll find someone who can.''
  This is a big concern. There is a range of evidence that doctors and 
hospitals have been changing their prescribing habits in response to 
these pain questions.
  Now, let me be clear about one thing. None of us wants to see anyone 
needlessly suffer. None of us wants to themselves go through pain that 
is unnecessary. None of us want to see a loved one or anybody 
experiencing pain if it could be appropriately managed. For the 
terminally ill, of course, it makes sense to do everything possible to 
make those folks as comfortable as they can be in their final days. But 
what I am asking is this: Are we appropriately weighing the risks and 
the benefits here?
  Sure, there is a benefit to complete and immediate elimination of all 
pain that a powerful narcotic can temporarily provide, but we know that 
there is also a risk of addiction to that narcotic. That risk is very 
significant, and it has increased exponentially. That addiction is 
incredibly dangerous because it can spiral out of control and even lead 
to heroin abuse, addiction, and death.
  Have we gone too far in creating an expectation that the results for 
every patient must be zero pain? Or are there some circumstances in 
which it is better to treat pain as best we can with nonnarcotics--
other ways or other medicines? There are other treatments, including 
physical therapy. There are other ways to diminish pain. It may not be 
100 percent effective all the time, but if it is temporary and it has 
zero risk of opioid addiction, then maybe we ought to be considering 
that a little more frequently.
  So this is definitely a complicated issue. There are many factors 
contributing to the heroin epidemic, the opioid epidemic. But it is 
increasingly looking like one of the contributing factors at some level 
is the financial incentives created by this aspect of ObamaCare, this 
particular questionnaire that focuses significantly on complete 
elimination of pain. I think we need to ask ourselves whether this is 
appropriate.
  Last week, the group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing 
sent a petition signed by more than 60 nonprofit groups and medical 
experts--including Pennsylvania's Department of Health Secretary Karen 
Murphy--to CMS, calling for the removal of the pain questions from the 
HCAHPS survey. Now, that is one approach.
  Senator Johnson from Wisconsin has introduced a bipartisan bill that 
has a lot of merit. His bill is called the Promoting Responsible Opioid 
Prescribing Act. What his bill does is it removes the results of the 
pain questions from Medicare's calculations of reimbursement. So the 
questions would still be asked, and we would still learn about how 
patients feel about the extent to which their pain was managed. But it 
wouldn't affect the hospital's reimbursement. I think there is a lot of 
merit for that proposal. Again, it is because we are in the midst of a 
deadly crisis. It is killing people every day.
  The impact of opioid addiction and heroin addiction and overdose on a 
family is so devastating. I can only imagine the grief, but I know 
people who have been through the grief of losing a child, losing a 
loved one to this terrible scourge. That is why I am here on the Senate 
floor today. That is why I want to continue to focus on this.
  I think there are many things that we need to consider, but one of 
them is decoupling the results of these pain questions from the level 
of reimbursement, because the evidence is starting to mount that the 
financial tie is creating incentives to change behavior.
  So I hope we will, as a body, address this issue seriously, because 
there is a lot that needs to be done on this.
  I appreciate the recognition, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the faces and voices of the opioid and 
heroin epidemic are all around us. The victims and survivors are 
everywhere, in Connecticut and across the country.
  Just this past weekend, one of them perished. A young woman, Erikka 
Lyn Hughes, was found unconscious in her boyfriend's apartment, later 
dying from a heroin overdose. Erikka was only 21 years old. She had her 
whole life ahead of her, and her future was destroyed as a result of 
this epidemic.

[[Page S2316]]

