[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 62 (Thursday, April 21, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2357-S2379]
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 Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2028, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative 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.

  Pending:

       Alexander/Feinstein amendment No. 3801, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Alexander amendment No. 3804 (to amendment No. 3801), to 
     modify provisions relating to Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     fees.
       Alexander (for Hoeven) amendment No. 3811 (to amendment No. 
     3801), to prohibit the use of funds relating to a certain 
     definition.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 3811

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand that shortly we are going to 
be voting on the Hoeven amendment. The Hoeven amendment would prevent 
the clean water rule from going into effect.
  In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act in response to what was 
happening around this country. We saw rivers literally catch on fire as 
a result of polluted waterways. We had Lake Erie, which was considered 
dead. The Chesapeake Bay was one of the world's first marine dead 
zones. That is nothing to be proud of. The environment and status of 
our water was a national disgrace, and through congressional 
leadership, we passed the Clean Water Act. We did that because we 
understood that the status of upstream water affects the status of 
downstream water--that we are all in this together. We understood that 
having clean water was a public health issue, from swimming in the 
water to the source of our drinking water supplies. One third of our 
drinking water supplies come from regulated waters.
  We also understood it was important for our economy. The status of 
tourism very much depended upon the quality of our water. Literally, 
people were concerned about going close to some of our inner harbor 
water areas. The Baltimore Inner Harbor is a tourist attraction, as are 
the inner harbors of many of our cities. It is important for our 
economy for agriculture. Agriculture depends upon clean water. We 
understood that when we passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. And we also 
understood it was a matter of quality of life for the people in our 
country. From those who hike and do bird watching to those who enjoy 
fishing and hunting, the status of clean water very much affects the 
way we enjoy life.
  As Senators from Maryland, Senator Mikulski and I both understand the 
importance of clean water for the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is 
a national treasure and the largest estuary in our hemisphere. It was 
at great risk because of waters coming in from other States into the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed, affecting the quality of water of the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  It was for all those reasons that we passed the 1972 Clean Water Act. 
We understood the enforcement of the waters that were regulated under 
the 1972 Clean Water Act. It was based upon best science.
  Science told us what we needed to do in order to have clean water--
clean water for our environment, clean water for safe drinking water--
and it was well understood until a Supreme Court decision. That 
decision in 2006, known as the Rapanos decision, was a 5-to-4 decision 
of the Supreme Court, which remanded the case, but it was a 4-to-4 
decision on the merits of the case. Since that time, there has been 
uncertainty as to what bodies of water can be regulated under the Clean 
Water Act. So this was a situation caused by the ambiguity of the 
Supreme Court case. It is interesting that the decision on the merits 
was 4-to-4, as we are now debating whether we are going to have a full 
Supreme Court in order to make decisions that affect the clarity of law 
in this country.
  The Rapanos decision sent back to the lower courts a decision on how 
to decide this. Since that time, there has been uncertainty as to what 
bodies are legally regulated under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Remember, 
this was 2006. The easiest way to resolve this was for Congress to pass 
a law clarifying the Clean Water Act, but Congress has chosen not to do 
that. So the Obama administration has done what it should do, using its 
power to promulgate a regulation that would provide clarity as to which 
bodies of water are regulated. Guess what. They have done that in a way 
that is consistent with how the law was enforced prior to the Rapanos 
decision--without much complaint before the Rapanos decision. It 
basically goes back to best science and tells us logically what needs 
to be regulated. That is what this rule would do: Protect our clean 
water.
  There is a lot of misinformation that has been given about the clean 
water rule. Quite frankly, normal farming activities don't require any 
permits under the Clean Water Act. If we listen to some of the 
arguments against the Clean Water Act, we would have a hard time 
comparing that to what, in fact, is in the bill.
  The Clean Water Act would reestablish the well-thought regulatory 
framework for protecting our clean water so that we don't return to the 
days of jeopardizing the Chesapeake Bay or jeopardizing our rivers or 
jeopardizing our clean water supplies or our environment.
  Tomorrow is Earth Day. Forty-six years ago, our colleague Senator 
Gaylord Nelson established Earth Day. What will this Congress's legacy 
be? What will we be remembered for in regards to protecting this 
planet, protecting our country, and protecting our environment for 
future generations? I

[[Page S2358]]

hope we will work together to build on the proud accomplishments of our 
predecessors for clean air and clean water. The first thing we can do 
is to make sure we reject the Hoeven amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of 
the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I am pleased to see Senators 
Alexander and Feinstein working to put together a good, bipartisan bill 
with no ideological or partisan policy riders.
  They remind us of the way that we should be doing business here in 
the Senate. This legislation provides increased funding for 
infrastructure across the Nation and in my home State of Illinois, and 
I was proud to support it in the Appropriations Committee.
  The bill provides strong funding for the National Labs through the 
Department of Energy, including critical research programs at Fermi 
National Accelerator Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory in 
Illinois. These labs are supporting thousands of scientists from across 
the country and around the world as they perform pioneering research 
and transform technologies for science and industry. Lab facilities in 
Illinois perform cutting-edge research and are a bright example of 
American innovation.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill would invest $6 billion in 
the Army Corps of Engineers, which will help support important 
investments in Illinois infrastructure. Waterways in Illinois, 
including the Mississippi River, are critical to commerce around the 
country. They provide access for shipped goods, connecting the Great 
Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico. The Army Corps also plays an important 
role in flood control projects, something we saw firsthand in Illinois 
and across the Mississippi valley area after flooding this past winter.
  But there is always more work to be done. According to the American 
Society of Civil Engineers, America scores a D-minus in investment in 
levees and inland waterways, and a D in investment in dams. This bill 
is a good start to making the critical investments we need in American 
infrastructure.
  So I am not sure why, after Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein 
pulled together such a strong bipartisan bill, Republicans would want 
to try to add a poison pill rider preventing an EPA rule that keeps our 
water clean.
  Many economists and military leaders tell us that water will be to 
the 21st century what oil was to the 20th century. Water is going to be 
that indispensable commodity that makes progress possible; an essential 
commodity over which wars will be fought. The United States has more 
clean water today than any other nation on the planet, and it is 
because of the Great Lakes. Why would we knowingly, deliberately, spoil 
this precious commodity that is a source of conflict between other 
nations?
  We can't afford to stop making a real difference in our clean water 
supply, and let me tell you why.
  The EPA and Army Corps clean water rule provides stronger water 
quality standards to protect our Nation's streams, wetlands, and 
navigable water. These are all resources that we rely heavily on for 
drinking water and recreation. And one in three Americans, or 117 
million people, get drinking water from sources that were vulnerable to 
pollution before the clean water rule. Now, more than ever, we must 
work to ensure our water is safe.
  We know what can happen when our water supply isn't protected. The 
Flint, MI, water contamination crisis and high lead levels in the water 
supply in other communities across the country and in Illinois are 
reminders of this. But it is not just lead that we have to worry about. 
Pollutants from factories and sewage treatment plants; waste from 
confined animal feeding operations; pesticides used on crops; and 
mining wastewater all flow into tributaries that eventually flow into 
the Great Lakes, the source of clean water for 35 million people.
  Attempts to roll back the clean water rule will not only return us to 
a patchwork of water protections that make it difficult for businesses, 
farmers, and others to know whether waterways are covered by the law. 
It will also risk one of our greatest commodities that supports 
agriculture, recreation, tourism, and energy production.
  To see the impacts of rolling back these protections, we need to look 
no further than the Gulf of Mexico, which has one of the largest dead 
zones in the world. Let me tell you what a dead zone is: Dead zones are 
the result of an overabundance of algae growth, which eventually 
decompose and steal oxygen from the water, making it hard for anything 
to live. Nutrient runoff from 12 States along the Mississippi River 
trickles down into the Gulf of Mexico.
  Last year, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico reached 6,474 square 
miles, roughly the size of the State of Connecticut. The State of 
Illinois was one of the largest contributors to this nutrient overload, 
a combination of runoff from our farm fields and point source pollution 
such as wastewater plants. We need to reduce this nutrient runoff while 
protecting our agriculture economy in Illinois. The clean water rule 
does exactly that by exempting agricultural activities from its 
provisions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against any ideological poison pill 
amendment that would prevent clean water appropriations from moving 
forward to protect our children, our communities, and our economy.
  Without ideological riders like the clean water rule amendment, the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill is a bipartisan effort that proves 
we can make smart investments that make the most sense for our 
country--right now and as we plan for our future. The current lead 
crisis has shown that we need to get serious about investing in 
infrastructure programs and support regulations to ensure that every 
American--especially children--has access to safe, clean drinking 
water.
  Now is the time for Congress to act responsibly to develop a budget 
that enables our country to thrive.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Indiana.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this is No. 40 of ``Waste of the Week.'' 
For the 40 weeks the Senate has been in session this cycle, I have come 
down to the Floor to talk about a waste of taxpayers' dollars through 
waste, fraud, and abuse. This week I am going to talk about yet another 
Federal program which has, at best, a questionable track record.
  I filed an amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill 
currently in the Senate, which is related to this program, and 
hopefully we will be voting on the amendment I will be offering in a 
few moments to address this issue. This amendment, which I offered with 
Senators Fischer, Toomey, and Flake, would finally wind down the 
Department of Energy's failed Advanced Technology Vehicles 
Manufacturing Loan Program.
  Remember the stimulus? Remember how we were throwing all kinds of 
taxpayers' money out there? We talked about advanced vehicle programs, 
and many of these distributions of funds have been misused or simply 
have not come to fruition, and a great deal of money has been wasted.
  The ATVM Loan Program continues to sit on billions of dollars of 
unused funds that could be put to better use. I am glad there are some 
unused funds there because it means that when we look at the history of 
this program, perhaps we will have an opportunity to better use those 
unused funds or to help return it back to the Treasury so the taxpayer 
isn't on the hook for this kind of thing going forward.
  Let me explain this program. The Department of Energy's Advanced 
Vehicle Technology Manufacturing Loan Program was created in 2007. It 
was created to provide very low-interest loans to manufacturers that 
make vehicles or components of vehicles that use alternative energy.
  I am not here to downplay the use of alternative energy. I think that 
is something that is happening throughout our country. Hopefully, it is 
on a market basis. To qualify for this loan, there were a couple of 
requirements applicants must meet: No. 1, the vehicle or component must 
be new or significantly improved from what is currently available in 
the U.S. marketplace; No. 2, it has to be manufactured in the United 
States. The purpose of the program, partly, was to encourage 
manufacturing here--not in China, not somewhere else.

[[Page S2359]]

  Last month, nearly 10 years since the program's inception, the 
Government Accountability Office took a look at the program's finances 
and found that the Department of Energy has billions of unused and 
unspent funds. I am glad they do because a lot of things that have 
taken place under this program have not proven to be worth their 
weight.
  I have spoken before on a number of programs, but in 2011, under this 
fund--the Alternative Vehicle Fund--the Obama administration approved a 
$730 million loan to a company called Severstal Steel Company, a 
Russian-owned company with operations in Michigan.
  Remember, to qualify for this loan, the alternative fuel vehicle or 
vehicle part needs to be manufactured in the United States and--here is 
the key--it must be a new product. Technically, Severstal was 
manufacturing in the United States, but the Obama administration 
certainly walked the line in this case. The U.S. Government was 
providing American taxpayer dollars to a Russian company owned by one 
of Russia's richest oligarchs, Alexei Mordashov.
  The New York Times has reported that Mr. Mordashov has ties to the 
Kremlin and to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Apparently, this 
Russian looked at this program and said: Hey, here is a way I can get a 
low-cost, low-interest loan. All I have to do is operate this plant and 
the government will loan me $750 million and I will produce a new part, 
a new component of steel that is used in automobile manufacturing.
  After working with the Department of Energy's inspector general, 
Senator Toomey and I learned that the type of steel made by this 
Russian company was identical to the steel already being produced in my 
home State of Indiana and Senator Toomey's home State of Pennsylvania. 
Obviously, that violated one of the basic criteria in that the product 
has to be an alternative that is brand new or significantly improved 
and not something that is already being produced in Indiana.
  Fortunately, with the help of the inspector general, we were able to 
ensure the Obama administration voided the loan. To their credit, when 
we brought it to their attention, they said: OK. We have a Russian 
oligarch we are giving money to--and that doesn't sound very good. We 
are giving money to this multibillionaire in Russia with close ties to 
Vladimir Putin. Secondly, we now have learned what they are producing 
is already produced in the United States--in my State of Indiana and in 
Senator Toomey's State of Pennsylvania. Thus, fortunately, the 
administration canceled this loan.
  This example calls into question the integrity of this program. The 
ATVM Program also has a lackluster success rate. For example, Fisker 
Automotive received a $529 million loan to produce a $100,000 plug-in 
hybrid sports car. You will not see any of these on the road because 
the company went bankrupt after drawing down $193 million of taxpayer 
funds.
  Another loan recipient, VPG, planned to sell natural gas-powered 
vans. It went bankrupt after receiving a $50 million government loan.
  Of the five projects funded by this program to date, two of them have 
gone bankrupt. I think these examples demonstrate what happens when the 
government tries to pick winners and losers instead of letting the free 
market determine how we are going to go forward.
  The Coats-Fischer-Flake-Toomey amendment that will be offered would 
wind down this program and it would make much better use of the unspent 
funds from this program.
  I want to be clear. This amendment prohibits DOE from reviewing any 
new loan applications after the bill's enactment. There are currently 
some pending applications. We do not address those pending 
applications. I hope serious evaluation will be made relative to 
whether they qualify under the criteria that is laid out and we will 
not end up with any more Severstals.
  Those who argue that this shuts down an alternative energy program is 
not valid. Anything that is now being currently evaluated up through 
the end of 2020, the next 5 years--will be allowed to go forward and be 
evaluated under the program. The amendment doesn't take that away.
  CBO scored this amendment as saving at least $300 million over the 
next 10 years. I have been down here every week talking about a waste 
of the week. I have just identified another waste of taxpayer dollars. 
We are not counting that, but we are counting what we can save if this 
amendment is adopted. It is $300 million. I think that is a significant 
amount it raises our waste, fraud, and abuse level to $162 billion and 
change.
  I encourage my colleagues to work with us so we can offer this 
amendment. Remember, it does not affect anybody who has a proposal 
before the Department of Energy under this loan program. If that is 
underway, it can be evaluated--hopefully successfully evaluated, and if 
it doesn't qualify the criteria, won't be accepted. The amendment does 
not free funds for anything that is not currently before the evaluators 
of this program.
  I trust we can gain the support of my colleagues in saving the 
taxpayers some dollars.
  With that, 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3811

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are going to vote on the Hoeven 
amendment shortly. I rise to speak against that amendment, which would 
undermine one of our Nation's landmark environmental laws, the Clean 
Water Act. It is very difficult for me to understand how we could be at 
this point in time attacking a clean water rule--a clean water rule in 
light of what has happened in Flint, MI. This is what the water looked 
like as it came out of the tap in Flint at the height of the crisis. By 
the way, people were told this was safe. Why on Earth would we be going 
against the clean water rule at a time when we are fighting against 
this kind of problem?
  This is what the pipes looked like in Flint: the corrosion, the 
obvious problems with lead. This was all getting right into the 
drinking water. While we look for ways to help the people of Flint--and 
I would love do it on this bill. If we can't do it on this bill, I 
would love do it on the WRDA bill. If we can't do it on the WRDA bill, 
I will do it on any bill. We need to take care of what happened there, 
and we also need to help other communities from the east coast to the 
middle of our Nation, to the west coast and help us help our families.
  Here we have in the face of Flint an attack on the clean water rule. 
Let's see what else we have to say and what else we learned about what 
happened in Flint. Pregnant women, kids cautioned over Jackson water. 
This is in Mississippi. Jackson, MS, also has a problem with lead. What 
is our response to that today? To stop a clean water rule. What are my 
Republican friends thinking? It doesn't make sense.
  The Associated Press wrote this: ``Elevated lead levels found in 
Newark schools' drinking water.''
  Here we are talking about elevated levels of lead in Newark. We have 
places in California where the kids can't drink the water out of a 
water fountain. So what is the response of the Republican Senate? Turn 
back a clean water rule. It makes absolutely no sense.
  What we have going on, on the Senate floor, is a very heated debate, 
as I speak, about how to handle the issue in Flint. Let me tell you 
this. The first thing to do in the light of Flint is not to weaken 
environmental law, is not to stop a clean water rule. It is completely 
ridiculous.
  My friends will say: All we are doing is delaying implementation for 
a year while the court looks at it. We shouldn't be doing anything that 
plays into the hands of those special interests that simply don't want 
to clean up the water in our Nation. The clean water standards that are 
a target of this amendment are designed to safeguard drinking water for 
America's families and businesses.
  This dangerous amendment rolls back protections of small streams and 
wetlands that provide drinking water to one in three Americans. That is 
117 million people put at risk because this U.S. Senate, run by the 
Republicans,

[[Page S2360]]

thinks the best thing to do in the light of Flint is to roll back the 
Clean Water Act. Come on. Get a life. Read the paper. Look at what 
happened to those people. This is the time to provide reliable drinking 
water to all Americans and to clean up our waterways. Now is not the 
time--and it should not be the time--to attack the Clean Water Act, 
which is vital to the health and safety of our families.

