[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2434-S2449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2016--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the vacancy on the 
Supreme Court and the majority's ongoing refusal to consider the 
nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Forty days have passed since 
the President of the United States nominated Judge Garland to fill 
Justice Scalia's seat. This is longer than it took for the Senate to 
confirm Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981. In fact, 75 percent of all 
Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed within 31 days, but today--
40 days after his nomination--many Senators haven't even extended Judge 
Garland the simple courtesy of a meeting. The majority's refusal to 
hold a vote is without precedent, and the majority has cited none. 
Instead, the majority is trying to shift the blame.
  Incredibly, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee recently came to 
the floor to blame, of all people, not other Senators, not other 
politicians, but the Chief Justice of the United States of America for 
politicizing the Court. Ten days before Justice Scalia's death, the 
Chief Justice said: ``The process is not functioning very well.'' That 
turns out to have been something of an understatement. The Chief 
Justice went on and said that the process ``is being used for something 
other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees.'' Again, he was 
not referring to what is going on now in the Senate. This happened 
before Justice Scalia passed away. There was no way that the Chief 
Justice could have known there was going to be a vacancy. He continued: 
``[Supreme Court Justices] don't work as Democrats or Republicans . . . 
and I think it's a very unfortunate impression the public might get 
from the confirmation process.''
  His words struck me--particularly given what has gone on since then--
as a candid expression of his concern for the Court as an institution. 
This concern apparently upset the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. 
He took to the floor and said:

       The Chief Justice has it exactly backwards. The 
     confirmation process doesn't make the Justices appear 
     political.

  He continued:

       The confirmation process has gotten political precisely 
     because the Court has drifted from the constitutional text, 
     and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences.

  It is absolutely breathtaking that the Chief Justice would be 
criticized for ``drifting from the constitutional text'' when, for the 
past 10 weeks, the majority has drifted from article II, section 2, 
clause 2, which sets out our constitutional responsibility to advise 
and consent in very clear terms. Worse, the majority's drift isn't even 
about policy; it is about politics. It is about rolling the dice on an 
election instead of following the plain text of the Constitution.
  This is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the Senate. 
Throughout our history, the Senate has confirmed 17 nominees in 
Presidential election years to serve on the Supreme Court. The last of 
these was Justice Kennedy in 1988. When the President made this 
nomination, he had more than 340 days left in his term. We are talking 
almost a quarter of the President's term. That is a lot more time than 
most of those 17 Justices had before this Senate.
  In the last 100 years, every nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy who 
did not withdraw--and a couple did--received a timely hearing and vote. 
On average, the Senate has begun hearings within 40 days of the 
President's nomination and voted to confirm 70 days after the 
President's nomination. There is no excuse for not holding a hearing 
and a vote.
  If that is what we are going to pay attention to in this Chamber and 
if that is what we are going to argue for--originalism, strict 
constructionism--the plain language of the Constitution is clear. There 
is a reason why no Senate has ever had the audacity to do what this 
Senate is doing right now--because of how clear that mission is and 
because there is no one else to do it. The Constitution says: The 
Senate shall advise and consent. It doesn't say: The House of 
Representatives shall have a role. It doesn't say: Let the people 
decide. It says that this is the Senate's job. We should do our job 
just as every Senate, until now, has done its job since the founding of 
the country, including the Senate that was there when George Washington 
was in office. Three of those 17 appointments were confirmed by a 
Senate that actually contained people who had been at the 
constitutional convention, and they were consistent with their 
understanding of what the Founders had agreed to. They had a vote on 
the floor of the Senate.
  I am not saying how people should vote. They should vote their 
conscience, but we should have a vote. The American people expect us to 
do our job.
  I want to be clear that I believe there should be hearings. I think 
we should go through hearings to establish the qualifications of the 
nominee. I think that is really important. The point I am making about 
having this vote does not have to do with whom the President nominated. 
It has to do with our institutional responsibility. It has to do with 
the rule of law and the image we want to project to our country and 
overseas.
  Finally, I have a word to say about the President's nominee. Merrick 
Garland is an honored and accomplished judge. Two weeks ago I had the 
opportunity to meet with him and learn about his judicial record and 
philosophy. I have known Chief Judge Garland for more than 20 years. I 
have actually worked for him at the Justice Department when we both 
worked for the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. I was 
fresh out of law school, but even then Judge Garland's humility, work 
ethic, and commitment to the rule of law inspired me and continue to 
inspire me.
  Our meeting last week confirmed what I already know. Judge Garland is 
an intelligent and pragmatic judge who is extraordinarily well-
qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I have wondered whether that 
is the reason the majority is not holding hearings. They could simply 
hold the hearings and vote against Judge Garland, which is their 
prerogative. Why not hold hearings? Maybe they know that the American 
people, given the opportunity to hear directly from Judge Garland, 
would see that he is precisely the type of judge who should serve on 
the Court.
  A vacancy on the Supreme Court is a rare thing. It doesn't come 
around very often. For those of us in this country, whether we are in 
the Senate or in a classroom somewhere, those vacancies, hearings, and 
debates on the floor present an unparalleled opportunity--a remarkable 
opportunity--for the American people to engage in a debate about the 
Court, the Constitution, and all kinds of issues that the Court will 
consider. That is what these hearings are about. That is what could be 
going on this summer during this Presidential election year, and we 
would have a discussion about where we want to head as a country. We 
are not having it. We are not having it because of this unprecedented 
action.
  Because of what the majority has done here, by not meeting with the 
nominee or holding a hearing, they are denying him the opportunity to 
make his case to the American people. In the meantime--and this is 
really critical--the Court will continue to be impaired. Impaired is 
the word that Justice Scalia himself used when he was asked to recuse 
himself from a case involving Dick Cheney, then the Vice President of 
the United States. In that case, he was asked if there would be a 
presumption of recusal. Justice Scalia's answer