Her family, bravely and strongly, has chosen to speak out and stand up 
in the midst of their shock and grief to say that they hope that 
Erikka's story will inspire action to combat this epidemic of overdose 
and addiction.
  Rampant opioid overdose and abuse and misuse in our country has 
reached epidemic proportions, and it shows no signs of slowing. In 
Connecticut, I have seen these stories firsthand. This public health 
hurricane has swept our State and our Nation, crashing down on the 
lives of families and innocent people, much as a natural disaster would 
destroy homes or landscapes, leaving a path of pain, heartbreak, and 
addiction in its wake.
  The numbers in Connecticut are as shocking as they are tragic. Last 
year in my State, a record number of people--nearly 700--died from 
opioid overdoses. Sadly, this number is abstract, but it reflects a 
disheartening trend that has led to a 75-percent increase in 
prescription drug overdoses in Connecticut since 2012. I have heard 
stories, seen faces, and heard voices firsthand in roundtables that I 
conducted around the State of Connecticut--nine in all--involving 
public health experts, doctors, specialists, public officials, law 
enforcement, and--maybe most movingly and profoundly--recovering 
addicts and their families.
  I heard from parents who have buried children far too young. I heard 
from first responders whose quick action saved lives using Narcan. I 
heard from doctors who understand that change is needed to prevent this 
disease from spreading further and from families and professionals from 
Torrington and Rocky Hill, Willimantic and Wethersfield, Bridgeport and 
New London, New Britain and New Haven--across our State--people who 
came forward to break the silence and defeat the denial that is one of 
our greatest enemies in this fight against opioid addiction and abuse.
  This problem knows no boundaries and no distinctions in income, race, 
religion, ZIP Code. It afflicts and affects everyone everywhere, and 
that is the beginning truth to solve the problem.
  I heard heartbreaking stories from a woman who lost both of her sons 
to addiction. The sobering conversations I had with her family and 
others, while not always easy, were absolutely crucial to my 
understanding how widespread and pervasive this problem is. What I 
heard from them and what I believe is necessary is a call to action. It 
is more than an effort to honor the legacy of Connecticut citizens who 
were lost last year--mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, and 
brothers--but to teach every one of us to reach those who are still 
fighting their own private battle against this disease.
  Make no mistake. It is a disease. It is every bit a disease--as much 
as any we have discussed on this floor--requiring research and action 
and urgent and drastic steps that we can and must provide because it is 
demeaning and reducing our Nation's fabric. It goes to the core of 
America.
  These conversations led me to do a report. I was inspired by the 
loved ones and families who have lost the most to do a call to action. 
It is called ``Opioid Addiction: A Call to Action,'' and it has 23 
specific and definite recommendations. Some require funding, but others 
are without fiscal impact. I hope to discuss them at length in a series 
of speeches on the floor and not to leave this issue at one talk, one 
speech, one remark, but to talk about it continuously, as we all should 
be doing in our communities, because, again, denial and silence are the 
enemies here.
  This report outlines 23 policy proposals focused on curing our 
Nation's addiction to opioids. The proposals are all grassroots, 
community-based solutions suggested by people who have firsthand 
knowledge. They are experts--maybe not in academic training, maybe 
without Ph.D.s and qualifications based on formal studies, but they 
know this pervasive problem. They have seen it firsthand, and they have 
observed the wreckage and destruction that opioid addiction causes. 
They cannot bring back the lives of their loved ones, but they are 
determined that others will be spared this hurricane's effects.
  These proposals, which touch on prescribing practices, adequate 
treatment, emergency medical response, law enforcement, and help for 
our veterans, have the common goal of ending this crisis. They are a 
response to the most pressing issues I heard throughout our 
conversations. While none is a panacea, none is a single bullet, all of 
them together are the beginning of a long process that must be 
undertaken toward curbing this epidemic.
  A place to start is with our prescribing practices, which is where 
misuse and abuse so often begin. Our Nation makes up 5 percent of the 
world's population; we use 80 percent of its opioid painkillers. In 
2012, doctors wrote 259 million prescriptions for painkillers, enough 
for every American adult to have a bottle of these controlled 
substances for themselves.
  Many of us have children. My wife Cynthia and I have four. Every one 
of them plays sports and every one of them has suffered sports 
injuries. Most of them could have availed themselves of these 
painkillers. We drew the line and said no. Other parents should be 
doing the same, but more importantly, the providers should be 
exercising greater discipline and self-restraint because every one of 
those bottles, even if prescribed for legitimate injuries such as 
broken bones, repaired LCLs, and other kinds of injuries, is 
potentially a risk.
  Just last week a couple in Connecticut was arrested for selling 
painkillers out of their home. For 2 years they collected 1,400 
powerful painkillers from their local pharmacy, abusing their own 
prescriptions in the process. In the pharmacy that got them arrested, 
the couple picked up 300 oxycodone and 140 oxymorphone tablets. This 
flagrant abuse of the system should not be possible in our State or any 
others.
  There are legitimate reasons for painkillers to be prescribed, 
especially in chronic pain or end-of-life situations. There is no need 
to deprive people of those painkillers when they need them for those 
inevitable reasons, but my call to action outlines steps to confront 
this issue where it can be addressed so as to minimize the risk of 
abuse or misuse or overuse, especially when young people such as our 
children are involved.
  It would mandate training for medical professionals to reduce opioid 
overprescribing. It would call for drug enforcement agency guidelines 
for partial fills of these prescription opioids, meaning fewer of these 
prescription drugs would make it onto our streets.
  Of course, reducing prescriptions can't be the only answer, 
particularly when so many who need care go without it. My report also 
seeks to improve treatment options, calling for meaningful mental 
health parity, implementation of the law requiring it, and much more 
vigorous and effective enforcement to ensure that people who need help 
actually receive it. This step includes access to medication-assisted 
therapy that can prove essential to the recovery process.
  We can do more to guarantee that Naloxone, a powerful antidote to 
heroin overdose, remains both affordable and successful. This means 
holding manufacturers accountable when they begin raising prices to 
astronomic levels. The prices have been skyrocketing. Local police and 
firefighters are often unable to afford it in their current budgets. It 
means also pushing for elimination of copays when it is prescribed at 
pharmacies. Insurance ought to cover it. It also means that the Federal 
Government must do its part and increase funding for Narcan so that 
cash-strapped first responders can actually afford it to save lives.
  Our law enforcement officials require both the training and resources 
needed to keep our streets safe and our communities healthy and drug-
free. That means funding to establish prescription drug monitoring 
programs--effective programs to facilitate training so that police 
officers can recognize when suspected criminals are actually people 
struggling with addiction and to assist drug take-back programs 
throughout our States and Nation that allow the return of unused 
prescription drugs.
  Finally, in my role as ranking member on the Senate Veterans Affairs 
Committee, I have encouraged the establishment of more consistent and 
safe VA prescribing practices and the creation of an integrated service 
model for mental health and pain management.
  I am pleased that the Senate raised this issue and addressed it and 
passed

[[Page S2317]]

the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act earlier this year, but 
that measure is a downpayment. It is only the beginning. I hope policy 
levels at all levels of government will draw on the strategies 
delineated in this legislation and in my report and elsewhere to combat 
the devastating epidemic of addiction and abuse.
  Passing new laws is not the only answer. Enforcement and 
implementation of existing ones is necessary too. The prime example is 
mental health care, where still, years after President Bush signed that 
measure in 2008, its implementation is inconsistent and inadequate, and 
enforcement of mental health parity remains an aspiration, not an 
action. Part of what we need to do is make sure that existing laws are 
implemented effectively and fairly and that the investment is made in 
commonsense, practical measures like the 23 recommendations I have 
outlined in this report--by no means an exclusive way to deal with this 
problem.
  I have no pride of authorship in these 23 recommendations. I would 
yield to wiser and better suggestions, but the point is that action is 
necessary. It is necessary now because every day we lose lives. Despite 
the best efforts of our first responders and our medical community, we 
continue to lose lives and futures, and our families continue the grief 
and heartbreak that I saw in my roundtables and that families in 
Connecticut feel today.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                              Puerto Rico