  I want to mention that I have received opposition to the Hoeven 
amendment from numerous sportsmen's groups, including Backcountry 
Hunters and Anglers, International Federation of Fly Fishers, National 
Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and 
Trout Unlimited. These groups understand the important link between 
clean water and the outdoor recreation economy. When you go right after 
the clean water rule, you are going after the people who enjoy outdoor 
recreation, and they are against the Hoeven amendment.
  Leading environmental and conservation groups oppose the amendment, 
including American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, 
Earthworks, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, League of 
Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Prairie Rivers 
Network, Sierra Club, and Southern Environmental Law Center. These are 
some of the most popular groups in the country.
  Does anyone know what the rating of this Republican Congress was in 
the last polls I saw? It was 14 percent.
  Do you know what the rating of the President was in the last poll I 
saw? Over 50.
  So what does the Republican Senate do today? They are going after the 
President with their 14-percent rating in the polls. I say to my 
friends on the other side--and believe me, they are my friends: What 
are you doing? How do you expect people to support you when you, after 
seeing what happened in Flint, continue to go after landmark 
environmental clean water laws like you are doing today?
  In addition, public health groups, including the American Public 
Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for 
America's Health, have opposed similar legislation to block this 
important rule, and 200,000 businesses represented by the American 
Sustainable Business Council have called on Senators to oppose efforts 
to block the clean water rule. These experts understand the importance 
of the clean water rule, and they know that our drinking water remains 
vulnerable to pollution.
  Just last month, EPA released a report showing that nearly half of 
U.S. waterways are in poor condition. In fact, one in four waterways 
have levels of bacteria that fail to meet human health standards, and 
our children go swimming in these very waterways. We have cities across 
the United States with sewer systems that discharge raw, untreated 
sewage in waterways--again, where our children swim. It is a disgrace. 
Despite enormous successes since passage of the Clean Water Act, we 
have more work to do. Nothing is more important than protecting the 
lives of the American people, whether it is through our military or 
through our public health laws. When we weaken the Clean Water Act, as 
the Hoeven amendment will do, we put our families and our children at 
risk. Why are we here?
  Flint has put a spotlight on the need to keep our families safe from 
toxins and pollutants in their drinking water. The first thing the 
Republicans do in light of Flint is to try to roll back the clean water 
rule.
  I have to say that one of my deepest regrets--and I have written 
about it--is how partisan this place has become over environmental 
laws. When I started a long time ago, Republicans were the ones leading 
the way on the environment. I remember there was a Republican State 
senator named Peter Behr, whom I supported because he understood how 
critical it was to protect and defend the environment, not only as a 
legacy to our children in terms of the beauty of our planet but also 
for the very health and safety of our families.
  I have been in office for 40 years. It is hard to believe that it has 
been 40 years. I guess time flies when you like your work. The fact is 
that no one has ever come up to me and said: Barbara, our water and air 
is too pure and way too clean. You need to do something about that. You 
need to dirty it up. Repeal the landmark laws, Barbara, that protect 
our water.
  They don't do that. They come up and say: We are worried about the 
fact that we are not sure what contaminants are in our water.
  I see my good friend is going to close out the debate, and I promised 
him that when he came to the floor, he wouldn't have to listen too 
long.
  I say again: Please vote against the Hoeven amendment. This is not 
smart legislation in light of what we face.
  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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor to the good Senator 
from Michigan for a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wanted to make a quick statement about 
an amendment that will come up for consideration on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, of course I support my friend from 
Michigan, but we need to quickly move to a vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wanted to quickly take a moment to 
speak about the vehicle program from two sides. When I authored this 
legislation back in 2007, we began to see fuel economy standards 
increase in the United States. Part of our focus at that time was to 
keep jobs in America and make sure we had low-cost financing available 
for companies, such as retool plants, so that smaller, fuel-efficient 
vehicles would be made in the United States rather than have those jobs 
shipped overseas. We saw that with the initial loan made to Ford Motor 
Company. They were able to bring jobs back from Mexico and also focus 
on electric vehicles.
  As we fast forward to today, we are looking at fuel economy for 
trucks and larger vehicles. A loan was recently made to Alcoa. They are 
focused on aluminum materials so companies can make lighter weight 
trucks in order to meet new fuel economy standards. There are 
positives, but there are also areas under this loan program that have 
not been successful.
  I come to the floor to specifically say that when it is time to 
consider the Coats amendment, which will completely eliminate this 
program, my colleagues need to know that we are undercutting a 
carefully crafted bipartisan compromise with Senator Inhofe, Senator 
Portman, and others to move forward on a water infrastructure plan to 
deal with lead in water that will not only help 100,000 people in the 
city of Flint, but it will also help people in Jackson, MS, Cleveland, 
OH, and other States across the country.
  Our proposal responsibly phases out this program and uses the funds 
for critical water infrastructure needs. We strongly oppose pulling the 
rug out from under not only Flint but also Jackson, MS, Cleveland, OH, 
and communities across the country that are counting on us to come 
together and pass what we have done in a bipartisan way to address 
critical water infrastructure needs and deal with the lead poisoning 
issues.
  I ask colleagues to vote no on the Coats amendment and allow us to 
phase out this program in a way so that we will be able to use this 
investment in a critical way to address water infrastructure needs 
across the country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am willing to yield to the junior 
Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Michigan, 
Senator Stabenow. We urge our colleagues

[[Page S2361]]

to vote no on the Coats amendment. This is part of a very carefully 
crafted amendment to deal with water infrastructure around the country, 
and in particular Flint.
  I think this will be a win-win for those folks who may want to see 
this program go away. We have a plan to do that while also dealing with 
an incredibly important issue not only for our State but that is also 
incredibly important to other States across the country.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I thank the Senator for yielding the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 3811

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to 
support an amendment I offered, amendment No. 3811, that prevents the 
EPA and the Corps of Engineers from implementing its waters of the 
United States final rule. The language for my amendment is actually 
identical to the waters of the United States provision in the 
underlying bill. It is already in the bill, H.R. 2028, which we are 
considering right now. My amendment will make sure that this waters of 
the United States provision stays in the bill and that our bill is 
consistent with legislation supported by the House.
  It is critical to preserve the prohibition on implementing the waters 
of the United States because this rule will greatly expand the scope of 
EPA regulations over nearly every water in the United States, 
threatening farmers and job creators with permitting requirements and 
litigation that will make it more difficult for them to produce our 
Nation's food and complete needed construction projects.
  Moreover, this regulatory overreach by the Army Corps of Engineers 
and the EPA is inconsistent with the law. Let's look at what the courts 
are saying. When granting a preliminary injunction against this rule, 
the North Dakota Federal District Court stated:

       The Rule allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear 
     any effect on the ``chemical, physical and biological 
     integrity'' of any navigable-in-fact water.

  It went on further to state:

       The rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote 
     and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how 
     these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to 
     navigable-in-fact water.

  That is the key. EPA has jurisdiction over navigable bodies of water, 
not ephemeral water that might be in a ditch today and gone tomorrow.
  Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nationwide 
stay of the rule, in Cincinnati, citing that EPA and the Corps of 
Engineers did not identify ``specific scientific support substantiating 
the reasonableness of the bright-line standards they ultimately 
chose.''
  To get a sense of the size of the Federal power grab we are talking 
about here, consider that under the administration's final rule, all 
water located within 4,000 feet of any other water or within the 100-
year floodplain is considered a water of the United States as long as 
the EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers decides that it has 
``significant nexus.'' That is the argument the EPA is making--
``significant nexus.'' They are saying: Well, we can regulate navigable 
bodies of water. They just decided, without statutory authority 
provided by this Congress or any other authority, that because other 
waters run into navigable bodies, they can regulate all water, and they 
have issued a regulation to do that.
  The waters of the United States is clearly flawed from a legal 
perspective, but it is even more important to take a look at how this 
rule, if implemented, affects hard-working Americans with excessive 
regulations. For those of you who haven't had the opportunity to visit 
with a farmer from my State or any farmers across this country, do so. 
They will tell you how difficult it is to deal with excess water on 
their property, particularly when they face an overbearing regulation 
like this one. Those farmers can tell you that just because there is 
water in a ditch or field one week doesn't mean that there will be 
water there next week. It certainly doesn't make the water worthy of 
being treated the same as a river, a lake, or a navigable body of 
water. A field with a low spot that has standing water----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask that the Members of this body not 
only consider the underlying issue and the impact it will have on 
farmers and ranchers. It will also affect everybody's private property 
rights. I also ask my colleagues to consider their own prerogative. 
Under our Constitution we have legislative, judicial, and executive 
branches, and each has its own authority. We have to stand up on this 
one when an agency overreaches and takes statutory authority we have 
not provided.

  I ask that Members join with me in support of this vitally important 
amendment.
  With that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
locking in the votes, the Senator from California have an opportunity 
to speak and then that we move to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to call up the following amendments: Franken amendment No. 3833, 
Coats amendment No. 3814, and Murray amendment No. 3813; further, that 
following the disposition of the Hoeven amendment No. 3811, the Senate 
vote on the Coats amendment No. 3814, with a 60-affirmative-vote 
threshold for adoption of the amendment; and that at 1:45 p.m. today, 
the Senate vote on the Franken amendment No. 3833; finally, that at 
5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 25, the Senate vote on the Murray amendment 
No. 3813, with no second-degree amendments in order to any of the 
amendments prior to the votes, and that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to each vote.
  May I say before the Senator from California speaks, I see the 
Senators from Michigan are here and the Senator from Indiana. I wish to 
thank the three of them for working with Senator Feinstein and me 
toward the goal of making sure that Senators who have a germane 
amendment have the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote. If we are 
able to follow that practice generally, we will be able to have an 
appropriations process and the Senate will function well. They all 
responded quickly and promptly on issues they feel very strongly about, 
and I thank them for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 3811

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words.
  The junior Senator from California has been speaking in opposition to 
the waters of the United States amendment sponsored by Senator Hoeven. 
I just want to put before the body a little bit of the history.
  In 2006 the Supreme Court introduced real uncertainty regarding which 
wetlands and water bodies were subject to Federal jurisdiction under 
the Clean Water Act. Since 2006 the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers have been working on new rules to clarify their jurisdiction 
and address the Supreme Court's ruling.
  EPA and the Army Corps just finalized the new rule last May. This new 
rule helps resolve almost a decade of confusion by clearly stating 
which types of water bodies are subject to Federal jurisdiction and 
which are not. It will make Federal permitting easier, faster, and less 
costly for business and industry. It maintains all previous exemptions 
and exclusions for normal farming and ranching practices and 
agricultural discharges, such as irrigation return flow and storm water 
runoff.
  Nevertheless, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a stay 
suspending implementation of the rule. I strongly believe we should let 
the courts decide whether the executive branch has overreached in its 
interpretation of congressional statute, just like the Constitution 
calls for.
  The President has threatened to veto the entire Energy and Water 
appropriations bill if this amendment is included in it. Right now, we 
have the best opportunity in 7 years to pass this bill as a stand-alone 
piece of legislation and

[[Page S2362]]

get the Senate appropriations process working again.
  So I am very hopeful and would strongly recommend that the Senate 
defeat the Hoeven amendment.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hoeven 
amendment No. 3811.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--42

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cruz
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in a moment Senator Coats will call 
up his amendment, the Coats and Toomey amendment.
  I want to thank the Michigan Senators and others for making the 
schedule work today. For the information of all Senators, after the 
Coats amendment, the next vote will be at 1:45 p.m. on the Franken 
amendment. That will be the last vote today.
  The next vote will be on the Murray amendment on Monday afternoon.
  Senators and their staffs have been very good about getting their 
amendments in. We think we have all the amendments. We have asked to 
have them by 1 p.m. so we could by consensus finish up on Monday and 
Tuesday, giving everybody a chance to have their vote if it is a 
germane amendment and to speak on the germane amendments.
  My request on behalf of Senator Feinstein and me is that if there are 
any amendments still out there, we would like to have them by 1 
o'clock.


                Amendment No. 3814 to Amendment No. 3801

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 3814, to be offered by the 
Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3814.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3814 to amendment No. 3801.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To limit the use of funds made available for the Advanced 
            Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program)

       On page 30, line 9, strike the period at the end and insert 
     the following: ``: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used to administer, 
     review, or approve any loan or loan application that was not 
     submitted as of the date of enactment of this Act: Provided 
     further, that none of the funds available to the Secretary of 
     Energy to provide any credit subsidy under subsection (d) of 
     section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
     2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013) as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act shall be obligated for new loan commitments under that 
     subsection on or after October 1, 2020.''.

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, 205 loans issued by the Department of 
Energy under the alternative vehicle program have failed, costing 
taxpayers $500 million in losses. DOE currently sits on $4 billion of 
unused money. It is time to wind down this program. This will not 
affect any proposals that are currently with the Department of Energy 
on this program, but it will prevent any new programs going forward.
  We can save the taxpayers a lot of money and use this for other 
alternatives if we adopt this amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, this is exactly the kind of program our 
constituents hate. It is the crony capitalism where taxpayers are 
forced to subsidize preferred companies, special interests. How many 
hundreds of millions of dollars do taxpayers have to lose?
  I understand there is some discussion that maybe on some bill in the 
future, this will get phased out as part of another deal, but who knows 
if that is ever going to happen. Here is a chance to wipe out some 
crony capitalism, some corporate welfare, and a huge loss for 
taxpayers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Let's adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I would certainly urge all of my 
colleagues to oppose the Coats amendment. What this does is eliminate a 
program that basically pays for a very carefully crafted agreement on 
which we are working to deal with the Flint water issue, as well as 
water infrastructure issues all across this country. This is part of 
the proposal Senator Stabenow and I have been working on and have been 
building support.
  We are looking to move to this very shortly to deal with this broad 
issue. A vote against this amendment allows us to continue to move 
forward with a bipartisan plan, critical for our whole country.
  I yield my remaining time to the senior Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, the bottom line is that we have 
developed a bipartisan bill that phases out this program in a 
responsible way for the businesses that are currently involved and uses 
that to pay for water infrastructure needs across the country, not only 
in Flint but in Jackson, MI, and Cleveland, OH--across the country.
  So we can achieve what the Senators are talking about in a way that 
helps us with water infrastructure.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3814.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner

[[Page S2363]]


     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Blunt
     Cruz
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                         Tribute to Sandy Ledy

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Sandy Ledy, a 
dedicated Senate staff member who will retire after more than two 
decades of public service in my office.
  Soon after being elected to the Senate in 1994, Senator John Kyl was 
wise enough to offer Sandy--a standout campaign volunteer--a job on his 
new staff. Sandy was given two options: She could work as a staffer in 
Washington, DC, or she could serve in Arizona and serve as John Kyl's 
military case worker. Sandy knew she couldn't pass up an opportunity to 
serve those who serve our Nation. It was an easy decision for Sandy and 
a fortuitous one for Arizona's military servicemembers, veterans, and 
their families.
  Sandy's genuine passion for our military service men and women, 
combined with her meticulous approach to her work, has made her an 
invaluable staffer. Sandy is well-versed in all things military, from 
regulations, to benefits, to the service academies. Her vast knowledge 
has ensured that Arizona's military service men and women have had 
nothing but the best assistance for more than the past two decades.
  Her reputation preceded her, and when I was elected as Senator in 
2012, I had an easy decision of my own--offering Sandy a job on my 
staff. Thankfully, she said yes.
  Sandy is probably best known around the State as the point person for 
service academy nominations. Her understanding of that process and what 
it takes for a student to be an excellent nominee has helped so many 
students fulfill their dreams of attending one of our prestigious 
service academies. Her focus on preparation and attention to detail has 
turned what can be a very daunting task into a seamless production, 
resulting in countless nominations and appointments to the service 
academies.
  While we all marvel at Sandy's meticulousness, it is her compassion 
and calm demeanor that make her such an asset. This is never more 
evident than when she is working with students and parents in the long 
and complicated process of applying to attend one of these service 
academies.
  Beyond her work on behalf of the military, she is an active and 
cherished member of her community in Cave Creek, AZ. She is a member of 
her church choir, a regular volunteer at the Cave Creek Museum, and a 
longtime swim coach, sometimes judging local meets. But there is no 
better testament to Sandy's example as a public servant than her two 
children, Amy and Joe. Amy is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy 
who herself recently retired after a career in the military. Joe served 
in the U.S. Marine Corps. They have made her the proud grandmother of 
three, and she is looking forward to spending a well-deserved 
retirement looking after those grandkids.
  Sandy, thank you for more than 20 years of dedicated public service 
in the Senate and, in particular, for the 4 years of stellar service as 
a member of my staff. Your knowledge and passion will be greatly 
missed. I wish you well in your retirement.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


               Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am on the floor with my colleague 
Senator Portman to join him in urging the House to take prompt action 
on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which passed with such 
a stunning bipartisan vote in the Senate.
  As Senator Portman has pointed out, years of careful preparation went 
into the drafting of this bill. There were five separate national 
hearings held in Washington with people from all over the country. This 
is a very polished and carefully developed piece of legislative work 
that has the support not only of the addiction and recovery community 
but of the law enforcement community and many others.
  Senator Portman has been very diligent about coming to the floor to 
press for action from the House of Representatives. My view is that 
since the House of Representatives is under Republican control, they 
are more likely to be attentive to the urgings of a Republican 
Senator--particularly one who has served in the House of 
Representatives--than they are to me.
  But I want to make sure the record is clear that I fully support 
rapid passage of this bill, whether it is something that is close 
enough that we can quickly get it through conference or whether it is 
our bill, to which they are free to add things as they wish over time, 
but can get to the President now--the reason I think it is important 
that it get to the President now is we are in the appropriations 
process. The appropriators for these accounts need to know what they 
are appropriating to. So time is of the essence, not just because of 
the lives that are being lost day-to-day and month-to-month out there 
but also because our appropriators need to know.
  I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, to listen to the distinguished Senator from Ohio. 
Let's try to get this done.
  With that, I yield to Senator Portman with my thanks and 
appreciation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. First, Madam President, I want to thank my colleague 
from Rhode Island who just spoke. We did work together for the past few 
years in putting together this legislation, and we did it, by the way, 
with the House of Representatives. So Senator Whitehouse and I took 
good ideas wherever we could find them, in whatever part of the country 
it came from, including ideas from the House of Representatives. We 
didn't ask who had the idea; we asked whether it was a good idea. We 
kept this entirely nonpartisan, not just bipartisan. Therefore, we 
built something that makes sense for our communities back home to deal 
with this epidemic of prescription drug and heroin addiction and 
overdoses.
  I appreciate his partnership in this, and I appreciate the fact that 
he came to the floor today to talk about the importance of moving ahead 
with this legislation. After all, it is very rare around here to get a 
94-to-1 vote on anything, and we did it on this bill. After 2\1/2\ 
weeks on the floor of the Senate talking about this heroin and 
prescription drug epidemic, every single Senator here realized this was 
a problem in their States, and 94 Senators stood up and agreed this 
legislation will help address it.
  By the way, since we passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery 
Act, or CARA, as it is called, on March 10 in the Senate, 42 days have 
passed. That is more than a month. Every day, we lose about 120 
Americans--120 Americans--to drug overdoses. That means in these 42 
days we have lost over 5,000 fellow American citizens to drug 
overdoses. Think about that.
  I do urge the House to act and act quickly. These numbers keep 
getting higher and higher. This is not getting better. Back in Ohio, 
this is getting worse, and I assume the same is true in your State, if 
you are a Senator or if you are a Member of the House of 
Representatives in your district.
  Since 2007, we have looked at these numbers, and drug overdoses have 
killed more Ohioans than car accidents. It is now the No. 1 cause of 
accidental death in Ohio. It has tripled

[[Page S2364]]

from 1999 to 2010. We are now told, by the way, that 200,000 Ohioans 
are addicted to opioids--opioids are prescription drugs--and heroin--
200,000 Ohioans. That is the size of a significant city in any State 
represented here in this body or any district on the other side.
  In fact, it is the same size as the city of Akron, OH, where I was on 
Monday of this week, meeting with their opioid task force. They are 
alarmed at what is happening, and they want to be sure we are making 
every possible effort we can on the prevention side, the education 
side, to get more people into treatment, to get them into longer term 
recovery, to provide police officers and other first responders with 
Narcan, the miracle drug they need to stop overdoses from turning into 
a death. They want our help. They support the CARA legislation. They 
need it, and they need it now.
  The Cincinnati Enquirer had some really troubling news last week. 
They wrote a story about a new poll that is out. It is a group called 
Interact for Health. They do an annual Ohio health issues poll. They 
found in the poll in 2014 that 2 of every 10 Ohioans knew someone who 
was abusing prescription drugs. A year later, it is 3 in 10, so this is 
not getting better. This is getting worse. By the way, this is just 
prescription drugs. And by the way, of the 3 in 10 who knew somebody 
who is abusing prescription drugs, 4 in 10--4 in 10--knew somebody who 
had overdosed on those prescription drugs. So these percentages are 
increasing across the board--every age group, every education level, 
every income level. There is no demographic, no ZIP Code, no State, no 
city, and no county that is safe from this epidemic. It is spreading, 
and it is spreading everywhere.
  This poll is another indication that we have a lot of work to do. 
This should be a motivation for us. This should get us to pass this 
legislation. And, yes, can we work on additional legislation? Of 
course, we can and should. I am encouraged that the House is taking up 
new bills and looking at this in different ways. That is good. But we 
know here in the Senate and over in the House that this CARA 
legislation will help and will help now.
  By the way, there are over 120 cosponsors of the CARA legislation in 
the House. Not only did we work with them and introduce identical 
legislation in the House and the Senate, anticipating this day when we 
could pass it in one House, but we wanted to pass it quickly in the 
other House and get it to the President for his signature. There are 
over 120 cosponsors over there. It is bipartisan.
  Think of the impact we could have on the community if we could get 
this passed. If we could turn around just one life, it matters, and we 
know this can save many lives and make many people begin to look at 
this issue differently--that this is a disease. Addiction is a disease 
and needs to be treated as such. Removing some of that stigma alone 
will bring a lot more people into treatment, and that is part of what 
is important about this legislation.
  There is another issue that is not prescription drugs, and it is not 
heroin, but it is another issue related to it, and that is fentanyl. 
Fentanyl is being laced with heroin throughout the country. In 
Cleveland, OH, a couple of weeks ago, we lost 12 people--12 people--in 
6 days to overdoses. That is one city. This was heroin, but it was 
laced with this even more dangerous toxic substance called fentanyl. By 
the way, it comes in the mail. The drug dealers are shipping it in the 
mail.
  Fentanyl is so toxic--10 to 30 to 40 times more toxic than heroin--
that it is dangerous even to open up the mail if you are an inspector, 
we are told. We had a hearing on this just this week. We talked to the 
Customs and Border Patrol people: Our question was, Why can't we stop 
this stuff from coming in? This, unfortunately, is something that is 
also increasing. Ohio, they say, is one of the top States in the 
country in terms of fentanyl overdoses. But I will tell those who have 
not dealt with this fentanyl issue yet that it creates even more issues 
because it is so deadly.
  After 3 years of work on this CARA legislation, Senator Whitehouse 
and I and others, including Senators on both sides of the aisle--we did 
hold five forums, as he said, on various aspects of this debate. We 
consulted with the experts on treatment and recovery, the experts who 
are focused on how to keep kids and other people from making these bad 
decisions in the prevention and the education community. We met with 
the drug experts from the administration, such as the White House 
Office of National Drug Control Policy. We brought in people from all 
over the country, including from my home State of Ohio.
  This is the third time I have come to the floor. I have come once 
every week that we have been in session since we passed it to say to 
the House: Let's move on CARA. Let's get it done. It will help 
immediately.
  The majority leader in the House has said he wants the House to take 
on the drug epidemic and pass legislation soon. I believe him. He is a 
good man. I appreciate that. But I would ask him again to please work 
on the other legislation. It is fine to take them through hearings and 
markups, but we cannot delay. We know CARA will work, and it will work 
now. It is sitting over there and ready for action. It can be taken to 
the floor immediately under suspension and can be passed. We are one 
vote away from having this go to the President and having it go to help 
in our communities.
  The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton, 
who is a good friend and a man with a big heart and cares about this 
issue, has said he would like the House to move quickly with, as he 
said, an ``all hands on deck effort.'' Good for him.
  One of his subcommittees, the Health Subcommittee, recently marked up 
a dozen bills. This happened yesterday; they marked up 12 bills. Look 
at those bills. A number of them are actually a part of CARA already. 
They are in CARA. They are smaller bills. None of them is 
comprehensive, like CARA.
  One reason we have to get CARA passed is this is a problem that has 
to be addressed from all angles, from all sectors, and that is why it 
has to be comprehensive. But of those 12 bills that were marked up 
yesterday, many of them are identical, and others are very similar to 
the CARA legislation. So this shouldn't slow us down. In fact, it is 
even more an indication that if these are the kinds of bills the House 
thinks are the right way to go, let's get CARA passed and then we can 
work on the other legislative ideas Members may have.
  I respect my colleagues--Chairman Upton, the majority leader over 
there, and Chairman Pence, the chairman of the subcommittee and also a 
guy who cares a lot about this issue--but let's give CARA a vote. There 
are 125 cosponsors. That is the latest number I have as of this 
morning, and the number keeps growing. It is bipartisan, it is 
bicameral, and it is the right thing to do.
  Again, I know there are other ideas out there, and that is fine. We 
need to take those up as well. But let's go ahead and get this passed. 
Put it under suspension, and take it to the floor. It will pass. We are 
one vote away from having this help our communities.
  CARA is not just comprehensive; it does the right thing in terms of 
focusing on what is evidence based. In other words, we didn't just say 
``Let's throw more money at this problem,'' we said ``Let's actually 
find out what is working and what is not working.''
  I was in Dayton, OH, with a group called Project C.U.R.E. on Friday. 
I had the chance to visit with some of the administrators there, some 
of the recovery coaches, as they call themselves, many of whom, by the 
way, are recovering themselves. They are doing an amazing job. I talked 
to many of the patients who were there. They are people who are 
recovering addicts. Some have been clean for 2 weeks, some clean for 2 
years. But I asked them the same question I ask all over our State: 
What works? What doesn't work? How did this happen?
  Most of them, by the way, told me the same story you hear time and 
again: It started with prescription drugs. In fact, one story was from 
a man by the name of Anthony. He dropped out of high school at age 14, 
got into drugs, and made some mistakes in his life, which he readily 
acknowledges. He ended up in prison. He said he had eight convictions 
and was in and out of prison, in and out of the drug world. He decided 
to go straight.

[[Page S2365]]

He made a decision. For him, a lot of it was faith based and a lot was 
being sure he was going to be able to take care of his family and be a 
contributing member of his community, so he gave back.
  Anthony had a good job, had gotten married, and was on the right 
track. He was on his way to work one day, and he was in a car accident. 
For those experts who are listening to this today, you probably know 
happened. I don't even have to tell you. When he got in the car 
accident, he was injured. They sent him to the hospital. What did they 
give him at the hospital? Narcotic pain pills, Percocet, prescription 
drugs.
  Immediately--immediately--Anthony became addicted again. He is now 
struggling, but he is back at the treatment center. He is getting his 
life back together again. But in the meantime he has lost his family 
because the drugs became everything. He lost his job because the drugs 
became everything.
  We talk a lot about the overdoses, and they are horrible--120 
Americans a day. We don't talk enough about those who aren't overdosing 
but who have lost their ability to achieve their own God-given purpose 
in life because the drugs are everything. So they have lost their 
families--torn apart. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their 
ability to be contributing members of our society. And those people who 
get into treatment and longer term recovery, as Anthony is doing, can 
turn their lives around. There is hope. It can work.
  Anthony is back for a second chance. Having talked to him, I believe 
he is not just on the right track but he will work through this. This 
legislation is needed to help him.
  When I do meet with recovering addicts, I ask them to look at the 
legislation, look at the summaries, and tell me what they think. What 
they tell me is they like it because they are convinced it would help 
others to have the access to treatment they have. Probably only 1 out 
of 10 of those people who are addicted are getting treatment. That is 
the best number I have. Maybe it is a little higher than that in your 
State or congressional district, but this is an issue where, if we 
provide more resources for treatment and begin to remove that stigma 
around treatment and get more people into a system where they can begin 
to get their lives back together with treatment, we know that works.
  Our legislation supports veterans task forces and veterans courts 
because we know this will help with our veterans who are coming back 
with PTSD, 20 percent of whom have this addiction. People say it is 
self-medicating. They have self-medicated to the point that they are 
now addicts. We need to put them not into a prison cell but into a 
treatment program. That is what these veterans courts do, and they 
surround these veterans with other veterans. They do an awesome job. I 
have been to them in Ohio. You have them probably in your State. If you 
don't, this legislation will help because it creates more veterans 
courts.
  We have talked on the floor before about the fact that there has been 
a huge increase--a 750 percent increase in the State of Ohio--in babies 
born with addiction. That is just in the last 12 years in Ohio. Go to 
any neonatal unit in your State or congressional district, and you will 
see these babies. They are being lovingly cared for by doctors and 
nurses. They are taking these addicted babies you could hold in the 
palm of your hand, and they are literally taking them through 
withdrawal. They have to because these babies are addicted and showing 
the symptoms you might see in an adult of addiction.
  We don't know what the long-term consequences are. We are having a 
hearing on this tomorrow in Cleveland, OH, at one of our great 
hospitals--University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital. 
It is one of the best children's hospitals in the country. Their 
neonatal unit is doing awesome work. I have been there and seen it. We 
are going to talk to the experts about this and how we can do even 
better to help these babies. But wouldn't it be great if we didn't have 
so many babies born with addiction because mothers, knowing the 
consequences, dealt with their addiction problem to avoid it through 
prevention and education efforts? Wouldn't it be great if we didn't 
have this 750-percent increase in children whose futures are uncertain 
because of being born with this addiction?
  Again, there is hope. I have been to a women's recovery center in 
Cleveland and Columbus and also in Eastern Ohio and Athens, OH, where I 
have met with women in long-term recovery with drug addiction. They are 
there with their kids. There is hope.
  With this legislation, we do have the ability to give people more 
hope. Getting rid of that stigma, not judging people, is part of 
beating this epidemic, and CARA will do that by treating addiction like 
a disease.
  There is an opportunity for us to move, and move quickly, to address 
this growing crisis we have in our States and our communities; that is, 
to pass this CARA legislation. Is it all we should do? No. Of course we 
should do more. I know the House of Representatives will have some 
great ideas. I know there are some great ideas in this body. The HELP 
Committee is working on additional ideas on how to get more medicine 
into this area of addiction, science, and treatment. They are working 
on ways to ensure that we can provide more help to people. That is 
great, and we should continue to work on that.
  Meanwhile, we know this legislation will help. We know that if it is 
sitting on the desk in the House of Representatives, having passed the 
Senate by a 94-to-1 vote, it is not going to help. But we know if it 
can get off the desk and onto the floor for a vote, we are one vote 
away from getting it to our communities to begin to help, to keep 
people from making the wrong decision--but then if they get into a drug 
addiction, it can help them to be able to turn their lives around and 
to achieve their potential in life, their God-given potential.
  That is what this argument is about. It is not about the fact that 
the Senate has all the answers. By the way, we wrote this legislation 
with the House. They were engaged from the start. We introduced 
identical bills and they had 125 cosponsors. All we are saying is, 
let's let this one piece of legislation go, let's allow it to begin to 
help right away, and then let's continue to work on other ideas.
  Again, we have lost nearly 5,000 Americans to drug overdoses since 
the Senate passed CARA with a 94-to-1 vote. To begin to reverse this 
tide--this trend of addiction, of overdoses--we can and should act now. 
It is urgent. There is a crisis. There is no time to waste.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to thank my friend for his 
comments about addiction. I agree with the Senator from Ohio, talking 
about the victims from Ohio. I can assure him we have victims in 
Virginia and all across the country, and we need to get this 
legislation to the President's desk so people who are hurt by the 
scourge of drugs can get the treatment they need. Again, I thank him 
for his leadership.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Madam President, I rise to again express my disappointment that many 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have continued to 
obstruct consideration of an eminently qualified candidate to fill the 
vacancy on the Supreme Court.
  It has now been 36 days since President Obama nominated Judge Merrick 
Garland; that is, 36 days that our highest Court has been relegated to 
falling short of its full constitutional obligations. Make no mistake. 
The Senate's inaction is already having a tangible impact on the 
Court's ability to function effectively. During the current session, we 
have seen our eight current Justices end up in a 4-to-4 deadlock in 
three separate cases since Justice Scalia's passing--effectively muting 
the Court's voice in consequential judicial proceedings.
  President Reagan himself said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme 
Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that 
crucially important body.''
  More recently, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it quite 
simply, as she always does. She said: ``I think we need somebody there 
now to do the job, and let's get on with it.''
  Indeed, the Supreme Court has granted only three cases since Justice 
Scalia

[[Page S2366]]

died--a number experts say is extraordinarily low and an indication 
that the eight sitting Justices are acutely aware of the precarious 
position the Court is in with a vacancy.
  Many Senators apparently believe that President Obama shouldn't be 
able to make appointments under article II because he is in the last 
year of his term. The record shows there is nothing in the Constitution 
that says the President is only President for 3 of the 4 years of his 
or her term. I don't understand that reasoning. Under that reasoning, 
any of those same Senators who have made that argument shouldn't be 
voting on any bill that comes before this body in the last year of 
their Senate term. If we continue with that rationale, the President's 
office and the Senate would lead to further dysfunction. Quite 
honestly, that logic is beyond the pale.
  It is clear as well that the American people expect us to do our job. 
Recent polls show that by a 2-to-1 margin Americans want the Senate to 
hold hearings and vote on Judge Garland's nomination. That is why I 
remain so perplexed by the logical contortions that many of my 
colleagues are undertaking to justify their obstruction and quite 
honestly their failure to do their job.
  I had the chance to meet with Judge Garland last week. His 
qualifications and dedication to public service are beyond reproach. He 
has received strong bipartisan support in the past, but what also stood 
out to me are his measured view of the role of the judiciary, his 
strong record on national security, and commitment to keeping our 
country safe.
  This past Tuesday marked the 21st anniversary of the bombing of a 
Federal building in Oklahoma City. On that tragic day in 1995, 168 
people, including 19 children, lost their lives. To this day, the 
Oklahoma City bombing remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism 
in our Nation's history.
  Judge Garland at that time was Principal Associate Deputy Attorney 
General. He was the guy who led the criminal investigation and 
supervised the prosecution of the bombers. Merrick Garland fought for 
justice for the victims and the families in Oklahoma City. Through his 
tireless efforts, deep understanding of the law, and attention to 
detail, he ensured that the prosecution had an airtight case. 
Ultimately, both bombers were successfully convicted.
  This is the highest profile instance in which Judge Garland exhibited 
his commitment to making and keeping our country safe, but it is far 
from the only one. In my meeting with him, it was clear that the safety 
and security of our citizens is an issue that quite honestly keeps him 
up at night.
  What also stands out about my conversation with Judge Garland is his 
sense of humility. Our conversation and his judicial record demonstrate 
to me that he is a moderate, thoughtful, consensus candidate. As Judge 
Garland said in the Rose Garden on the day he was nominated:

       People must be confident that a judge's decisions are 
     determined by the law and only the law. For a judge to be 
     worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the 
     Constitution, and to the statutes passed by Congress.
       He or she must put aside his personal views or preferences 
     and follow the law; not make it. Fidelity to the Constitution 
     and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life, 
     and is the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be 
     for the past 18 years.