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I want to speak today about the fiscal 
crisis that faces Puerto Rico. In addition to some thoughts on what the 
island's own leaders need to do, I would like to commend the House 
leadership for their efforts to solve this problem with the recent bill 
they proposed. We need to take a close look at their proposed 
solutions, but they are right to tackle this problem head-on, and I 
look forward to offering more ideas as the debate reaches the Senate.
  Whenever I speak about Puerto Rico, I like to start by reminding 
people of a very basic fact: The people of Puerto Rico are American 
citizens and right now they are living in dire economic conditions. 
More than 3.5 million of our fellow Americans on the island are facing 
tremendous economic hardship, in large part because of irresponsible 
leadership from the government in San Juan.
  As we all know, Puerto Rico has a debt crisis of enormous 
proportions, and it has thrown off the stability of its economy from 
top to bottom. While some have suggested that Washington can deliver a 
silver-bullet solution to help Puerto Rico out of its debt, the reality 
is that nothing Washington does will be effective unless Puerto Rico's 
leaders turn away from decades of failed policies.
  The debt crisis goes hand in hand with a deeper problem: Puerto 
Rico's economy is not growing, and if the economy in Puerto Rico does 
not start growing, they will never generate the revenue necessary to 
pay their debt or the billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities they 
currently have on their books; in other words, the promised payments 
they have made to future generations that are completely unrealistic.
  Why is their economy not growing? The primary reason is decades of 
left-leaning policies that have made it too expensive to do business. 
Tax revenue is too high. Government regulations are stifling. The 
island is unattractive to investors. Their leadership has simply been 
irresponsible. This year alone, even with all the fiscal problems they 
are having, they barely reduced their budget from last year. In that 
sense, the problem in Puerto Rico is not unlike the problem we have 
here in Washington, DC. Puerto Rico's government is spending more than 
it takes in, and any time you spend more than you take in, you are 
going to have debt. No restructuring is going to solve that unless you 
restructure the way you spend money. Bankruptcy protection alone is not 
going to solve it either. Without reforms, if we grant bankruptcy 
protection by itself, Puerto Rico will simply be bankrupt again not far 
down the road.

  As a result of all of these problems, there is a massive exodus of 
professionals and others from Puerto Rico. They are leaving and heading 
to Florida and other places in the mainland United States. If we don't 
solve the problem on the island, we are going to continue seeing 
thousands of Puerto Ricans leave, which is going to further cripple the 
island's economy and reduce its revenue.
  The leadership in San Juan has to show its willingness to get their 
fiscal house in order. They need to accept that their decades of 
liberal policies have not succeeded and must now be traded in for pro-
growth policies. If they keep refusing to do this, our options in 
Washington will be more limited and we won't have support.
  To help Puerto Rico, first and foremost, we need to do the same 
things that are necessary to help the rest of the United States. We 
need pro-growth and pro-family tax reform at the Federal level. We also 
need to repeal and replace ObamaCare so we can end the disproportionate 
damage the Obama administration has inflicted on the island by raiding 
its Medicare Advantage funding and reducing reimbursement payments for 
Medicare, which have left patients with fewer health options and higher 
costs.
  Puerto Rican consumers need to be treated the same as other American 
consumers on the mainland.
  It may be that the best path forward for Puerto Rico would be at some 
point to include a limited opportunity to restructure its debt, but 
that will require a serious discussion first to ensure that the 
solution is responsible and fair to creditors as well. Any mechanism 
for debt restructuring must be a last resort. It must come after Puerto 
Rican leaders have shown seriousness, initiative, and courage in 
tackling the problem, and it cannot be seen as the silver bullet that 
leaves the creation of conditions for economic growth by the wayside. 
Otherwise, protection will only amount to a cosmetic solution that does 
nothing to deal with the underlying disease.
  In closing, the problem must be addressed for the sake of the people 
of Puerto Rico. While there is a significant amount of responsibility 
on the shoulders of the government on the island, we cannot ignore that 
crisis here either. We, too, have a responsibility to our follow 
Americans who live on the island of Puerto Rico to tackle this issue 
with the same urgency and the same attention we would if this fiscal 
crisis were confronting one of our 50 States.
  I hope we will take up this calling and act. I again congratulate the 
leadership in the House for trying to do something. We hope they will 
continue that work to arrive at something that can pass there. But I 
think it is important for us to take up the cause here as well.
  For over a century, Puerto Ricans have contributed to our economy, 
enriched our culture, and nobly sacrificed in our wars. Puerto Ricans 
are Americans. They deserve better than indifferent leadership in 
Washington and atrocious Big Government mismanagement in San Juan. 
Puerto Rico's leaders must answer the challenge, but by taking some of 
the steps outlined here, leaders in Washington can and must do their 
part as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Military Readiness

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last week a story appeared on FOX News 
that captured a glimpse of the real damage being done to our military 
by years of senseless budget cuts known to many of us here as 
sequestration. I don't think there are 100 Americans who know what the 
word ``sequestration'' means. What it means is senseless budget cuts 
that have emasculated our military and dramatically harmed our ability 
to defend this Nation. This poses a risk to the lives of the men and 
women who are serving our Nation in uniform.
  In a story entitled ``Budget cuts leaving Marine Corps aircraft 
grounded,'' senior marine officers warn FOX News that the ``[Marine] 
Corps' aviation service is being stretched to the breaking point.''
  I quote from the story:


[[Page S2318]]


  

       Today, the vast majority of Marine Corps aircraft can't 
     fly. . . . Out of 276 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters in the 
     Marine Corps inventory, only about 30 percent are ready to 
     fly. Similarly only 42 of 147 heavy-lift CH-53E Super 
     Stallion helicopters are airworthy.

  In short, Marine Corps aviation is in a crisis and being left 
grounded. What is the cause of this crisis? According to dozens of 
marines interviewed by FOX News:

       The reason behind the grounding of these aircraft includes 
     the toll of the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the fight 
     against ISIS, and budget cuts--

  For example, sequestration--

     precluding the purchase of the parts needed to fix an aging 
     fleet.

  The report goes on to say:

       U.S. military spending declined from $691 billion to $560 
     billion in 2015.
       So, as the world has become more dangerous, as conflict has 
     spread throughout the world, the cuts have taken place in an 
     unscheduled, unplanned, and unorchestrated operation.
       The cuts came just as the planes are returning from 15 
     years of war, suffering from overuse and extreme wear and 
     tear. . . . Lack of funds has forced the Marines to go 
     outside the normal supply chain to procure desperately needed 
     parts. Cannibalization, or taking parts from one multi-
     million dollar aircraft to get other multi-million dollar 
     aircraft airborne, has become the norm.

  One marine likened the difficult job of maintaining this aircraft to 
``taking a 1995 Cadillac and trying to make it a Ferrari.''
  This job is only more difficult because 30,000 marines have been cut 
from the force as a result of sequestration and its misguided budget 
cuts. As Maj. Michael Malone put it:

       We don't have enough Marines to do the added work 
     efficiently. We're making it a lot harder on the young 
     Marines who are fixing our aircraft.

  Lt. Col. Matthew Brown added that this burden ``is coming on the 
backs of our young Marines. . . . They are the ones who are working 20 
to 21 hours a day to get them ready to go on deployment.''
  The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert Neller said, ``we 
don't have enough airplanes that we could call `ready basic aircraft,' 
'' and that aviation readiness is his No. 1 concern. It is no wonder, 
because this readiness crisis is literally putting the lives of our 
marines at risk.
  Lt. Col. Harry Thomas commands a squadron of Marine Corps F/A-18s. He 
told FOX News that last year he deployed to the Pacific with 10 jets, 
but only 7 made it. His own jet caught on fire in Guam. Lieutenant 
Colonel Thomas was able to land the aircraft safely, but the incident 
nearly cost taxpayers $29 million and Lieutenant Colonel Thomas his 
life. Now his squadron is getting ready to deploy in 3 months, but only 
2 of his 14 Hornets can fly.
  The aircraft shortage also means training is suffering and our pilots 
could be losing their edge. As the FOX News report details:

       Ten years ago, Marine pilots averaged between 25 and 30 
     hours in the air each month. Today, in Lieutenant Colonel 
     Thomas's squadron, the average flight time per pilot over the 
     last month was just over 4 hours.''

  I assure my colleagues, you cannot maintain readiness and capability 
in a modern-day fighter aircraft flying 4 hours a month. It can't be 
done.
  Super Stallion helicopters have flown thousands of marines into 
combat over the past three decades, but these aging aircraft, filled 
with a tangled web of hundreds of wires and fuel lines, present a 
daunting challenge for young marines assigned to inspect each and every 
one. As the FOX News report explained, ``One failure can be 
catastrophic, as happened in 2014 when [a Navy version of the aircraft] 
crashed off the coast of Virginia after a fire engulfed the aircraft 
due to faulty fuel lines.''
  The bottom line is this: Years of budget cuts have left us with a 
Marine Corps that is too small and has too few aircraft. The aircraft 
it does have are too old and can barely fly and only by cannibalizing 
parts from other aircraft. Young marines are being asked to muddle 
through this crisis with shrinking resources, knowing that if they 
fail, their comrades flying and riding in those aircraft could pay a 
fatal price.
  The crisis in Marine Corps aviation would be shocking if it were not 
such a tragically common story throughout each of our military 
services. Arbitrary budget cuts and sequestration have shrunk the Army 
by nearly 100,000 soldiers since 2012, bringing the Army to a size that 
Army Chief of Staff GEN Mark Milley testified has put the Army at 
``high military risk.''
  These budget-driven reductions were decided before Russia's invasion 
of Ukraine and the rise of ISIL. As the force has shrunk, readiness has 
suffered. Just one-third of Army brigade combat teams are ready to 
deploy and operate decisively. Indeed, just 2--just 2--of the Army's 60 
brigade combat teams are at the highest level of combat readiness.
  To buy readiness today, as lackluster as it is, the Army is being 
forced to mortgage its future readiness and capability by reducing end 
strength and delaying modernization needed to meet future threats.
  The result of budget cuts, forced reductions, and declining readiness 
is clear: In an unforeseen contingency, General Milley testified this 
month before the Armed Services Committee that the Army ``risks not 
having ready forces available to provide flexible options to our 
national leadership . . . and most importantly, [risks] incurring 
significantly increased U.S. casualties.
  I repeat: ``significantly increased U.S. casualties.''
  Likewise, by any measure, the Navy's fleet of 272 ships is too small 
to address critical security challenges. Even with recent shipbuilding 
increases, the Navy will not achieve its requirement of 308 ships until 
2021. There is no plan to meet the bipartisan National Defense Panel's 
unanimous recommendation for a fleet of 325 to 346 ships.
  A shrinking fleet operating at high tempo has forced difficult 
tradeoffs. For example, the last five carrier strike group deployments 
have exceeded 8 months. Keeping sailors at sea for 8 months is damaging 
to morale and will sooner or later affect retention. It takes a toll on 
sailors, ships, and aircraft.
  Unable to continue years of deferred maintenance, the Navy is no 
longer able to provide constant carrier presence in the Middle East or 
the Western Pacific.
  The Air Force is the oldest and the smallest in its history. The 
combination of decades of relentless operational tempo and misguided 
reductions in defense spending in recent years has depleted readiness. 
Today, less than 50 percent of the Air Force's combat squadrons are 
ready for full-spectrum operations--well below the Air Force's stated 
requirement of 80 percent. The Air Force does not anticipate a return 
to full-spectrum readiness for another decade. In other words, after 
flying in uncontested skies over the Middle East for more than a 
quarter of a century, our Air Force is not ready for a high-end fight 
against a near-peer adversary.
  The truth is this: The ongoing war in Afghanistan, the rise of ISIL, 
Russia's aggression in Europe, and China's assertiveness in the Pacific 
have all increased the demands imposed upon our servicemembers and 
their families. But at the same time, the requirements of our military 
have continued to grow.
  For 5 years--5 years now--the Budget Control Act of 2011 has imposed 
caps on defense spending. Despite periodic relief from those caps, 
including the Bipartisan Budget Act passed last year, every one of our 
military services--the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and, yes, the 
Marine Corps--remains undersized, unready, and underfunded to meet 
current and future threats.
  Unfortunately, the President's defense budget request for the coming 
year does little to nothing to address this problem. Instead, it 
continues down the dangerous path of budgeting based not on what our 
military needs but on what arbitrary defense spending constraints 
allow. In order to strictly adhere to the defense spending floor in 
last year's Bipartisan Budget Act, the Department of Defense cut $17 
billion from what it said it needed last year.