  These are not the words nor the track record of a judicial activist. 
In my opinion, this is the kind of judge that Merrick Garland has been: 
not a judicial activist but someone who recognizes the important role 
and the important balance between the executive, legislative, and 
judicial branches.
  I am encouraged that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have at least begun to give Judge Garland the courtesy of a meeting, 
but meetings alone are not sufficient. The American people deserve the 
opportunity to hear Judge Garland's qualifications debated in a public 
hearing in the Judiciary Committee, and they deserve an up-or-down vote 
on the Senate floor. That is all we ask.
  I again urge my colleagues to give Judge Garland the consideration 
other nominees have received. At the end of the day, if they choose to 
vote against him, that is their right, but the idea that somehow they 
are interpreting the Constitution to say that in the last year of a 
Presidency a qualified judge should not even receive consideration of a 
hearing and a vote is quite honestly beyond the pale.
  Too often these debates end up going on and become extraordinarily 
complicated. In many ways, what I hear from Virginians--regardless of 
whether they want me to support Judge Garland--is a very simple 
message: Do your job. In the coming days and weeks, I hope the Senate 
will do its job and give Judge Garland the consideration of a hearing 
before the Judiciary Committee and then take up this eminently 
qualified jurist's nomination on the floor and give him the vote he 
deserves.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Paris Climate Agreement

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to recognize the importance of 
the signing of the Paris Agreement.
  Tomorrow marks the 46th anniversary of Earth Day--the first Earth 
Day--the Earth Day that occurred when I was in seventh grade. My 
seventh grade teacher made a point of making sure all the students were 
aware of it. They made sure we had a chance to do a field trip to the 
community college to learn about some of the issues related to 
stewardship of the planet.
  It is a day to appreciate the extraordinary beauty of our blue-green 
planet but also to recognize, to remind ourselves of the fact that we 
have a huge responsibility to be good stewards of the wonderful planet 
we have.
  It was Theodore Roosevelt who said that ``our greatest central task 
[is] leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it 
is for us.'' That is the definition of stewardship, and that is what 
Earth Day is all about. This is why it is so fitting that tomorrow, on 
Earth Day, America will join other nations in signing the Paris 
Agreement.
  This international climate accord is a tremendous step forward. It 
makes clear the world recognizes that global warming is a very 
significant and grave concern facing human civilization on this planet. 
It is, indeed, the moral challenge of our generation.
  I am proud and inspired by the global community's unprecedented 
commitment to avert global warming, to avert a climate crisis. We know 
what the stakes are. We don't need computer models to look 50 years 
into the future because the impacts are here today. We see it in our 
own communities. We see it in our own States. We see it through the 
impact of droughts, the impact of wildfires, the impact of heat waves, 
the storms, the hurricanes, the tornadoes. We see it through story 
after story of this year or this month being the warmest ever recorded 
by humans. These events have profound costs that can be measured in 
lost lives, lost homes, lost businesses, billions of dollars in 
disaster relief.
  It is important to understand that global warming's major assault is 
on our rural communities, on our farming, our fishing, and our 
forestry. You can see it across the world. You can see it across the 
country. You can see it just inside my home State of Oregon. We have 
had significant droughts greatly impacting our agricultural community 
in my State.
  We have had a loss of snowpack in the Cascades, a trend over decades 
impacting the availability of water for irrigation in farming. We have 
seen the impact on fishing, with streams that are warmer and smaller 
than they were in the past. We have seen it on our oyster population on 
the coast, where now the oysters are having trouble reproducing because 
the Pacific Ocean is 30 percent more acidic than it was before we 
started burning fossil fuels on this planet. That greater acidity is 
affecting the ability of baby oysters to form shells. That should 
frighten us all--the ability of shellfish to form shells being 
threatened.
  It is hard to imagine that we have burned enough fossil fuels to 
actually

[[Page S2367]]

impact the acidity of the oceans. But we have, and the problem is 
getting worse. We see the impact on our forests. We see it in my home 
State of Oregon through the red zone. That is the term given to the 
vast swaths of forests that have been killed by pine beetles because 
the winters now are not cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. So the 
infestations are much more aggressive, much more widespread.
  We see the impact on our forests from more vigorous wildfires and a 
longer forest fire season--a season that has grown by 60 days over 40 
years. That is 2 months. In fact, we have even had forest fires in 
Oregon in the month of January. It is a huge loss, a huge impact on the 
ecosystem, and a huge impact on the economy.
  If you care about rural America and our farming, our fishing, and our 
forestry, you must care about carbon pollution and global warming. 
Scientists agree that we must keep the warming of our planet under 2 
degrees Celsius in order to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate 
change--impacts much worse than what we are seeing now. But we have 
already warmed the planet by 1 degree. So we are halfway toward that 
boundary, which is why an important component of the Paris agreement is 
not just the substance of the agreement itself but also a compact that 
the international community will revisit every 5 years, because the 
measures taken in the Paris agreement are not enough to fend off 
catastrophe.
  What they do represent is virtually every nation in the world coming 
together and saying we understand the challenge to our planet, and we 
understand that we must be part of the solution. To have more heads of 
state come together in December for the Paris agreement than at any 
other time in human history is very impressive. But the commitments 
made, even if they are fully fulfilled, don't go far enough. We are 
going to have to come back together every 5 years to add to our 
understanding and to increase the speed with which we are pivoting from 
fossil fuels to renewable fuels.
  At those 5-year gatherings, we will strengthen our pledges, we will 
work to reduce the emissions even further, and we will review the 
changing technologies. There is so much investment going on. There is a 
program called Mission Innovation, which is a number of countries 
coming together, private companies coming together, and foundations 
coming together to develop the best ideas--out-of-the-box ideas--to be 
able to take on the challenge of global warming. Those technologies are 
going to be a key part of accelerating our ability to tackle this 
challenge.
  We have to keep working to drive down the cost curve on renewable 
energy so that it makes a positive contribution to our economy in every 
possible way, lowering the cost of power while at the same time putting 
thousands or, in some technologies, millions of individuals to work. We 
have to make sure developing countries can afford these options in 
solar, wind, and other renewable strategies.
  Together, we must invest in paradigm-shifting technology. One of 
those might be battery storage, to make better use of solar energy when 
the solar energy exceeds current demand, or to capture wind energy when 
the wind is blowing strongly and our wind turbines are producing more 
than the current demand.
  It means we have to do things such as investing in a broader grid to 
ship those amps of electricity around the country--those watts of 
energy around the country. Here at home, we can't keep up business as 
usual. If we need to pivot from fossil fuels to renewables, then we 
shouldn't keep subsidizing fossil fuels. We can't keep drilling oil 
offshore and opening up drilling in new places like the Arctic. The 
Arctic nation should come together and reach a pact not to drill in the 
Arctic and to put it off-limits.
  As American citizens, you and I own a lot of oil, a lot of coal, and 
we must recognize that we need to keep those fossil fuels that we own 
in the ground because here is the size of the problem. For us to 
succeed in keeping the temperature of our planet below 2 degrees 
Celsius above the pre-industrial age, we have to leave 80 percent of 
the identified proven fossil fuel reserves in the world in the ground.
  If we are going to do that, then it makes no sense at all--for what 
you and I own as citizens--to be pulling it out of the ground. It makes 
no sense to be doing contracts today--leases--that provide a legal 
contract for extraction of our coal, our oil, and our gas, which you 
and I own as citizens, three decades, four decades, or five decades 
into the future--long after the world has to have pivoted off of fossil 
fuels.
  It is said that when you are in a hole, stop digging. In this case, 
we are in a carbon pollution hole, and we need to stop digging fossil 
fuels out of the ground. Instead, we must seize the opportunity to 
invest in the infrastructure of the future, to spur a clean energy 
revolution, and to build a green economy creating living-wage jobs. It 
has been said that we are the first generation to feel the impact of 
global warming, and we are the last generation that can do something 
about it.
  That is a huge responsibility. The signing of this agreement consists 
of doing something about it, something major about it, something 
important about it, something that all the Nations in the world have 
come together to do together to take this on and to recognize our 
collective responsibility. It is a breakthrough moment in the fight--
the international fight, the human civilization fight--to take on this 
moral, major challenge to our planet.
  While this deal is by no means the end of the work we must do, having 
the global community come together around a vision of action is a huge 
milestone in the path to averting climate catastrophe. This agreement 
should only strengthen our Nation's resolve to build a sustainable 
future, to protect our beautiful blue-green planet, and to work harder 
to fight climate change not just on Earth Day but every day of the 
year. In fact, this agreement is very much central to the task that 
Theodore Roosevelt put before us: to leave our land a better land for 
our descendants than it is for us. Let's get to work.
  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. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3833 to Amendment No. 3801

  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3833.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota, [Mr. Franken] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3833 to amendment No. 3801.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee 
                                Program)

       On page 29, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

                  Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program

       For the cost of loan guarantees provided under section 
     2602(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3502(c)), 
     $8,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the cost of those loan guarantees (including the costs 
     of modifying loans, as applicable) shall be determined in 
     accordance with section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a): Provided further, That, for 
     necessary administrative expenses to carry out that program, 
     $500,000 is appropriated, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That, of the subsidy amounts provided by 
     section 1425 of the Department of Defense and Full-Year 
     Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10; 125 
     Stat. 126), for the cost of loan guarantees for renewable 
     energy or efficient end-use energy technologies under section 
     1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16513), 
     $9,000,000 is permanently canceled.

  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, Federal programs in Indian Country are 
chronically underfunded. I have served on the Indian Affairs Committee 
for the past 7 years, and I have been shocked by what I hear almost 
every week from tribal leaders about the challenges in Indian Country. 
Tribes struggle with crumbling schools, dilapidated roads, lack of 
housing, and lack of basic infrastructure. Many of the crises we hear 
about in Indian Country come from lack of opportunity, lack of hope. 
Indian youth have the highest rate of suicide among all ethnic groups 
in the United States. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for 
Native youth aged 15 to 24. The Indian suicide rate is 62 percent 
higher than it is for

[[Page S2368]]

the general population. Unemployment on Indian reservations averages 19 
percent, and on some reservations it is above 50 percent.
  Senators Murkowski, Heitkamp, and Udall understand the dire needs of 
Indian Country, which is why they have cosponsored my amendment. 
Chairman Barrasso also understands the needs of Indian Country, and 
that is why he also supports this amendment. They understand that we 
have to support economic development for tribes whenever we can.
  My amendment sets aside $9 million, which can be leveraged into about 
$50 to $85 million worth of loans for energy projects in Indian 
Country. Developing tribal energy resources will help tribes bring 
power to the most remote parts of Indian Country--improving access to 
reliable and resilient energy and providing much needed jobs. That is 
why Congress authorized the loan program in the Energy Policy Act of 
2005--to help tribes access the capital they need for energy projects. 
But this program has never received funding.
  My amendment doesn't cost anything. We are simply putting $9 million 
of already-appropriated money toward a new use.
  I thank Senators Heitkamp, Udall, and Murkowski for cosponsoring my 
amendment. I thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Feinstein for 
their leadership. Finally, I thank Secretary Moniz, who has been a 
champion for this program.
  I urge my colleagues to support Franken amendment No. 3833 to bring 
jobs to Indian Country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank Senator Franken for the way 
he worked with our committee. I will vote for the amendment, and I 
recommend that others do as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3833.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Cruz).
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced---yeas 76, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                               YEAS---76

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                               NAYS---19

     Ayotte
     Boozman
     Cotton
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tillis
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING---5

     Blunt
     Cruz
     Durbin
     Murphy
     Sanders
  The amendment (No. 3833) was agreed to.


                            vote explanation

 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from this 
afternoon's vote on Franken amendment No. 3833, which was adopted to 
the pending business--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, H.R. 2028.
  On rollcall vote No. 59, had I been present, I would have voted to 
support the amendment. Senator Franken's amendment will further 
strengthen the deployment of clean energy by creating a Tribal Energy 
Loan Guarantee Program to fund energy projects in Indian Country. This 
amendment will help Indian tribes access much needed financing as they 
seek to develop energy projects and create well-paying jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as the vice chair of the 
Appropriations Committee to express my appreciation to the majority 
leader of the Senate, Senator McConnell, and Senator Cochran, the chair 
of the Appropriations Committee, for moving the process forward.
  We have on the floor today the Energy and Water Committee bill. This 
is the first bill of the Appropriations Committee to come to the floor. 
It signals that we are ready to do regular order. I so appreciate the 
leaderships' commitment to do that, so we don't end up with a big 
omnibus bill at the end. Every bill comes, they can be amended, and 
everyone can have their day and their say.
  It is an excellent kickoff to what I hope will be the ability to move 
all 12 bills and some crucial, urgent supplementals. I also compliment 
Senators Alexander and Senator Feinstein for the excellent job they 
have done on this particular subcommittee. They have followed the 
bipartisan agreement. They have a bill that is free of poison pill 
riders. When you look at what they have done in terms of energy and 
water, it is an excellent bill from the standpoint of national security 
and economic development, whether it is the funding for the Army Corps 
of Engineers that is so important to those of us who have ports, to 
science in terms of our fields of energy. We win Nobel prizes, but we 
need to win the markets. It has an excellent approach in terms of tech 
transfer.
  Maryland benefits from this bill. It provides over $100 million for 
the Port of Baltimore. That is going to support the port's nearly 
14,000 jobs and a tax base of over $300 million. The Port of Baltimore 
has always been the gateway to Ohio and the West. First, supported by 
the B&O--Baltimore and Ohio--Railroad and now CSX. Funding in this bill 
dredges the port's 50-foot channel, making it ready for megacontainer 
ships coming through the expanded Panama Canal and supporting the 
port's competitive edge over its East Coast competition. The bill also 
funds construction of Poplar Island, where clean dredge material is 
rebuilding the natural ecosystem of a former Chesapeake Bay island.
  This bill exceeds the target level for the harbor maintenance trust 
fund, providing approximately $1.3 billion. Dredging is the primary 
activity of the trust fund. This funding is knocking out the nationwide 
backlog of dredging projects, supporting the U.S. economy and local 
economies.
  Across Maryland, this bill makes critical investments, protecting 
Assateague Island, a national seaside treasure, for future generations, 
protecting Cumberland from flooding, and protecting this area's water 
supply at the Jennings Randolph Lake in Garrett County.
  This bill also supports a unique public-private partnership between 
the U.S. Department of Energy and commercial truck manufacturers. 
Together, they are developing the next generation of fuel-efficient 
heavy-duty trucks. Total funding is $20 million. Volvo has been a 
partner and is competing again for a portion of this funding. Its 
Hagerstown, MD plant produces Mack Trucks with 1,600 jobs. Their 
talented professionals have been leaders on truck engine research and 
development, discovering technologies to reduce oil consumption and 
decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
  For the Appalachian Regional Commission, this bill provides $75 
million for the base program, an increase of $5 million. The commission 
meets both physical and human infrastructure needs. This is a hands-
across-the-aisle program that all Appalachia Senators support. There 
are 13 States in the commission.

[[Page S2369]]

  Maryland has three counties in the commission: Washington, Allegany, 
and Garrett.
  Maryland's mountain counties receive nearly $5 million annually, 
making investments to rebound from lost manufacturing jobs. The 
recession was another setback.
  Now, through their community colleges, they are retraining and 
retooling their residents. The commission's grants, matched with local 
and other Federal funding, are making a big difference.
  I recently visited Garrett College where I announced two grants. The 
first was to establish new allied health programs with a simulation 
manikin. This was a grant award for $110,000.
  The second grant was to buy Westernport a new water tank. This grant 
for $400,000 was matched with $2.4 million in other Federal loans and 
grants. It means more capacity for Westernport, new service to nearby 
towns of Luke and Bloomington, and a huge cost savings to Luke Mill. 
The paper mill has been supplying drinking water to the town of Luke. 
This grant is protecting the 880 employees at Luke Mill and 3,000 
regional jobs in timber and trucking.
  If this is the way it is going to be to move appropriations, I think 
it is a good day. It is not only a good bill, but it shows when the 
Senate practices the ability to work together to bring legislation to 
the floor, to follow regular order, we can get our job done. It can be 
open, it can be transparent, and we can have amendments. I so look 
forward to this being the tone and the tempo of the rest of the 
appropriations season.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           National Park Week

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, this week I encourage Arkansans and all 
Americans to take a moment and enjoy your local national parks as we 
celebrate National Park Week 2016. This year National Park Week is 
particularly important because it also happens to be the 100th 
anniversary of the National Park Service, a milestone we will celebrate 
all year long.
  For those of you who don't know, our National Park System began in 
1872 with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park. The 
organization charged with managing these parks, the National Park 
Service, was established four decades later in 1916. Today we have over 
400 national parks and historic sites around the country, all full of 
wildlife, beautiful landscapes, and rich culture. These sites are all 
cared for by over 20,000 dedicated employees of the National Park 
Service, including park rangers who patrol our parks and keep visitors 
safe.
  Arkansas is home to several national parks and national historic 
sites, some of the prettiest and most interesting in the country, in my 
opinion. For those of you who have not been to Arkansas, I encourage 
you to visit Hot Springs National Park to see our natural springs and 
thermal pools.
  If you are a history buff, you can visit Arkansas Post, the site of 
the only Revolutionary War activity in the State of Arkansas. If you 
are into the outdoors, you can float the Buffalo River. The list goes 
on. Each of the national parks and historic sites in Arkansas and 
around the country has its own unique appeal and holds its own 
adventure.
  So happy National Park Week and happy 100th birthday to the National 
Park Service. I encourage everyone to take advantage of free admission 
to all national parks in Arkansas and across the country through this 
Sunday, April 24. Have a little fun, learn a little bit about your 
great country, and show your support and thanks for the men and women 
who serve us in the national parks.
  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.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to complete this speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Corporate Inversions

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, over the past couple of years I have spoken 
numerous times on corporate inversions, the problems they cause, and 
various proposed solutions. I wish to take a few minutes today to 
comment on some of the recent developments with regard to this 
important issue.
  Inversions are a matter of great concern in our country. This is true 
among members of both parties, both in and out of government. As the 
chairman of the Senate's tax-writing committee, I have to say that for 
years now, most major discussions I have had on tax policy and reform 
with various private sector stakeholders eventually end up focusing on 
inversions.
  Virtually everyone acknowledges that inversions are a problem. When a 
U.S. company reidentifies itself as a foreign entity and moves its tax 
headquarters overseas, it shrinks our tax base. It means lost 
investment and growth for our country and a further demonstration of 
the failure of the government to create a tax environment in this 
country that allows businesses to flourish, create jobs, and, of 
course, help grow our economy.
  As I said, members of both parties see inversions as a problem, one 
that needs fixing. Sadly, the debate surrounding this national issue 
has too often become mired in politics and partisanship, which thus far 
has prevented Congress from making any real progress. Some in 
Washington--in the Capitol and on the other end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue--would rather talk about inversions than solve the problem.
  When a wave of U.S. companies announce that they are merging with 
other entities and moving their headquarters offshore, the strategy 
seems to be to publicly attack those companies; accuse them of, among 
other things, lacking ``economic patriotism''; and put forward 
unworkable policy proposals while labelling anyone opposing those 
proposals as somehow being in favor of or at least indifferent to 
inversions. Most of the policy ideas that get put forward tend to be 
punitive and burdensome, with the goal, not of incentivizing companies 
to stay in the United States, but to forcibly prevent them from 
leaving.
  Over the past year or so of political campaigning, we have heard a 
lot of talk about building walls and who will be made to pay for them. 
Some are proposing that we build a literal physical wall to keep 
certain people from coming into the United States, with a supposedly 
clever plan to force other countries to pay for it. Well, at the same 
time, most of the proposals we have seen to deal with inversions would 
amount to building a virtual wall--a wall forged in regulation and 
punitive tax treatment--around the country to keep companies from 
leaving and making every business in America and all of their employees 
and individual customers pay the cost.
  The latest wall-building exercise came earlier this month with 
Treasury's temporary anti-inversion regulations and proposed 
regulations aimed at earnings stripping. Of course, the 
administration's anti-inversion approach is essentially the regulatory 
equivalent of a doctor who wastes all of his time and energy treating a 
patient's symptoms one by one as they arise without making any effort 
to diagnose, let alone treat, the underlying illness.
  Inversions are not in and of themselves a disease; they are merely 
symptoms of a much broader illness that will continue to infect our 
economy so long as we refuse to treat it. I won't keep you in suspense, 
Mr. President. That illness is not a lack of proper regulation; it is 
an overly burdensome tax system and an environment that is, on the 
whole, unfriendly to American businesses.
  U.S. companies don't move their tax headquarters offshore because 
they like the weather in other countries. If that were the case, I 
don't think so many of them would be moving to Ireland or the U.K. No. 
American companies invert because they face global competition, and our 
system forces them to compete on an uneven playing field with at least 
one, if not both arms tied behind their back. For example, we have the 
highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and we have a tax 
code that effectively pays U.S.

[[Page S2370]]

multinationals to keep their foreign earnings offshore and punishes 
them when they decide to bring capital back into the country. It is 
these factors--not a lack of appropriate regulation by the government 
or a shortage of ``economic patriotism'' on the part of American 
businesses--that make foreign countries more attractive destinations 
for American companies.
  If we want to prevent future inversions, we should spend less time 
tinkering around the regulatory edges and engaging in partisan rhetoric 
and more time trying to find common ground to actually fix our Tax 
Code.
  For the record, it isn't just inversions that are the problem. As I 
have noted repeatedly, even if the administration and Congress found a 
way, through punitive and burdensome means, to block all inversions, 
our tax system would still make American companies even more attractive 
targets for foreign takeovers, which are every bit as problematic as 
inversions, if not more so, and much harder to address through a purely 
regulatory approach. Foreign takeovers are already a problem. According 
to an Ernst and Young study released last year, the U.S. economy 
suffered a net loss of $179 billion--with a ``b''--in business and 
assets to foreign buyers in the decade between 2003 and 2013. The same 
study also found that a reduced corporate tax rate would have greatly 
reduced these losses, possibly eliminating them entirely.

  Keep in mind that unlike most inversion transactions, U.S. management 
is almost always fired after a foreign takeover. Other employees--local 
service providers and suppliers--are often targeted for elimination as 
well.
  Sadly, many Democrats in Washington, both here in Congress and in the 
administration, don't seem to grasp the full nature of this problem. 
They talk a great deal about inversions and the need to prevent them. 
Because the picture of a big American company moving offshore to escape 
taxation is particularly distressing for populist audiences, they tend 
to ramp up that talk and couple it with ideas on how to punish 
inverters in even-numbered years. Yet they have taken precious little 
action to fix the underlying problems that lead companies to want to 
invert in the first place.
  There was a glimmer of hope with the findings and recommendations of 
the Finance Committee's bipartisan International Tax Reform Working 
Group. However, as is far too often the case, that glimmer of hope may 
very well be overtaken by the politics of the moment.
  So instead of acknowledging that our tax system is the cause of the 
inversion problem, my friends on the other side have generally opted to 
put forward regulations that may very well be effective in curbing 
inversions in the short term but will do nothing to improve business 
conditions in the United States and could be in the order of causing 
companies to sell themselves to foreign buyers, which is what is 
happening.
  Within days of the release of the Treasury's latest regulations, 
Pfizer, a major American drug company, announced it was backing out of 
its proposed inversion deal with Allergan. Many observers were quick to 
credit the Obama administration for a supposed job well done while 
Democratic candidates for President openly celebrated the fact that an 
American company chose to subject itself to hundreds of millions of 
dollars in losses and penalties in order to avoid even greater losses 
as a result of these regulations.
  That is the kind of world we are living in--one where there is a 
willingness to demonize an iconic American company that employees tens 
of thousands of American workers and to cheer when it suffers massive 
losses. That is viewed as an affirmative qualification to be the 
Democratic nominee for President.
  Now, to be fair, I will acknowledge that, in addition to unveiling 
the proposed anti-inversion measures, the Obama administration also 
laid out a basic framework for corporate tax reform. Of course, this 
framework, which closely resembles similar proposals the President has 
included in past budgets, is woefully short on details. It is not a 
reform proposal with any serious potential for bipartisanship nor one 
with a detailed list of specific goals and objectives. It is more or 
less just a vaguely worded wish list of tax ideas they would like to 
see enacted at some point. The reaction from many sectors of the 
business community, including from CEOs who more often than not support 
my friends on the other side, proves the point.
  We know, basically, that the President's version of international tax 
reform consists of a one-time mandatory repatriation of foreign 
earnings to be taxed at a rate designed not to maximize any benefit but 
to hit a revenue target for increased spending--in other words, so they 
can spend more money. This would be coupled with a high minimum tax on 
foreign earnings, also designed specifically for increased spending, 
not for significantly bringing down the statutory tax rate, which, 
after all, is one of the few ways you can really help our American 
companies.
  Put simply, there is virtually nothing in the President's nebulous 
tax reform framework that would discourage companies from moving 
offshore. In fact, one could argue--and many have--that the President's 
proposed high minimum tax on foreign earnings would actually encourage 
more U.S. companies to invert.
  For example, this past November, the vice president of global taxes 
at Procter & Gamble, another iconic American company, was quoted as 
saying: ``If we take a step towards a [minimum] tax at the corporate 
level, we're exacerbating the problem; we're actually guaranteeing that 
inversions are more attractive.''
  On top of these new taxes, there is no real effort in the President's 
tax framework to improve the business climate in the United States more 
generally. After all these changes, the framework would still leave the 
United States with a corporate tax that would be well above the average 
in the developed world, leaving us right where we have been. In short, 
this framework is par for the course with this administration.
  We have heard quite a bit of blame thrown in Congress's direction for 
not acting to prevent inversions. What we haven't heard is any serious 
effort on the part of the President or anyone in his administration to 
engage with Congress on meaningful tax reform. Like I said, the 
President and his supporters are far more willing to assign blame for 
the problems caused by our tax system than to actually work toward a 
solution. This is particularly true in election years, when the motto 
seems to be this: Why fix a problem when you can blame it on the other 
side?
  For my part, I am working to take specific steps to address these 
problems. I have been the Republican leader on the Senate Committee on 
Finance for about 4\1/2\ years now, and for 4\1/2\ years I have been 
calling on my colleagues and imploring officials in the administration 
to engage on tax reform. To date, I have seen little in the way of a 
meaningful response.
  Currently, I am working on a relatively simple but potentially 
effective tax reform proposal that I believe will be bipartisan and 
many believe would relieve a great deal of the inversion pressure on 
American companies and, at the very least, significantly alter the 
economic calculation for inversion transactions. Best of all, it would 
do so without punishing companies or imposing burdensome mandates. In 
short, my proposal would provide more carrots to keep companies from 
inverting and fewer sticks to punish companies that try to go in that 
direction.
  While I am still working with the Joint Committee on Taxation to 
finalize the details of this proposal, the basic idea behind my 
proposal would be to streamline the taxation of business income and 
eliminate instances in which profits and earnings are subject to 
multiple layers of taxation at the company and shareholder levels.
  I will have more to say on this proposal in the coming weeks. Today, 
I am simply trying to counter the narrative that American companies can 
and should be forced to remain in the United States by regulation. I am 
trying to demonstrate that you cannot fix the inversion problem by 
building a virtual wall around the country to keep businesses from 
leaving, while at the same time keeping tax rates so high that they 
have to leave to be able to compete.
  I am trying to show why you can't build that wall expecting some 
other

[[Page S2371]]

country to pay for it. Indeed, if an anti-inversion wall goes up 
without any real changes to improve the tax and business environment in 
the United States, it will be American workers and consumers that will 
end up footing the bill.
  What we are working on is corporate integration. Right now the work 
we have done seems to be getting some positive feedback from the Joint 
Taxation Committee, but they are not through with their work yet and so 
we are going to wait until they are. They should be through by the end 
of May, or at least that is what they have indicated will be their 
target. Hopefully, they will have some preliminary results before the 
end of May.
  But let me say, if we are right on corporate integration, then both 
parties should come together to resolve these problems so that we can 
compete with any company anywhere in the world.
  I can just say, in short, that this program we are devising will 
allow the companies themselves to bring down their own tax rates 
without worrying about what the wonderful Members of Congress are going 
to do. At the same time, by bringing down those rates, they will be 
able to help this economy to go forward.
  So far this has been revenue positive. All we want for this program 
is to be revenue neutral. But I think we can get there, and I hope my 
friends on the other side will seriously look at this because this is 
something we could do this year to help this country resolve its 
problems with regard to corporate inversions. I believe it will work. I 
believe it will work. But a lot will depend on the Joint Taxation 
Committee, and we will see what they are doing. So far the work they 
have done is positive. They have worked on it for a number of months 
now. They want to cover every possible ramification, and we are very 
appreciative of the work they are doing.
  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. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I filed two amendments very important 
to my home State of Florida that I want to discuss. The first is an 
amendment that would authorize the Central Everglades Planning Project. 
The Florida Everglades are a national treasure. We have to work 
together to restore these lands.
  The State has experienced a wetter-than-average winter. The rains 
have elevated the levels of Lake Okeechobee which triggered the Army 
Corps of Engineers to discharge billions of gallons of water to the 
east through the St. Lucie River and to the west through the 
Caloosahatchee River. These discharges have been ongoing for months and 
have negatively impacted the delicate ecosystem in the area as well as 
the agricultural and tourism industries.
  In order to diminish these discharges, we must authorize the Central 
Everglades Planning Project. Once complete, this project will allow 
water to flow south from Lake Okeechobee to Everglades National Park 
and to Florida Bay.
  I had hoped this project would be authorized in 2014 by the 
administration, but the administration delayed the Army Corps of 
Engineers' Chief's report, which is the final step before Congress can 
authorize new projects, but this year we have a real chance to get this 
done. Thanks to the good work of Chairman Inhofe of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, I expect the Central Everglades Planning 
Project to be included in the forthcoming water bill, which is slated 
to be marked up in committee next week.
  I will not ask for a vote on this amendment today, but I want to draw 
attention to this essential Everglades restoration project. I am 
hopeful this body can come together to restore our Everglades, but in 
the meantime I will continue to push for this vital authorization.
  Mr. President, the other amendment I filed today, cosponsored by 
Senators Shelby, Nelson, and Sessions, also highlights the importance 
of water management. The issue at hand there involves water that is 
naturally supposed to flow south, but it has not done so due to the 
Army Corps' actions in and around the State of Georgia.
  The results of this mismanagement have led to a 2013 Department of 
Commerce fishery disaster. It was declared for oysters in the 
Apalachicola Bay. During that same year, Senator Nelson and I held a 
field hearing in Apalachicola, where we heard from local fishermen 
whose livelihoods and family traditions were injured by the collapse of 
these fisheries.
  While we must continue to explore ways to fish more sustainably, a 
large part of the fisheries' collapse was the lack of freshwater flows. 
I have long supported the role Governors play in water allocation when 
the water in question greatly impacts multiple States. However, absent 
such an agreement between Governors, water continues to be withheld, 
and the situation has now become dire in my home State of Florida.
  The bottom line is, the status quo is only working for one State. I, 
along with the senior Senator from Florida and our colleagues from 
Alabama, have stood lockstep to bring our respective States to the 
table to finalize water allocations that will take into account our 
shared goals.
  Today we filed an amendment to do just that--to require the Governors 
to agree on water allocation before the Army Corps of Engineers can 
reallocate waters between the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River 
Basin and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin. The amendment also 
stipulates no funds would be available for reallocation of water within 
the States if an agreement between the Governors is not finalized. I 
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure.


                             Eureka Gardens

  Mr. President, on a different matter, I want to take this moment to 
applaud the residents of Eureka Garden Apartments in Jacksonville, FL, 
for coming together as a community during a time of hardship. While 
they face dangerous living conditions and bureaucratic indifference to 
their concerns, they have remained united and resilient.
  The bottom line is, the Federal Government has failed them. The 
Department of Housing and Urban Development has for years certified a 
living facility that has put hundreds of families at risk. When HUD 
inspected the property in question last summer, they passed the 
apartment complex, and they passed it with flying colors. Eureka 
Gardens received an 85 out of 100, but less than a month later, 
residents were complaining at tenants' association meetings and to 
their city council members about how bad their living conditions had 
become.
  When my staff visited the complex, what they witnessed was literally 
unbelievable. They saw crumbling stairs and black mold. They saw 
exposed electrical wiring that had been covered up by a trash bag. They 
smelled the natural gas that would soon hospitalize residents just days 
later.
  That was and that is unacceptable. My office, along with Mayor Curry 
of the city of Jacksonville and the city council and the tenants 
association, pushed for months to have improvements and repairs done to 
this complex. In February, HUD finally had a date by which all repairs 
must be completed.
  When they came back to reinspect Eureka Gardens, it passed the 
inspection, and they eventually renewed their contract with the 
property's owner, but the residents continued to say what they have 
been saying all along--HUD's inspections weren't working.
  Just recently, HUD revealed that Eureka Gardens passed with a score 
of 62. The passing score is a 60. However, a senior HUD official 
admitted that HUD officials do not believe the property would currently 
pass another inspection. So HUD has just admitted it has certified a 
failing facility. Something is clearly wrong with the HUD inspection 
process and Floridians are being hurt because of it.
  I would like to read part of an article from the Florida Times-Union, 
which was published on Monday that quotes one of the residents at 
Eureka Gardens.