  Does anybody believe the situation in the world has improved to the 
point where you can reduce by $17 billion from what we paid last year, 
what we spent last year? Those are billions of dollars of cuts for 
things our military needs right now: Army helicopters, Air Force 
fighters, Navy ships, Marine Corps fighting vehicles, and critical 
training and maintenance across the services.

[[Page S2319]]

  The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, 
described last year's budget as ``the lower ragged edge of manageable 
risk in our ability to execute the defense strategy.''
  One year later, the President of the United States has sent us a 
budget request that is less in real dollars than last year and $17 
billion less than what our military needed and planned for. The 
military service's unfunded requirements totaled nearly $23 billion for 
the coming fiscal year alone. Meanwhile, sequestration threatens to 
return in 2018, taking away another $100 billion from our military 
through 2021.
  I don't know what lies beneath ``the lower ragged edge of manageable 
risk,'' but this is what I fear it means; that our military is becoming 
less and less able to deter conflict. If, God forbid, deterrence does 
fail somewhere and we end up in conflict, our Nation will deploy young 
Americans into battle without sufficient training or equipment to fight 
a war that will take longer, be larger, cost more, and ultimately claim 
more young American lives than it would otherwise would have.
  If that comes to pass, who will be responsible, who is responsible 
for the military's readiness crisis? Who is to blame for the increasing 
risk to the lives of the men and women who volunteer to serve and 
defend our Nation? The answer is clear: We are--the White House, 
Congress, Democrats, and Republicans, every politician who designed, 
agreed to or went along with the Budget Control Act and the mindless 
mechanism of sequestration, and every politician who in the past 5 
years has failed to realize our mistake or, perhaps having realized it, 
failed to do anything and everything possible to fix it.
  What is worse is the two-faced hypocrisy of it all: Democrats who 
will say they favor more funding for our military but only if they get 
dollar-for-dollar increases for their pet domestic programs first and 
Republicans who say they favor a strong defense, but when it comes time 
to do the hard work of funding it, are nowhere to be found.
  For 5 years, we have been playing politics with funding that our 
military servicemembers need and deserve. For 5 years, we have been 
playing a rigged game, where the politicians win and our military 
loses.
  This must all end before it is too late. We cannot continue to avert 
our eyes and ignore the grave impact budget cuts are having on our 
military. The warning signs are clear: a marine aircraft that can't 
fly, pilots who can't train, and young marines trying to hold it all 
together by stealing parts from one aging airplane to give to another.
  The potential consequences are clear. Our Nation could soon find 
itself in a position where it must either abandon an important national 
interest or send young Americans into a conflict for which they are not 
prepared.
  This is the reality our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are 
facing. It is our urgent and solemn task to confront it. This Congress 
can begin to chart a better course, one that is worthy of the service 
and sacrifice of those who volunteer to put themselves in harm's way on 
our behalf.
  I am committed to doing everything I can as chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee to accomplish this task, and I will work with any of 
my colleagues to find a solution. Despite the odds, I am ever hopeful 
we can live up to our highest constitutional duty and moral 
responsibility to provide for the common defense.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator from 
Arizona for his comments.
  One of the advantages of having a full appropriations process is it 
puts the spotlight on the money we spend. I am asking to put this chart 
where the Senator from Arizona can see it.
  We will be debating 12 appropriations bills hopefully in the next few 
weeks. This is the first one. It is $37.5 billion. A little more than 
half of it is defense spending--our weapons, plutonium enrichment, and 
necessary things for our country--but all of the spending we are 
talking about in these 12 bills adds up to $1 trillion.
  The Federal spending for this year is $4 trillion. The money the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, was talking about is 
our defense money. It is down here on this blue line. It is in the 
trillion dollars. It is nearly half of that. As we look back since 
2008, this blue line has stayed level. Over the next 10 years it is 
projected to rise at about the level of the rate of inflation.
  At the same time, this line, which is the $3 trillion line--mandatory 
spending, entitlements, all that--is going up. After about 10 years, 
the end result will be that this will go from about 32 percent of our 
total spending to about 22 percent. What is that going to do to our 
defense spending?
  We have strong speeches made sometimes about let's get the spending 
under control, but on both sides of the aisle there is not a lot of 
courage shown when it comes to this red line because this is Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security, entitlements, and other benefits. It is 
squeezing out not only our national defense but our cancer research and 
the other things we need to do as a country.
  It is important over these next few weeks that we use this as an 
occasion on both sides of the aisle to recognize what we are doing with 
money. No one can say this is part of the budget problem. In fact, we 
have just heard an eloquent speech from the Senator from Arizona, who 
said we have not spent enough to defend ourselves in an unsafe world. 
Nobody is doing anything about this.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the interest on the national debt included in that red 
line?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The answer to the Senator from Arizona is, no, it is 
not. In fact, if it were, this line would be higher. So it is this line 
plus the interest on the debt.
  Mr. McCAIN. Obviously, it makes it much more compelling. Obviously, 
that all would be moved one way or another. Obviously, it is going to 
go up, but a return to inflation would dramatically increase that red 
line, would it not?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, it would.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  I have heard there might be an effort to commit our bill back to the 
committee in order to reduce spending to a lower level. If we do that, 
someone needs to say which division needs to lose troops, which country 
do we not want to defend, which airplane do we not want to fly, and 
which pilot do we not want to train.
  We are talking about real decisions, and we are talking about not 
setting priorities. I don't think most of the American people know that 
when we talk about the Federal debt, it is not national defense that is 
driving up the Federal debt. It is in the blue line. It is our 
unwillingness on both sides of the aisle to confront this.
  One statistic that I was reminded of by my colleague the Senator from 
Tennessee is an American family today--think of an average age couple, 
50 years of age, would pay about $140,000 into Medicare. They will get 
back about $430,000 in Medicare. We can understand how people who pay 
into Medicare would want to get their Medicare back, but we can also 
understand how that is not a sustainable program, and I think all of us 
as Americans can see that.
  One of the things I hope we do over the next several weeks is talk 
honestly about that problem. We are not solving that problem in this 
debate. We are talking about this $1 trillion. What are we going to do 
about the other $3 trillion that adds to our $19 trillion debt? Thank 
you.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, my amendment is pretty straightforward.

[[Page S2320]]

It eliminates duplicative and wasteful spending. It eliminates $200 
million from the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional 
Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern Border Regional 
Commission.
  These entities have a mission to provide ``strategic investments'' 
for economic development, broadband deployment, infrastructure 
improvements, and housing. You name it; there is funding for it. That 
is laudable, but there are already several Federal, State, and local 
programs that fund these types of projects.
  What is worse is that a quick look at some of the grants awarded from 
these entities show questionable choices: Should $100,000 be awarded to 
the Lake Placid Ski Club to build ski jumps? Should $125,000 be awarded 
for a Chinese medicine herb growers consortium? Should $250,000 be 
awarded to a tribe in Maine to build a maple processing facility--after 
it was awarded about $100,000 from USDA to launch maple syrup ventures? 
This is through the Federal Government. I don't believe so.
  I ask us to support my amendment and stop such duplicative and 
wasteful spending.
  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. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand that it is likely that we 
will shortly be considering Ernst amendment No. 3803, eliminating 
funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional 
Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern Border Regional 
Commission. I want to talk about the Appalachian Regional Commission. I 
know a little bit about this.
  The western part of my State, known as Mountain Maryland, is a 
beautiful part of Maryland. I visit there frequently. There are not a 
lot of people, and it is certainly a hearty life. It is not easy. It is 
not easy to attract business to the western rural part of Maryland. 
These people work hard, and they are preserving a way of life in an 
economy that is critically important to the State of Maryland.
  The Appalachian Regional Commission is absolutely essential for the 
economic growth of western Maryland. The Appalachian region is a region 
of a proud history, and we have given them a future. The Ernst 
amendment would take away one of the most important tools towards their 
future.
  Let me just mention a few things about the Appalachian Regional 
Commission and the projects they fund on an annual basis.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request so we can call the amendments up?
  Mr. CARDIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Maryland.


          Amendments Nos. 3802 and 3803 to Amendment No. 3801

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of 
Senator Feinstein and myself, that the following amendments be called 
up and reported by number: 3802, Schatz; and 3803, Ernst; further, that 
at 4:55 p.m. on Wednesday, April 20--today--the Senate vote in relation 
to the amendments in the order listed and that no second degree 
amendments be in order to either of the amendments prior to the votes, 
and that there be 2 minutes, equally divided, prior to each vote.
  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 Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for others, 
     proposes amendments numbered 3802 and 3803 to amendment No. 
     3801.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3802

 (Purpose: To modify funding for certain projects of the Department of 
                                Energy)

       On page 28, line 16, strike ``$292,669,000'' and insert 
     ``$325,000,000''.
       On page 46, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       (4) ``Energy Program--Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan 
     Guarantee Program'', $9,500,000.
       (5) ``Energy Program--Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy'', $20,600,000.
       (6) ``Energy Program--Nuclear Energy'', $231,000.
       (7) ``Energy Program--Strategic Petroleum Reserve'', 
     $150,000.
       (8) ``Energy Program--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale 
     Reserves'', $150,000.
       (9) ``Energy Program--Science'', $1,700,000.


                           amendment no. 3803

(Purpose: To eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, 
 the Delta Regional Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern 
                      Border Regional Commission)

       On page 53, strike lines 3 through 12.
       Beginning on page 53, strike line 20 and all that follows 
     through page 55, line 8.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for 
allowing me to interrupt his comments.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am glad to see we have the ability to 
vote on a couple of amendments. I am glad I was able to accommodate and 
yield the floor. If I might, let me continue.


                           Amendment No. 3803

  Now that the Ernst amendment is going to be voted on in a few 
moments, I urge my colleagues to reject that amendment. The Appalachian 
Regional Commission approves funding for more than 400 projects 
annually throughout this 13-State region.
  As I was saying, the western part of our State--in order for them to 
be able to have a viable economy, to have a valuable future, they need 
help on economic opportunities. They need help in improving health 
care.
  The Appalachian Regional Commission has helped the communities of 
Western Maryland improve health care. The ARC funding was used for the 
Garrett County Hospital telehealth initiative to enhance community 
health care.
  Just by happenstance, the CEO of Garrett County Hospital was in my 
office yesterday. That is a hospital located in Oakland, MD. For those 
who are not familiar with where Oakland, MD, is, it is on the border 
with West Virginia. It is not too far from Pennsylvania in the western 
part of Maryland.
  People who use the Garrett County Hospital come from West Virginia 
and they come from Maryland. It provides hospital service in a rural 
area that otherwise would not be there. But for the type of help they 
get through the Appalachian Regional Commission, it is difficult to see 
how they could perform the quality access to affordable health care 
that is absolutely essential for the economic growth of Mountain 
Maryland, for the Appalachian region.
  Appalachian Regional Commission funding was used for phase III of the 
last-mile wireless broadband network so that they could have high-speed 
broadband access in the western part of Maryland. I know the Presiding 
Officer and my colleagues know that if you don't have broadband, it is 
difficult to see how you can attract industry. The Appalachian Regional 
Commission has been critically important in making sure we can 
effectively provide high-speed access to the western part of our State.
  ARC grants have also been used to assess the impacts of energy 
production and consumption on our economy and the environment. ARC 
funding was used for the ``Garrett County Marcellus Shale Impact 
Study,'' which assessed the impact of hydraulic fracturing on the 
economy and environment of Western Maryland.
  ARC has been essential for the development in the Appalachian region. 
It has worked, and it is continuing to work. I urge my colleagues to 
make sure this tool continues for the benefit of the people in the 
Appalachian region--a commitment that we made.
  Lastly, let me remind my colleagues of what my friends who are 
actively engaged in the Appalachian Regional Commission in all of the 
13 States tell me. Since 1978, this program--every dollar that has been 
invested by the Appalachian Regional Commission has leveraged an 
average of $6.40 from the private sector. It leverages private sector 
investment in the Appalachian region, which is critically important to 
the economic growth of the Appalachian region. Otherwise, this is a 
tough area.
  If we are committed to economic growth in this country, I would urge