       Dwan Wilson, who said she has had to go to the hospital at 
     least six times with asthma issues since the mold 
     remediation, cried as she spoke about her apartments' 
     problems.

[[Page S2372]]

       ``We thank you all for what you're trying to do,'' Wilson 
     said. ``We thank you all for pushing. But we're telling you 
     they aren't doing anything.''

  How many more years must the residents of Eureka Gardens suffer under 
this mismanagement? How many more children have to be put at risk due 
to lead poisoning and gas leaks? How many more facilities will HUD 
continue to rubberstamp approval of only to further sell slumlike 
conditions for the most vulnerable tenants? How many taxpayer dollars 
will be wasted by this agency on failing projects such as this?
  These are the questions HUD must answer. In the meantime, the 
residents of Eureka Gardens are forced to deal with the consequences of 
HUD's failures. I will continue to look for solutions to make sure what 
has happened at Eureka Gardens isn't repeated elsewhere. Americans 
deserve better from their government.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter I wrote to the Secretary of HUD, and it is dated April 18.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 18, 2016.
     Hon. Secretary Julian Castro,
     U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Secretary Castro: For over five months, my office has 
     been involved in the investigation of shocking health and 
     safety conditions at Eureka Garden Apartments (Eureka Garden) 
     in Jacksonville, Florida. It is appalling that American 
     taxpayer dollars have been wastefully spent over the years to 
     fund a facility that has repeatedly put hundreds of people 
     and their families at risk. I am writing to highlight these 
     many problems and to ask for the U.S. Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct a thorough review of 
     its inspection process.
       As you may know, following reports of code violations at 
     the Westside complex, my Jacksonville staff toured Eureka 
     Garden in early October 2015. They witnessed crumbling stairs 
     disguised with duct-tape and covered with apparent black 
     mold, faulty electric wiring covered with a garbage bag, and 
     a distinguishable natural gas odor being sucked from an 
     outdoor piping system into residents' air-conditioning, among 
     other obvious health and safety issues. HUD confirmed these 
     conditions in an inspection of the property in October 2015, 
     in which physical deficiencies were found in at least 340 of 
     the 400 units. According to HUD's own criteria, almost 50 of 
     those deficiencies represented ``Exigent Health and Safety 
     concerns,'' including mold, water damage, exposed wires, 
     carbon monoxide hazards and leaking gas pipes.
       Despite these findings, just three months earlier in July 
     2015, HUD gave Eureka Garden Apartments an 85 out of 100 
     score in its Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) inspection. 
     Although many of the problems were witnessed during the 
     summer inspection, HUD representatives defended the passing 
     score to my staff in a meeting last October, saying they did 
     not contribute to the assessment of the property as they are 
     not relevant criteria under HUD's inspection process. Had it 
     not been for the residents calling attention to their dire 
     situation, the facility would not have been reviewed again 
     for another two years.
       Your Department recently notified my office that the most 
     recent inspection of Eureka Garden gave the complex a REAC 
     score of 62 out 100, despite the many repairs that have been 
     completed since the last REAC inspection. This discrepancy 
     indicates something is clearly wrong with the REAC scores. 
     Your Department visited Eureka Garden again on March 17th and 
     18th and witnessed what my staff and the city of Jacksonville 
     has seen all along--Eureka Garden remains in poor condition.
       After visiting Eureka Garden most recently, the Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing wrote in a letter 
     that ``HUD officials do not believe the property would 
     currently pass another REAC inspection.'' However, HUD's 
     protocol has placed enough confidence in the previous 
     inspection that it has renewed GMF's $6 million contract for 
     Eureka Garden. In doing so, HUD has knowingly certified a 
     substandard facility because of a faulty inspection process.
       Your Department is ultimately responsible as the steward of 
     the taxpayer funding that supports this property. Therefore, 
     to address these concerns, I respectfully request a timely 
     response to the following questions:
       With conditions at Eureka Garden going unidentified for so 
     long, what does HUD plan to do about reforming its inspection 
     process to identify problems earlier and to ensure passing 
     grades are not given to failing properties?
       Will HUD explore a broader reform of inspection that 
     expands the role of and resources available for state and 
     local partners to regularly check the status of HUD-certified 
     facilities to ensure greater accountability?
       Does the Department plan a re-inspection of the complex?
       During this difficult time, I am proud of the Eureka Garden 
     community for standing up and coming together on behalf of 
     their vulnerable neighbors. This community has demonstrated 
     great strength by collectively voicing their concerns and 
     showing resiliency in the face of bureaucratic indifference 
     and property mismanagement. It is time they are given the 
     respect and quality of life they so deserve after waiting far 
     too long for critical improvements to be made at Eureka 
     Garden.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter and continued 
     work on this issue. I look forward to your prompt response.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Marco Rubio,
                                                     U.S. Senator.


      Calling for the Release of Raif Badawi and Waleed Abulkhair

  Mr. President, one last item I want to discuss today, and I think it 
is appropriate, given where the President finds himself at this moment 
in Saudi Arabia. It is regarding a letter I sent earlier this week, 
along with Senators Durbin, Risch, Leahy, and Johnson to President 
Obama asking him to raise human rights issues during his meetings in 
Saudi Arabia--in particular, the case of Raif Badawi and his lawyer 
Waleed Abulkhair. Raif Badawi is a Saudi blogger. He was arrested in 
2012 on the charge of insulting Islam and indicted on several charges, 
including apostasy. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 
lashes.
  In January of 2015, Raif received his first set of 50 lashes in 
public. This resulted in an international outcry. Raif's subsequent 
lashes have been postponed. They have been postponed on health grounds. 
They have been postponed because just the first 50 lashes were so 
brutal, there were doubts whether he would survive 50 more, but he 
continues to serve his sentence in prison.
  Last week I met with Raif's wife to discuss his case. Raif and his 
lawyer should be immediately and unconditionally released. While I 
deeply value and think it is a very important alliance between the 
United States and Saudi Arabia, this alliance cannot allow our country 
to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. I hope we will take up this 
cause.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record our letter, 
dated April 19, 2016, that we wrote to the President.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 19, 2016.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     The President, The White House
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As you prepare for your upcoming trip 
     to Saudi Arabia, we are writing to express concern regarding 
     the Government of Saudi Arabia's continued treatment of human 
     rights advocates, particularly the documented prosecutions of 
     non-violent activists who are engaging in freedom of 
     expression. Intolerance for freedom of speech and the 
     imposition of travel bans and lengthy prison terms for 
     peaceful dissidents harm Saudi Arabia's reputation 
     internationally and stifle Saudi innovation and creativity. 
     We are concerned that unless you make these issues a priority 
     during your trip, human rights abuses will continue to occur 
     with impunity and the full potential of the U.S.-Saudi 
     relationship will continue to be impeded.
       Specifically, we request you raise the case of blogger Raif 
     Badawi, who was sentenced to 10 years in jail and 1,000 
     lashes for launching a website that suggested a peaceful 
     discussion about religion. Mr. Badawi endured a first round 
     of 50 lashes in January of 2015 but the remainder of his 
     lashes has been postponed due to his health condition. During 
     his unjust imprisonment, Mr. Badawi has been a recipient of 
     prestigious international awards such as the Sakharov Prize 
     for Freedom of Thought. We are also concerned for the case of 
     Mr. Badawi's lawyer, prominent human rights activist Waleed 
     Abu al-Khair, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison. 
     Additionally, we are concerned about the 2014 travel ban 
     placed on Mr. Badawi's sister Samar Badawi, for her activism 
     defending human rights. In 2012, Ms. Badawi received the U.S. 
     State Department's International Women of Courage Award. In 
     recent months, Ms. Badawi has been called in for questioning 
     by security forces on several occasions and is subject to 
     ongoing harassment.
       In your meeting with King Salman, we urge you to advocate 
     for the immediate and unconditional release of Raif Badawi 
     and Waleed Abu al-Khair. Additionally, we urge you to request 
     that Ms. Badawi's travel ban be lifted and ensure that she is 
     not harassed further for her work. This is an important time 
     for Saudi Arabia to play a leadership role in the region and 
     the world by setting an example of religious tolerance and 
     civility.
       We value the United States and Saudi Arabia close 
     partnership and support efforts to

[[Page S2373]]

     find common approaches to addressing such critical issues as 
     combating terrorism. However, true partners need to be able 
     to have a frank dialogue about disagreements and areas of 
     concern in our relationship. It is thus essential that the 
     United States does not turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's 
     human rights abuses.
           Sincerely,
     Marco Rubio.
     James E. Risch.
     Ron Johnson.
     Richard J. Durbin.
     Patrick Leahy.

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


                    Energy Policy Modernization Bill

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the bipartisan 
Energy Policy Modernization Act, which passed the Senate yesterday with 
my strong support. This bill will help improve the energy efficiency of 
our buildings and appliances, saving Michiganders money on their 
heating and electric bills by incentivizing weatherization and other 
activities. Many of these cutting-edge building efficiency 
technologies, such as insulation and window sealing, are designed and 
developed in my great State of Michigan.
  The bill also included a number of conservation provisions that will 
not only protect our environment, but they will boost our economy by 
supporting the $646 billion outdoor recreation industry. Permanent 
authorizations of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 
reauthorization of the North American Wetland Conservation Act are just 
two examples that will protect wildlife habitat and improve access to 
public lands for all kinds of outdoor recreation.
  Mr. President, I would also like to take a moment to focus on a 
bipartisan provision that I authored with my colleagues Senator 
Stabenow and Senator Alexander, the Vehicle Innovation Act. This 
legislation will provide the tools that researchers, engineers, 
manufacturers, and others need to create the next generation of cars 
and trucks built in Michigan and in States all across our country.
  Southeast Michigan is home to more engineers per capita than anywhere 
else in the country. We must ensure that our automakers, part 
suppliers, and other advanced manufacturers have the right tools to 
develop and incorporate new vehicle innovations that will improve 
safety, innovation, and vehicle performance in the cars and trucks of 
the future.
  Exciting innovations are already underway. Cars and trucks are being 
made with high-strength, light-weight materials that can improve fuel 
economy without compromising safety. Improved combustion technologies 
can increase the efficiency of traditional engines while decreasing 
emissions. Researchers are making batteries more affordable and 
recyclable while enhancing battery range and performance, making 
hybrids and electric vehicles even more competitive.
  The Department of Energy's Vehicle Technologies Program is leading 
this effort, working with a wide range of partners, manufacturers, 
material suppliers, universities, energy suppliers, and our National 
Laboratories. The Department of Energy's vehicle technology activities 
are authorized by a patchwork of different laws, and these authorities 
were last renewed almost a decade ago. A lot has changed in that time. 
Vehicles today are wired with cutting-edge electronics and sensors.
  While my favorite part of Detroit cars and trucks remains horsepower 
and torque, advances in onboard computers and new technologies are 
making our cars safer, more efficient, and more competitive globally.
  The Peters-Alexander-Stabenow Vehicle Innovation Act provides for a 
steady increase in funding for critical DOE programs through the year 
2020. This will create more certainty for companies and entrepreneurs 
engaged in public-private partnerships and ensure that critical 
research and development can keep up as technologies continue to 
emerge.
  Our bill also establishes a clean authorization for DOE's advanced 
vehicle technology activities. This will improve collaboration with 
light-duty automobile and medium- and heavy-duty commercial truck 
engineers, manufacturers, and suppliers to conduct cutting-edge 
technology-neutral research that will improve fuel economy and minimize 
fossil fuel use.
  With over 256 million vehicles on our roads, it takes decades of 
sustained effort to turn over our fleet. It is absolutely critical that 
we continue developing these advanced technologies here in the United 
States in order to achieve major fuel savings in the future and become 
truly energy independent.
  The Vehicle Innovation Act has support from major manufacturers, 
labor, and environmental groups. This is something that just makes 
sense. I appreciate the support of Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and 
all my colleagues who supported including this legislation in the 
bipartisan energy package. While I was pleased to see this commonsense 
measure included, I continue to be frustrated and disappointed that 
this body has held up an up-or-down vote on a bipartisan package 
authored by Senator Stabenow and me to help the people of Flint, MI.
  Flint is still in crisis mode as families still do not have safe, 
reliable water flowing from their taps. Senator Stabenow and I will 
continue pursuing all paths to fight for the assistance that the people 
of Flint deserve. We will not give up. We remain fully committed to 
delivering to Flint families the assistance they need to be able to use 
their tap water for bathing, cooking, and drinking without the fear 
that it may harm them or their children.
  I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are 
willing and able to join us in our efforts to help Flint. I urge them 
to continue working with us to pass this package through the Senate as 
soon as possible. The people of Flint cannot wait any longer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                   Judiciary Committee Investigations

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to take this time to respond to 
Senator Reid's juvenile attacks on my Judiciary Committee's 
investigations and to Senator Reid's frequent crying about my previous 
State Department holds.
  Over the past several months, Senator Reid has been obsessed with 
mentioning holds on nominees--holds which I no longer have. Holds are 
often necessary to force the executive branch to comply with 
congressional investigations. If you want proof of that, just ask the 
Obama administration. In a Federal court filing during the Fast and 
Furious litigation, the Obama administration argued that the court 
should not even consider that particular case. The Justice Department's 
brief said courts should not enforce subpoenas at all. Instead, the 
Justice Department reasoned that Congress should use other powers to 
get documents.
  Here is exactly what the government brief said: ``Among other powers, 
Congress can withhold funds from the Executive Branch, override vetoes, 
decline to enact legislation, refuse to act on nominations, and 
adjourn.'' Later in the brief, the Obama administration specifically 
suggested that Congress can ``tie up nominations'' in order to get 
documents.
  If the administration can say that, why would Senator Reid think that 
is a wrong act for Congress to take? It is this simple: If the minority 
leader doesn't like Senators using holds to get documents from 
agencies, perhaps Senator Reid should talk to his friends in the Obama 
administration who suggested that in the first place.
  In addition, Senator Reid shows his hypocrisy since Members on his 
own side have held up Obama nominees, and Senator Reid never said a 
peep about Democrats exercising their rights. Further, Senator Reid's 
attempts to politicize the Judiciary Committee's oversight work are 
very uninformed and result in misguided statements, and Senator Reid's 
accusation that taxpayer money is being wasted by engaging in oversight 
of the executive branch rings hollow.
  Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server and private email 
arrangements effectively walled off her official communications from 
the normal Freedom

[[Page S2374]]

of Information Act and other Federal recordkeeping requirements. So to 
Senator Reid, I say: The Freedom of Information Act is squarely within 
the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and subject to oversight.
  The former Secretary's use of a secret, private server to conduct all 
of her official business led to an avalanche of Freedom of Information 
Act litigation. It also caused inaccurate responses to Freedom of 
Information Act requests. For example, in December 2012, Citizens for 
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of 
Information Act request for records of Secretary Clinton's email 
addresses. The Department responded by stating: ``No records responsive 
to your request were located.'' That response is very misleading, at 
best. Senior Department officials knew about Secretary Clinton's use of 
private email for official correspondence since they were sending 
emails to her nongovernment email address. They would have known 
instantly of records responsive to that request that the Citizens for 
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted. Yet those senior 
officials apparently failed to communicate with the State Department's 
Freedom of Information Act office. Even then, if State's FOIA office 
were to search Secretary Clinton's government email account, they would 
find nothing since she operated a private account not subject to 
freedom of information.
  Separate from her email address, Secretary Clinton's nongovernment 
server was a secret to high-level officials at the State Department who 
were responsible for information technology and security.
  These officials had no idea the Secretary was operating a separate 
unofficial system. She did not get their approval to do so, so how 
would they know?
  The Judiciary Committee has interviewed the Chief Information 
Officer, the former Chief Information Officer, the former Deputy Chief 
Information Officer, and the Director of Diplomatic Security at the 
State Department. The Chief Information Officers oversaw the work of 
the information technology staffer who Secretary Clinton secretly paid 
to maintain her nonpublic server, yet all of these people knew nothing 
about that nonpublic server. That staffer didn't ask permission to have 
outside employment. While working at the State Department, he didn't 
disclose his outside income on his financial disclosure forms. Now, 
think about that. Officials whose job it is to know were kept in the 
dark about this ``home brew'' email server. If a government agency 
hopes to be transparent with the American people--and that is the point 
behind the Freedom of Information Act legislation--it must first be 
transparent with itself.