[[Page S2321]]

my colleagues to reject the Ernst amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the comments of the 
distinguished Senator from the State of Maryland. I must say that when 
I first came to the Senate, I looked at these perhaps with not as full 
an understanding of them as I have now. But I think the committee 
supports it, the bill supports it, and the Appropriations Committee 
supports it. I certainly agree with the Senator and support him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment for 3 
minutes, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I appreciate that.
  First of all, I don't think the Senate is going to adopt the Ernst 
amendment because we authorized--reauthorized this important ARC 
program just last year on a bipartisan basis in both the House and the 
Senate.
  I want to make this point: This is discretionary spending that is 
largely under control. This is discretionary spending. It is 2008 
projected out to 2026. As you can see, it hardly keeps up with 
inflation. We have a spending problem in this country, but it is 
mandatory programs--the red line--not this discretionary line from 
which comes the Appalachian Regional Commission. I want to make that 
point. This amendment is targeted at the wrong type of spending.
  What do we get out of ARC? My friend from Maryland is exactly right. 
We leverage private dollars for investments to create jobs. We build 
infrastructure that creates jobs and supports jobs. We have revolving 
loan programs that have created 50,000 jobs since 1977 and retained 
51,000 jobs.
  Let's attack spending. Let's get together and talk about Bowles-
Simpson and do what we need to do about the problem that has given us 
this $19 trillion debt. But for heaven's sake, we have a program that 
was reauthorized almost unanimously last year that helps people get a 
job and persuades private industry to contribute to that effort at a 6- 
or 7-to-1 ratio. We want to keep that type of investment to create jobs 
for our families.
  I will be voting against the Ernst amendment and urge my colleagues 
to do so.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 3802

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I wish to call up my amendment No. 3802.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I wish to thank the chair and the vice chair of the 
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for their great work, and 
especially their staff, who were instrumental in finding offsets to 
increase funding for a great, successful, bipartisan program, ARPA-E, 
which funds research at the cutting edge of clean energy.
  This amendment takes unspent money from prior years' appropriations 
for expired programs. This is an important point. CBO has confirmed 
that this amendment does not score. This amendment does not score. This 
amendment uses unspent balances to increase funding for ARPA-E.
  I again thank the chair and the vice chair for helping us to find 
some resources for this very successful program and for cosponsoring 
this amendment. I ask all of my colleagues for their support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Schatz. I 
support and cosponsored the Schatz amendment. He has identified a 
priority that Senator Feinstein and I already made a priority. It is 
one of the two parts of the Department of Energy that got any increase 
in the nondefense area--the Office of Science and this one.
  He has worked with us in committee. He has worked with us on the 
floor. He found an offset so that it is paid for. We are reducing other 
spending to increase this spending. This is called setting priorities 
in discretionary spending, which is under control. It is not the part 
of the budget that creates Federal debt.
  We should do more of this energy research, but we should do it by 
reducing other spending. I would suggest that reducing subsidies to 
wind power, oil, and gas would be a good way to start.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Schatz amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I heard what our chairman said. I 
thoroughly support him.
  I commend the Senator from Hawaii for seeing this and proposing this 
amendment. We recommend that it be adopted.
  Can we call the vote?
  We yield back any time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. We yield back any time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3802.
  Mr. SCHATZ. 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 Delaware (Mr. Carper), 
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Barrasso
     Burr
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Heller
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Carper
     Casey
     Cruz
     Sanders
  The amendment (No. 3802) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to make an announcement on 
behalf of Senator Feinstein and myself. This is important. This is 
scheduling.
  Senator Feinstein and I wish to thank all of the Senators on both 
sides--Senator McConnell, Senator Reid--for creating an environment in 
which we could get so much done. We have more than 80 Senators who have 
policy that is already a part of this bill. That has happened over the 
last few weeks. Several amendments have been adopted and accepted. We 
are voting on two this afternoon.
  Tomorrow, we expect to have two votes in the morning and one vote 
after lunch.
  We have a request of Senators. This doesn't always work, but we would 
like to get an agreement to have all of our amendments in by 1 o'clock 
tomorrow. If we can do that, we can finish the bill early next week. So 
if Members can ask their staff and legislative counsel to do that, we 
would like to do that by consensus as much as possible. That is the 
old-fashioned way of doing a bill. I would like to set a good example 
for the other 11 bills that are coming.
  So that is the schedule as we look forward. Senator Ernst has the 
remaining amendment, and there will be no further votes after her vote.

[[Page S2322]]

  



                           Amendment No. 3803

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3803, offered by 
the Senator from Iowa, Mrs. Ernst.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, my amendment is straightforward. I am 
asking for support on amendment No. 3803.
  I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3803.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  The Senator has 1 minute to debate the amendment.
  Mrs. ERNST. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The amendment is pretty straightforward. What we are doing is 
eliminating duplicative programs. Many programs exist out there already 
which will provide for housing needs, for infrastructure needs, many 
other needs. What we are doing is stating that we shouldn't be 
providing separate funds for very specific regions and duplicating 
processes that are found in the Federal Government.
  Just a few examples: $100,000 awarded to Lake Placid Ski Club to 
build ski jumps, $125,000 awarded for Chinese Medicine Herb Growers 
Consortium, and $250,000 awarded to a tribe in Maine to build a maple-
processing facility after it received $100,000 from the USDA to launch 
Maple Syrup Ventures.
  I don't believe this is activity the Federal Government should be 
engaged in. Again, these are duplicative programs. There are many other 
programs available out there. So I am asking for the support of my 
colleagues on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would certainly oppose this amendment. 
The regional commission is a joint Federal-State economic development 
effort that includes some of the most economically distressed counties 
of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and northern New York. For decades, 
these people have faced tough economic circumstances. These programs 
have helped.
  More importantly, every Federal dollar invested leverages, on 
average, 2.6 dollars in matching funds in return. New jobs are created. 
Thousands of jobs are retained. That is how we should be investing our 
Federal dollars.
  We invest in other countries around the world, and we ought to be 
investing them in our own country and support programs like the 
Northern Border Regional Commission and not eliminate them.
  I hope Senators will oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, as the manager of the bill, I was going 
to take that time. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes and to allow 
Senator Ernst 2 more minutes to make her point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The issue is spending. This is discretionary spending. This is an 
opportunity, as we consider these 12 bills, to consider where the 
spending problem is. This is discretionary spending. It includes 
defense, it includes cancer research, it includes roads, it includes 
locks and dams, and it includes the Appalachian Regional Commission, 
the Denali Commission, and other commissions that would be defunded by 
this amendment.
  This is not our spending problem. That is $1 trillion we are spending 
through these 12 bills. We are spending $3 trillion more through 
mandatory spending and interest on top of that.
  We have not been very brave on the Republican side of the aisle or 
the Democratic side of the aisle on the real spending problem. We have 
done pretty well on this.
  I have said to some of my colleagues that maybe the Senate should 
turn over to the Appropriations Committee the real spending problem and 
see if we can make the red spending line like the blue spending line 
because that is what we have done.
  So we have set a priority for projects like sewer improvement in 
Alabama and planning and development in Mississippi, automotive 
workforce in Georgia, rural dental in Kentucky. These are all 
priorities within spending that are under control.
  This is not under control. We can't fix that in these 12 weeks, but I 
hope we pay attention to this difference and sooner or later have the 
courage to deal with it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, again, this is $200 million. I would beg 
to differ that this is not a lot of spending, and $200 million is a lot 
of money for folks back in Iowa.
  Iowa does not have one of these funds. Many other States don't have 
these same types of funds. This is just an additional way for certain 
regions to tap into Federal dollars. So there are many programs. As I 
stated earlier. I have heard folks say this is about jobs. We have 
workforce investment programs that everyone across the Nation can dive 
into to provide opportunity for everyone. Everyone needs opportunity, 
so everyone should be able to tap into these Federal dollars.
  Mr. President, $200 million is a lot of Federal spending.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Casper), 
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), 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 25, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]

                                YEAS--25

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Thune
     Toomey

                                NAYS--71

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cotton
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Carper
     Casey
     Cruz
     Sanders
  The amendment (No. 3803) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                Amendment No. 3811 to Amendment No. 3801

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendment be called up and reported by number: Hoeven No. 
3811; further, that at 11:45 a.m. on Thursday, April 21, the Senate 
vote on that amendment and that it be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote 
threshold for adoption; and further, that no second-degree amendments 
be in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for Mr. Hoeven, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3811 to amendment No. 3801.

  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S2323]]

  


     (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds relating to a certain 
                              definition)

       At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:
       Sec. 5___.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of 
     Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or 
     enforce any change to the regulations and guidance in effect 
     on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definition of waters 
     under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including the provisions of the 
     rules dated November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating 
     to such jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated 
     January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, relating to such 
     jurisdiction.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senators for their cooperation 
today. As I indicated earlier, Senator Feinstein and I have been in 
touch with every Senate office over the last few weeks, asking for 
advice, policy, and amendments. Senators have been terrific in getting 
that to us. For example, there is Senator Schatz' amendment. He offered 
and withdrew it in committee. We worked with him and were able to adopt 
it once it came to the floor. That is typical of what has happened.
  I would judge that about 83 or 84 Senators have contributed policy to 
this bill. There are really not many more amendments that will be 
offered. But we will have this one amendment, at least, tomorrow 
morning at 11:45. Then, the last vote will be at about 2:00 p.m., 
tomorrow after lunch. There may be other votes before that.
  I would ask, as I did earlier, that Senators and their staffs get any 
other amendments that we do not know about to us by 1 o'clock tomorrow. 
Then, perhaps we can come to an agreement about how to proceed from 
there to the end of the bill, maybe even without the necessity of 
cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I wanted to reassure the Senate and thank 
Chairman Alexander for making sure that this legislation has $285 
million in it for advanced computing. It also includes the Kirk 
language to ensure that the United States is home to the No. 1 
supercomputer in the world.
  Today, China has the fastest computer in the world. It is called the 
Tianhe-2. It is clocked at 33.8 petaflops per second. Computers in the 
U.S. National Labs should soon topple China. It is a priority issue 
that I share with Chairman Alexander.
  The Titan computer, which is now at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 
Tennessee, is ranked at No. 2 in the world. At Argonne National 
Laboratory in Illinois, we are working on a computer to be upgraded 
which will soon be No. 1 in the world. It will clock in at 180 
petaflops per second. That is 18 times faster than the current computer 
that is at Argonne called Mira and three times faster than China's top 
computer today.
  With that, supercomputing is essential for American competitiveness 
in the future. I think it is essential that we pass this legislation to 
make sure that we are all No. 1 in supercomputing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for 
his advocacy of keeping America No. 1 in the world in supercomputers 
and exascale computing. He has a special knowledge of that because of 
his intimate knowledge of Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. I 
know something about it because of the work at the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory in Tennessee.
  The Obama administration has consistently funded exascale and 
supercomputing, and we have consistently supported that recommendation 
of funding. We have been able to do that for the last 4 or 5 years, 
Senator Feinstein and I. There has been no more vigorous advocate to 
cause our country to be No. 1 in supercomputing than Senator Kirk of 
Illinois. I thank him for his leadership and his contributions to this 
bill.

                          ____________________