  Now we know that highly classified material was transmitted to and 
stored on Secretary Clinton's secret server. What is important about 
that is this is an issue of national security.
  State Department diplomatic security personnel have informed the 
Judiciary Committee that they were unaware of Secretary Clinton's using 
a nongovernment server for official business. So how, then, could they 
possibly secure it from security threats?
  Now, the FBI is investigating this matter as well as several other 
investigations. We keep hearing that the FBI's inquiry is just a 
security review and not a criminal inquiry. So let me tackle that. 
However, one witness asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination rather than answer questions about his work on Secretary 
Clinton's secret server. And he is relying on the Fifth Amendment to 
withhold his personal emails as well. Recently, the Department of 
Justice granted him immunity. So, quite naturally, we are searching for 
other ways to get information before deciding whether it might be 
appropriate to seek an immunity order for his testimony.
  Now, to Senator Reid: These are legitimate oversight inquiries for 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Further, Secretary Clinton did not turn over all of her official 
emails. Emails between GEN David Petraeus and Secretary Clinton, which 
Secretary Clinton failed to provide to the State Department, were later 
turned over to the Defense Department. Secretary Clinton also failed to 
turn over emails with Sydney Blumenthal, whom Secretary Clinton views 
as an off-the-books intelligence resource, while Secretary of State.
  If Secretary Clinton had used a government email address for official 
emails, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
  So how many more official emails were not turned over but should have 
been? The Judiciary Committee cannot ignore these important issues 
simply because the former Secretary decided to run for President. And 
to be perfectly clear, I started this investigation before Secretary 
Clinton announced her candidacy.
  Senator Reid suggested that the committee's work on these issues is a 
waste of money. Senator Reid, that is nonsense. Congressional oversight 
is not a waste of money; it is a constitutional responsibility. The 
minority leader fails to understand that Congress is obligated to 
oversee that the executive branch of government faithfully executes the 
laws and faithfully spends the money the way Congress intended. Without 
such constitutional oversight, Congress will not know if there are 
failures in the executive branch's duty to faithfully execute the laws 
that we pass.
  But do my colleagues know what is a real waste of money? This 
administration fought tooth and nail in the courts against Congress for 
more than 4 years. Why? Just to avoid disclosing documents in the Fast 
and Furious scandal that they eventually turned over. That is a waste 
of money--a 4-year waste of money.
  The Obama administration has fought against the press and watchdog 
organizations for years in the Freedom of Information Act litigation 
over former Secretary Clinton's email records.
  Senator Reid, that is a waste of money.
  It is shocking that the Obama Justice Department devotes so much 
taxpayer resources to avoiding the very transparency that President 
Obama promised on January 21, 2009--1 day into office. This 
administration was going to be the most transparent in the history of 
the entire country, and it has turned out to be the most stonewalling. 
None of that would be necessary if the administration would just comply 
with congressional subpoenas and the Freedom of Information Act. That 
is the way to save money.
  By the way, I would like to ask how much taxpayers' money does 
Senator Reid spend having his staff write daily speeches trying to 
undermine the work of the Judiciary Committee.
  Senator Reid also fails to understand that we are not only focused on 
Secretary Clinton. The committee is conducting dozens of investigations 
on a broad range of issues under the jurisdiction of the committee.
  Some of the executive branch agencies have complained about the 
amount of oversight work the committee does on other matters. To 
justify my statements for this part of my remarks, I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record two letters. The first is from 
the Department of Homeland Security, and the second is from the 
Department of Justice.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                U.S. Department of


                                            Homeland Security,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2015.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley: Since I became Secretary of 
     Homeland Secretary almost two years ago, I have worked to 
     make the Department more responsive to congressional 
     correspondence, directives, request for reports, briefings 
     and hearings, and other requests for documents and 
     information. Given that some 108 committees and subcommittees 
     of Congress (depending on how you count) assert oversight 
     jurisdiction over this Department, this is a full-time, time 
     consuming task. We have also participated in about 100 
     hearings and over 2000 non-hearing engagements with 
     Congressional members and staff since the beginning of the 
     114th Congress. Members on both sides of the aisle have 
     acknowledged our increased responsiveness.
       So far in 2015, I have received 46 letters from you alone--
     almost one per week. I know because I read them all. Many of 
     these letters request reams of information, data, and 
     documents that take hundreds of hours and dozens of staff to 
     compile. We work diligently to respond to your letters 
     promptly, but there is a huge cost to this.

[[Page S2375]]

       Senator, I ask for your help in focusing and prioritizing 
     these oversight letters. I want to continue to be responsive 
     to your requests, and I want to do so as quickly as possible. 
     At the same time, I must ensure that my staff remains focused 
     on all our other priorities.
       I welcome the opportunity to discuss with you.
           Sincerely,
     Jeh Charles Johnson.
                                  ____

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 2015.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letters to the 
     Attorney General, dated June 12, 2015, July 10, 2015, August 
     13, 2015, September 14, 2015, and September 15, 2015, 
     regarding the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). 
     The Department of Justice (the Department) has provided 
     responses in our letters of August 14, 2015, August 25, 2015, 
     and September 11, 2015. As noted in those letters and 
     discussed with your staff, we continue to collect and review 
     information, including the information noted in your letters, 
     so we may provide a complete and thorough response to all of 
     your inquiries as expeditiously as possible. We will continue 
     to keep an open line of communication with your staff as we 
     work toward additional responses to your questions. The 
     Department takes these issues seriously, and we thank you for 
     bringing them to our attention.
       As you know, this year the Department has received from 
     your office almost 100 letters containing more than 825 
     questions and document requests, including the five letters 
     received to date on this matter. While we have made and will 
     continue to make all reasonable efforts to meet your stated 
     deadlines, our ability to respond in a timely manner to your 
     inquiries is impacted by the significant volume of letters we 
     receive.
       We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact this office if we may provide additional 
     assistance regarding this or any other matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter J. Kadzik,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, both of the letters note the many dozen 
letters and hundreds of requests that I have sent, and both essentially 
complain about the volume of our investigation and requests for 
information.
  The Judiciary Committee is hard at work doing the people's business, 
and the committee is doing much more than just oversight. The committee 
has reported 16 executive nominees and 37 judicial nominees. It has 
processed 27 bipartisan bills out of committee, and every bill that has 
come out of committee is a bipartisan bill. Eighteen of those bills 
were passed out of the Senate over to the House, eight of which have 
been signed into law by the President.
  Just last week, the committee unanimously adopted bipartisan 
legislation to finally protect FBI whistleblowers who report wrongdoing 
to their supervisors and provide for independent review of FBI 
whistleblower cases for the first time.
  So reviewing that record, it seems to me we can ask Senator Reid to 
justify his claim that this committee is partisan.
  The committee concluded an investigation into the abuse and misuse of 
paid administrative leave. The committee took the results and worked 
hard with Members on both sides of the aisle to actually fix that 
problem.
  In February, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 
approved the bipartisan, commonsense reforms in the Administrative 
Leave Act of 2016. Similarly, the committee has worked with Democrats 
and Republicans alike to overturn an Office of Legal Counsel opinion 
that allows the agencies across government to stonewall their 
inspectors general.
  Now let me tell my colleagues how Senator Reid is involved in 
stonewalling that effort. We came up with a legislative solution called 
the IG Empowerment Act and attempted to pass it in December by a live 
unanimous consent request. But Senator Reid objected to the bill even 
though it is supported by seven Members of his own caucus and supported 
by the New York Times editorial board and a host of civil liberties and 
good-government groups. Even the largest circulating daily newspaper in 
the home State of Senator Reid urged him to work with us on a 
compromise. But rather than engaging us in a productive and civil 
manner, Senator Reid publicly slandered the bill as a legislative 
overreach. He claimed that he was concerned about a provision that 
allowed inspectors general to issue testimonial subpoenas to fight 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  In fact, Senator Reid voted--Senator Reid actually voted--to give the 
exact same authority to the Office of Special Counsel in 1989. That 
1989 bill passed the Senate unanimously and is now law.
  Senator Reid, was that legislative overreach when you did it?
  Like that bill, the IG Empowerment Act has near unanimous support and 
is designed to root out wrongdoing from government, while ensuring 
proper safeguards of the use of subpoenas. So there is no reason to 
object to this bill on policy grounds. Yet Senator Reid stands in the 
way of getting that done.
  The Judiciary Committee will continue its work. I say that to just 
one Senator: Senator Reid. And during the course of my oversight work, 
I will use every tool at my disposal to obtain answers for the American 
people.
  So, Senator Reid, I will keep faith with my oath of office and ``we 
the people.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


  Oklahoma City Bombing Anniversary and Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, 21 years ago this week, the families of 
168 people--19 of those 168 people children--received some of the worst 
news of their lives. That news was that a beloved member of each of 
their families had been killed in the bombing of the Federal building 
in Oklahoma City.
  We all watched the news that day, that night, the next day, and that 
week and beyond, as we took in the devastation caused by that blast. 
That horrible crime was carried out by a radical, anti-government 
extremist. It remains the deadliest act of homegrown terrorism in our 
Nation's history.
  For the families who lost a loved one that day in 1995, there is no 
way to fill the void left by a life taken too soon, but I know that our 
government's pursuit of justice for the lives lost that day serve as a 
small source of comfort for the people who were left in mourning.
  At the time of that heinous crime, Judge Merrick Garland, President 
Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, was the 
Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of 
Justice. He immediately flew to Oklahoma City to lead the criminal 
investigation and supervise the prosecution of the bombers. In fact, he 
insisted on being sent. He didn't just volunteer. He didn't just say: 
Well, OK, I will go. He told his supervisors they had to let him go. He 
was the highest ranking Justice Department official on the ground in 
Oklahoma City following the bombing. He helped oversee every aspect of 
the investigation and the subsequent trial. His colleagues at the time 
have attested to Judge Garland's commitment to following the letter of 
the law in every aspect of that investigation. He refused to take any 
shortcuts that could somehow compromise the integrity of the case that 
he and his team were building. Through their tireless efforts, his 
tireless leadership, his deep understanding of the law, and scrupulous 
attention to detail, Judge Garland ensured the prosecution had an 
airtight case.

  Ultimately, both bombers were convicted, giving the families of the 
168 victims not their sons, their daughters, their children, their moms 
or dads back again, but at least providing a small measure of 
vindication for the losses they had incurred.
  Judge Garland's work was so appreciated by the families and friends 
of those victims 21 years ago that last year, on the 20th anniversary 
of the bombing, the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum awarded 
Judge Garland its annual Reflections of Hope distinction--not the year 
after the bombing but 20 years after the bombing.
  Judge Garland has established an unparalleled reputation as a 
brilliant, dedicated prosecutor and jurist. He has received strong 
bipartisan support in the legal community, including from Alberto 
Gonzales, the former U.S. Attorney General and White House Counsel in 
the administration of President George W. Bush. So today it is not just 
discouraging that most of my Republican colleagues are refusing to 
consider Judge Garland's nomination to serve on our highest Court; 
personally, I believe it is outrageous.

[[Page S2376]]

  I served for 8 years as Governor of Delaware, a State that is 
renowned for its own courts--supreme court, court of chancery, superior 
court--courts that play a national role, not just on a State level. As 
Governor of my State for 8 years, I nominated men and women to serve on 
those courts. In every one of those nominations there were hearings 
held, whether they were Democrat or Republican. I think during that 
period of time I nominated an equal number of Democrats and Republicans 
to the judiciary. That is the constitution of our State, and, frankly, 
that is a great example because in Delaware we have one of the highest 
regarded judiciaries.
  My obligation as Governor was to nominate outstanding candidates for 
these judgeships as they became vacant. The role of the State Senate in 
Delaware was to consider them. They never waited a year and left a seat 
vacant for a year awaiting the end of my time as Governor or any other 
Governor's time. That would never happen. We wouldn't waste 10 months. 
State senators in our State wouldn't wait 10 weeks. They did their 
jobs. They did their jobs.
  We are not doing ours, and we need to. The fact that we haven't is 
outrageous. When we elect Presidents to this country, we elect them for 
4 years, and if they are reelected, then it is for another 4 years. 
They are not Presidents for 3 years and 11 months; they are not elected 
to a term of 3 years and 10 months. We elect them to a term of 4 years. 
They need to be on the job for 4 years.
  Our President is doing what he is supposed to do, and that is sending 
us the names of exceptional people who serve in incredibly important 
positions like the Supreme Court. He has done his job.
  I very much want to do mine, and I want to be joined by Democrats and 
Republicans in doing our jobs. Every Member of this body has taken at 
least one oath to uphold the Constitution--some of us, many times over.
  At 17 years old, not much older than the young interns who are 
sitting here in the Chamber, I took my first oath as a midshipman. I 
was a freshman at the Ohio State Navy ROTC, where I was privileged to 
go on a Navy scholarship. Four years later, I took another oath and 
raised my right hand as an ensign in the Navy. I took an oath to defend 
the Constitution and the country and headed to Pensacola, FL, to become 
a naval flight officer right in the middle of the Vietnam war. I ended 
up serving three tours over there during that conflict.
  As a Congressman, I took an oath to defend the country and 
Constitution. As Governor, I also took a similar oath to defend our 
country's Constitution--at least to defend our State's constitution. 
Then, as a U.S. Senator I have taken an oath any number of times.
  I am regarded by my colleagues as one of the least partisan people 
here, but I think the refusal of the majority to even consider this 
nomination is more than an abdication of our responsibility. I believe 
it is an example of playing politics with the very Constitution we have 
sworn to uphold.
  For those who don't know, Delaware is known as the First State. We 
are known as the First State because on December 7, 1787, before any 
other State had ratified the Constitution, we did. I joke with people 
that for 1 week Delaware was the entire United States of America. We 
opened things up and let in Maryland; we let in Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey and eventually Louisiana--even Iowa. I think for the most part 
it has turned out pretty well, but the idea of playing politics with 
the Constitution that we have sworn to uphold is deeply troubling to 
me. I hope that is not what is going on here, but I fear that it is.
  The right and just way to proceed is to begin consideration of Judge 
Garland's nomination, not next month and not some other year, but now--
first in committee and then on the Senate floor.
  We have something we call the Delaware way. We are focused on the 
three C's--communicate, compromise, and collaborate. That is a good 
example for 49 other States, and I think it is a good example right 
here. After all, we have been sent by the people to this hallowed 
place, this Senate Chamber, to put democracy into action, to protect 
liberty and to protect justice for all.
  Nearly 50 years ago, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a 
conservative--I believe he was from California and was appointed or 
nominated by Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican. Former Chief Justice 
Warren Burger said, ``A sense of confidence in the courts is essential 
to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people.''
  He went on to say that ``inefficiency and delay will drain even a 
just judgment of its value.'' I think the shorthand version of that is 
justice delayed is justice denied. Justice delayed is justice denied. 
By dragging our feet and trying to get into a new Congress, maybe with 
a new President--certainly, with a new President--that is delaying 
justice, I believe.
  In the face of the prospect of any number of potentially 4-to-4 
divided verdicts in the Supreme Court with only eight members, we 
cannot just stand aside and let that happen.
  Justice Burger was right when he said those words all those years 
ago, and he is right today.
  Mr. President, I think it is time to stop this delay. It is time for 
us to serve the people. It is time for us to deliver justice.
  It is time for us to give this President's nominee the consideration 
demanded of us by the Constitution, which we are sworn to uphold.
  Mr. President, I see no colleague seeking recognition, and with that 
I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Remembering Prince

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to 
speak of the loss of the one of Minnesota's own, and that is Prince.
  Like all Minnesotans, today we were shocked and saddened. I grew up 
with Prince's music, starting with ``Little Red Corvette'' in the 
seventies and eighties. We won't forget ``Purple Rain'' in Minnesota. 
We were so proud of that movie, and everyone would point at every spot 
in the movie they knew from growing up.
  He was a superstar, composer, amazing performer, and a music 
innovator with a fierce belief in the independence of his art. He lived 
his art. He believed his words were his own, his name was his own, and 
he wasn't going to let anyone own him. There was absolutely nobody like 
him, and there never will be.
  Prince sold more than 100 million records worldwide. He released 39 
studio albums. He had five No. 1 Billboard hits and 40 in the top 100. 
He won seven Grammys, an Oscar, and a Golden Globe. He was inducted 
into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2004, the first year he was 
eligible.
  But even with all that success, even with all that fame, Minnesota 
never lost that sense that he was a beloved son--our neighbor, the 
superstar next door. I was always so proud to say: ``Prince--you know 
he's from Minnesota.'' He was born there, and he still lives there.
  The fact that Prince was a proud native of my State came through in 
all of his music. He pioneered the Minneapolis sound--that mixture of 
funk, rock, and pop that emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s and 
influenced music for decades to come. Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, Janet 
Jackson, Bruno Mars, Mark Ronson, Justin Timberlake, The Weeknd, 
Beyonce--these are just some of the many artists who were influenced by 
that sound.
  But that sound didn't just influence artists, it influenced everyone 
who heard it. Prince's music touched our hearts, opened our minds, and 
made us want to dance. That is his legacy, and that is what we will 
always remember.
  Prince made ``Purple Rain'' a household name. Like most Minnesotans, 
I remember the first time I listened to that album. It was, as his band 
was then called, a revolution. It changed music forever and is 
considered among the best in music history.
  Two of the songs on that album--``When Doves Cry,'' which is 
especially notable because he plays all of the instruments in the song, 
and ``Let's Go Crazy''--rose to the top of the charts.

[[Page S2377]]

``Let's Go Crazy'' includes a lesson important to remember on days like 
today. There is a world waiting for us after this life, Prince sang, 
``a world of never ending happiness, where you can always see the sun, 
day or night.'' I know that today all of us hope Prince is standing in 
that Sun.
  Prince sang that song at First Avenue--the venue in downtown 
Minneapolis--when he introduced his band to the city in 1983. There, 
too, Prince shot some of the scenes for his classic ``Purple Rain'' 
film. Today the club is a landmark and a must-play venue for some of 
the best artists. I personally stood in Prince's dressing room 
surrounded by pictures of him. The building is covered in stars with 
the names of artists who have performed there, and there will always be 
one star that will shine the brightest, and that is the man who made it 
the landmark it is--Prince.
  Minnesota loves Prince, and Prince loved Minnesota. He was born in 
Minneapolis. He went to Central High School, where he played piano and 
guitar for a band called Grand Central. He recorded his early demo 
tapes with Chris Moon and at Sound 80 Studios in Minneapolis.
  Throughout his life, he called Minnesota home. He wrote a song about 
the Minnesota Vikings--he was always a big fan--appropriately titled 
``Purple and Gold.''
  At the end of last year when the Minnesota Lynx--our women's 
basketball team--won the WNBA championship, he held a concert at his 
recording studio, Paisley Park, for local fans, who got to enjoy his 
music well into the night. Just a few days ago, he hosted a dance party 
there and made a brief appearance. In some way, it was his last gift to 
our State. But his best and lasting gift? His music, his innovation, 
his energy.
  When accepting BET's Lifetime Achievement Award, Prince said:

       The future's in your hands now. And the world really is 
     yours.

  Well, that world is a whole lot cooler because Prince was in it, and 
it is a whole lot sadder today now that he is gone.
  My heart goes out to his friends and family and to all who mourn his 
loss today. We will miss the artist Prince.
  I yield the floor.
  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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Paris Climate Agreement

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am on the floor I guess just a few 
moments ahead of the ranking member of our Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, my friend Ben Cardin, who is on his way but has authorized 
me to proceed with a few remarks on the topic that he and I, and 
perhaps others, would like to address, which is tomorrow's signing in 
New York of the Paris climate agreement.
  Over 160 nations around the world are going to be participating in 
signing that agreement that will move many of them immediately into 
their program of compliance and signify for others a statement of 
intention to join. I think it is the largest international agreement, 
in terms of the number of countries involved, ever, certainly the 
biggest one I can think of. So it is very significant in that respect.
  One other thing about Paris that I think was also very significant is 
what took place in America's corporate sector in support of a strong 
Paris Agreement. The President and groups like Ceres, with particular 
leadership from companies like Unilever, got together and created a 
remarkable American corporate coalition with more than 150 companies, 
including ones like Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, Ford and GM, 
Nike, and VF industries, General Mills, Cargill, Apple, Google--a 
terrific coalition; kind of the who's who of corporate America. They 
got together to urge the countries of the world to be bold in Paris, to 
have it be a strong agreement, and to show their support for an 
international program to address climate change, which I think is 
terrific.
  The distinguished junior Senator from Louisiana is presiding, and I 
can't think off the top of my head what Louisiana-based companies are 
part of that coalition, but certainly companies that are based in 
virtually every State we represent in the Senate--major companies: 
Walmart, for instance, out of Arkansas; Coca-Cola, out of Georgia; VF 
industries, out of North Carolina; some of our biggest electric 
utilities; the bulk of the property casualty insurance and reinsurance 
industry. It is very significant that America's corporate community 
came so strongly together. I hope very much that is a message that not 
only resonated in Paris but that will resonate in Congress as well 
because I would bet that every single one of us have a significant home 
State corporation that has signed that pledge, and some of us will have 
many significant home State corporations that will have signed that 
pledge.
  So when you have gotten to the point where the leadership of 
America's corporate community has signed on to the fact that something 
needs to be done and that America ought to lead--that is our role in 
the world--that will begin more and more to have an effect in this body 
to counter some of the nonsense and mischief that a very small slice in 
the fossil fuel industry has been propagating at the expense of the 
broader American corporate community, which, by and large, has been 
pretty outstanding on this.
  Let me also mention one other thing that has happened just this 
afternoon, which I am very encouraged by; that is, an amendment that 
has been filed by 10 Senators--bipartisan, 5 and 5. It is the Graham-
Whitehouse amendment. The cosponsors on the Republican side are 
Senators Graham, Kirk, Ayotte, Collins, and Portman. On the Democratic 
side, they are Whitehouse, Merkley, Schatz, Markey, and Brown.
  The amendment reads: Climate change is real, and human activity 
contributes to climate change. Climate change is already affecting the 
American people and poses an increasing risk to our health, security, 
economy, and infrastructure. Over 180 nations, including China, India, 
and Brazil, have made commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
that contribute to climate change, creating opportunities for American 
workers and innovative private industry benefits from global clean 
energy markets. Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that the 
United States should be a world leader in addressing climate change; 
that Congress is best positioned to address policies that leave a 
prosperous economy and healthy environment for future generations; that 
Congress has a responsibility to take actions that reduce emissions and 
combat climate change; and, finally, that Congress should support 
research and development to bolster clean energy technology.
  In that latter regard, let me note the Mission Innovation Initiative 
that has come out of Secretary Moniz's Department of Energy and out of 
a significant group of major investors around the world. The deal 
basically is that countries involved will try to double our clean 
energy R&D, and in return these major investors from around the world, 
led by Bill Gates, will set up a significant fund that will take the 
emerging technologies that early R&D can discover and bring them 
through the various early investment stages of what investors and 
startup folks call the valleys of death on the way to becoming a 
sustainable company so those technologies can be brought forward on an 
accelerated basis.
  So when you look at Paris, you not only see this enormous array of 
nations coming together in a common cause, you see right behind it 
virtually the entirety of the leadership of America's corporate sector 
coming right in with it and saying: This is what we want. This is what 
we encourage. We want it to be strong. You have the biggest investors 
in the world, most of them coming together and saying: We are going to 
have your back with investment into new types of clean energy funding. 
And then you have the governments of the world not only signing up 
for--not all of them but the ones participating in Mission Innovation--
signing up, in addition to the treaty, for this commitment to increase 
R&D and press innovation in this space forward.
  So for all those reasons and more, tomorrow is a good news day for 
our country. It is a good news day for

[[Page S2378]]

progress and innovation, it is a good news day for the enormous array 
of American corporate leaders who have supported and cheered on this 
particular occasion, and I think it is an occasion for pride on the 
part of the United States of America that the signing will be taking 
place in the United States in New York, that Secretary Kerry will be 
attending, that the Chinese leader will be attending, and that people 
from all around the world will be there not only recognizing the need 
to do this but recognizing America's leadership in getting us to this 
place.
  I will close with a personal note of appreciation for a gentleman 
named Todd Stern. Todd was the climate negotiator for the Department of 
State for many years, and some of those were rather bleak years in 
which the United States was not showing leadership. So Todd had to hang 
in there and endure that frustration and keep his candle of faith 
burning until the day came when we finally began to kick in at last. 
His role was very important in getting us prepared for and through the 
Paris Agreement. He is retiring and has served his country well. So I 
will close with a word of good will for that particular public servant 
who has done right by his duty and done right by his country.
  With that, I yield the floor, and with any luck, we can await the 
arrival of Senator Cardin in due course.
  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. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Remembering Prince

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks today regarding 
climate change, I wish to say a few words about a Minnesota icon who 
passed away today.
  Prince was a phenomenal artist who was beloved by people all over the 
world, but as Minnesotans, we are particularly proud to call him one of 
our own.
  Prince got his start in a Minneapolis jazz band and went on to share 
his talent throughout Minnesota and all over the globe. His artistry, 
his innovation, and his unparalleled presence inspired and will 
continue to inspire millions of people. In Minneapolis, he put one of 
our most cherished venues, First Avenue, on the map. Up until just a 
few days ago, he was still performing, having held a concert in 
Atlanta. He is truly going to be missed.
  Someone once said: A brain isn't a mind, and a mind isn't a soul, and 
that is why we need the artists.
  I think the outpouring of appreciation we are seeing today for Prince 
has to do with that unique role artists play, and it speaks to the 
importance of the arts and to human beings.


                        Paris Climate Agreement

  Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in celebrating the 
official signing of the Paris climate agreement.
  Tomorrow, more than 160 countries will send representatives to New 
York to sign onto this historic agreement. This gathering is set to 
become the most well-attended signing event in the history of the 
United Nations--highlighting the importance of this issue for people 
around the entire world. I think it is very fitting that this event is 
taking place on Earth Day.
  This agreement has been nearly 25 years in the making. International 
climate efforts date back to 1992, when governments met in Rio with the 
objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. Nations have 
met every year since then to further this goal. While some meetings 
have been more successful than others, most have been met with 
disappointment and lack of action. After all, climate change is a 
complex issue, and achieving consensus for any international issue is 
no small fete, which is why this agreement is truly, truly impressive.
  Last December, I traveled to Paris with nine of my colleagues. We met 
with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, with U.S. Energy 
Secretary Ernest Moniz, and with our then top climate change negotiator 
Todd Stern. I would like to congratulate all of them for their stellar 
work. I would also like to thank Todd Stern for his service at the 
State Department and his dedication to combating climate change. Mr. 
Stern played a critical role in achieving a successful resolution in 
Paris, and I have no doubt that his successor, Dr. Jonathan Pershing, 
will effectively continue his work.
  Climate change is an existential threat to our planet and to future 
generations. My colleagues have been on the floor of the Senate today 
to talk about the impacts of climate change on their States and the 
need to address it. So I wish to take a minute to talk about how it is 
going to impact Minnesota.
  Minnesota is one of the top producing agricultural States in the 
country, where one out of five jobs is tied to agriculture. Climate 
change will have significant impact on our food system, both through 
warmer temperatures and more intense droughts. A recent study estimates 
that global crop production could decrease by more than 40 percent by 
the end of the century. That is why I joined Dave MacLennan, the CEO of 
Cargill--the largest privately owned company in the country--in penning 
an op-ed in the Minneapolis StarTribune to highlight this threat, 
especially considering that the global population will reach 9 billion 
by midcentury. As the CEO of a company focused on agriculture, David is 
concerned about what climate change is going to do to our food supply.
  Climate change will also impact our waters. Minnesota is the Land of 
10,000 Lakes. Actually, it is about 14,000 lakes, including Lake 
Superior, which contains about 10 percent of the world's fresh surface 
water. Lake Superior has about 10 percent of the fresh surface water on 
Earth. Lake Superior is warming by 2 degrees per decade. We are seeing 
more evaporation and lower water levels in the lake. Plus, rising 
temperatures allow for more favorable conditions for invasive species 
and hazardous algal blooms. Warmer temperatures could also have severe 
consequences to fish like walleye and trout, which are so important to 
Minnesota fisheries and to our ecosystems.
  Let's not forget the threat of climate change to our forests. Like 
our lakes, warmer temperatures elevate the threat of invasive species--
invasive species such as the emerald ash borer and gypsy moth, which 
are rapidly changing the composition of our forests. In other parts of 
the country, we are seeing longer wildfire seasons--wildfires that are 
burning hotter, more intense, and bigger. The Forest Service is 
spending more and more fighting these fires--now more than half of its 
entire budget.
  So we can see that climate change poses a very serious threat to 
Minnesota, our country, and the world.
  The Paris Agreement that we will sign tomorrow marks an important 
step forward to address this threat. But, of course, our job is not 
done. We have to remain vigilant and build upon the success of the 
agreement. Internationally, we have to hold other nations accountable, 
ensure that they commit to stronger emission reduction targets over 
time, and make sure that those reductions are transparent and 
verifiable. Domestically, we have to build on the success of our cities 
and States--like Minnesota--that have been working hard for a long time 
now to become more energy efficient and reduce emissions.
  I have two grandchildren, and I am expecting a third later this year. 
God willing, they will live through this century and into the next. I 
want them to know that when we had the opportunity to put the Earth on 
a safer path, we seized the moment.

  Let's recognize the historic nature of this year's Earth Day, and 
let's celebrate this climate agreement because it is an important 
milestone. Let's build on it to make the planet a safer and more 
habitable place for our grandchildren, their children, and their 
grandchildren.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Minnesota, 
Senator Franken, for his comments concerning an important day tomorrow. 
It is important for many reasons. We have worked a long time to get the 
global community engaged on climate change.
  As Senator Franken pointed out, tomorrow is Earth Day. It will be the

[[Page S2379]]

46th anniversary of Earth Day, which was started by our former 
colleague Senator Gaylord Nelson. He did that because he recognized it 
is important for this country to recognize our global responsibilities 
to our environment and to our future.
  There is no greater challenge that we face than climate change 
because climate change has been caused, in part, by our own activities 
here on Earth, by the emission of greenhouse gases. We have a 
responsibility to reverse the current trends. We can do that.
  Tomorrow in New York City, many leaders will come to sign the COP21 
agreement that was negotiated in Paris earlier this year by 16 nations 
representing 98 percent of the global greenhouse emissions. This is a 
historic moment.
  I want to reflect for a moment about the U.S. leadership that has 
brought us to this moment in which we now have an agreement among so 
many countries of the world. We have been trying to do this now for a 
long time. We have not been successful. At last, the global community 
has come together with meaningful commitments that will put us on the 
right path, and the U.S. leadership made this possible.
  I want to congratulate President Obama for his leadership on this. I 
was with Secretary Moniz in Paris. Ten members of the U.S. Senate went 
to Paris during the COP21 negotiations. We were there less than 48 
hours, but I think we were able to broadcast the united support for 
U.S. leadership for a global commitment.
  Secretary of Energy Moniz took us to the exhibit where we saw 
firsthand U.S. technology that will help us meet the challenges of 
climate change--how we can produce energy more efficiently and how we 
can use energy more efficiently. It was U.S. technology, and that 
technology will be used around the world.
  I mention that because U.S. global leadership is critically important 
to help save our planet from the adverse impacts of climate change, 
yes, but it also will help our economy. It will help our economy, 
obviously, in dealing with the effects of climate change but also in 
U.S. technology being used around the world, creating jobs here in the 
United States.
  This is an urgent issue. If I might, let me first quote from Pope 
Francis. He said:

       The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a 
     concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a 
     sustainable and integral development, for we know that things 
     can change. . . . I urgently appeal, for a new dialogue about 
     how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a 
     conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental 
     challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and 
     affect us all. . . . Climate change is a global problem with 
     grave implications: environmental, social, economic, 
     political, and for the distribution of goods. It represents 
     one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.

  I couldn't agree with him more. This is a global challenge with 
global, grave consequences if we don't get it right.
  I see that in my own State of Maryland's Smith Island, which is 
disappearing into the Chesapeake Bay. I see it in the Chesapeake Bay 
with the loss of sea grasses because of warmer water temperatures. Sea 
grasses are critically important to the survival of the Maryland blue 
crab. I see it in our coastal safety, as we see more and more storms 
with more consequences.
  Recently I traveled to the southern part of Africa, and I had a 
chance to see from a helicopter the impact of climate change. In the 
southern part of Africa, they have only two seasons: the rainy season 
and the dry season. They are now at about one season: the dry season. 
We were there during the rainy season, and by helicopter we flew over 
land that should have been part of a pond. Instead, it was dry, no 
water. We saw the carcasses of animals that couldn't survive because of 
the drought.
  Climate change is real and is affecting our planet. There are 
vulnerable nations--from the Marshall Islands to Bangladesh and so many 
others--whose very existence is at risk because of climate change.
  This is an urgent issue that requires an urgent response. But here we 
can make a difference. We can make a difference through conserving and 
using less energy and producing our energy in a more environmentally 
friendly way in a carbon-free environment.
  I am joined by Congressman Delaney and many Members of both the House 
and Senate in saying that the United States should make a commitment to 
produce at least 50 percent of our electricity through a carbon-free 
source by the year 2030. We can do that.
  Here is the good news. It will not only be good for our environment, 
it will be good for our economy and good for our national security. 
Renewable energy sources can be produced here in America. You don't 
have to depend on the fossil fuels from countries who disagree with our 
way of life. For the sake of our national security, for the sake of our 
national economy, there are more jobs in clean energy than there are in 
fossil fuel industry.
  For all those reasons--for our economy, for our security, and for our 
environment--U.S. leadership in dealing with these solutions can help 
America's security. Yes, U.S. leadership is absolutely vital. We saw 
that in COP21. Without U.S. leadership, it could not be done.
  Here is where I really call upon our colleagues. I have said this 
many times on the floor of the Senate. It is a great honor to serve in 
the Senate; it is a great honor to represent the people of Maryland. 
Every Congress has tried to add to its record to protect the future 
generations as it relates to our environment.
  The protection of our environment has never been a partisan issue. I 
would urge our colleagues to find ways that we can work together to 
build the legacy of this Congress to further protect our environment 
for future generations. We should be part of the solution.
  Tomorrow is Earth Day. Let's make a difference. With what we see 
happening in New York and by our actions, let us protect future 
generations.
  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. SASSE. 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. SASSE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Alexander, I ask 
unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following first-
degree amendments: Merkley amendment No. 3812, Reid amendment No. 3805, 
and Flake amendment No. 3820; further, that at 11 a.m., on Tuesday, 
April 26, the Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed and 
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes, and that 
there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________