[[Page S2435]]

to that was this: Maybe if I were on the court of appeals--because if I 
were on the court of appeals, there would be somebody to replace me, 
but that is not how it works on the Supreme Court. When there is a 
vacancy on the Supreme Court, leaving the Court with only eight 
Justices, there is nobody who can fill in. There is nobody to become 
the ninth Justice. He said that the Court would therefore be impaired.
  The action that is being taken right now threatens to impair the 
Supreme Court not for one session but for two sessions of the Court 
before there is another election. In fact, for the third time since 
Justice Scalia's death, the Supreme Court could not resolve a dispute 
because of a 4-to-4 split. The longer this vacancy remains, the more 
uncertainty and confusion the American people will suffer. As I said, 
two terms of the Court will be jeopardized by petty politics.
  Believe me, I know it has become fashionable for Washington to tear 
down rather than work to improve the democratic institutions that 
generations of Americans have built, but to so cavalierly impair the 
judicial branch of our government is pathetic.
  It is time for the Senate to do its job as every Senate has done 
before us. Again, I am not asking my colleagues to support Judge 
Garland's nomination. That is a matter of conscience for each of us. 
But we must fulfill our basic constitutional obligation of holding a 
hearing and a vote. This is literally--because it is in the 
Constitution and no one else is granted this power--the least we can do 
to demonstrate that we are a legislative body that functions as the 
Constitution requires.
  We certainly have plenty of time. In view of that, if by contrast we 
leave for our scheduled 7 weeks of summer vacation--which is not 
enshrined in the Constitution but is a schedule that is set by the 
Senate--without having fulfilled our responsibility, the American 
people should demand that we return to Washington and do our job.
  It is past time for my colleagues to meet with Judge Garland, hold 
hearings on his record, and give the American people an up-or-down vote 
on this judicial vacancy.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority whip.


                       The Appropriations Process

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I fear that sometimes here in the Senate 
we get bogged down in the minutia and the process and don't really talk 
about the why of how things are done here. We talk a lot about the how, 
but we don't talk about the why. I just want to speak for a couple of 
minutes about why it is so important that we pass the regular 
appropriation bills and put what we are trying to do here in a larger 
context.
  Our colleagues will remember that last year we were unable to pass 
the 12 regular appropriation bills because our Democratic colleagues 
filibustered those pieces of legislation in order to force a 
negotiation to raise the spending caps on discretionary spending. I 
regret that. I wish it hadn't happened, but it did and there is not 
much we can do about it. But in the process, what happened is that we 
ended up having to pass a fiscal year-end omnibus appropriations bill 
that lacked any basic transparency. There was about $1 trillion-plus 
worth of spending, and I think most people's reaction is this: Why do 
you have to do business in such a terrible way that lacks transparency, 
doesn't let people know what is in the bill, and doesn't let all 100 
Senators contribute to the product? The reason is because our 
Democratic colleagues blocked those bills.
  I hope it is different this year because now those top-line numbers 
for discretionary spending are fixed in law. What we are trying to do, 
starting with the Energy and Water appropriations bill that Senator 
Alexander and Senator Feinstein are working through the legislative 
process, is to begin the process of passing those regular appropriation 
bills. I hope and trust we will conclude with this piece of legislation 
this week and then we will move on to the next legislative vehicle, 
which will probably be the transportation, housing, and urban 
development legislation, the so-called THUD bill around here.
  We have actually demonstrated that by providing an open process, we 
can actually get some things done. We all recall last Congress--a year 
and a half ago. The fact of the matter is that a decision had been made 
by the then-majority leader, Senator Reid, not to allow Senators to 
participate in the amendment process on the floor. As a consequence, it 
wasn't just those of us in the minority who were prohibited from 
offering legislation that would actually improve the product that was 
on the floor, it included Members of his own political party. So they 
had to go home at election time and explain to their constituents back 
home: I may be in the majority, but I couldn't get an amendment voted 
on, on the Senate floor.

  Having learned from that experience, Senator McConnell and we decided 
that the best thing to do is to have an open process by which Members 
of the majority party and minority party, Democrats and Republicans 
alike--anybody who has a good idea--can come forward and get a vote on 
that legislation. We had a couple of recent bipartisan successes. Yes, 
I know in some corners ``bipartisanship'' is a dirty word, but the fact 
is, you can't get anything done around here unless it is bipartisan. 
Our Constitution was written in a way to force consensus to be built. 
In an absence of consensus, nothing gets done.
  So we have had a couple of recent successes, in addition to our work 
on appropriations bills, including the Energy Policy Modernization Act. 
One of the most important parts of that legislation from my perspective 
is that back in Texas we saw an expedited process for the approval of 
liquefied natural gas export terminals. That is very important to our 
economy and something that takes advantage of an incredible resource we 
have in America--natural gas--which we would like to sell to our allies 
and friends around the world when they don't have it. That is something 
that builds jobs in America. It helps grow our economy. It helps 
provide a lifeline to many of our allies around the world, for whom 
energy is being used simply as a weapon by people like Vladimir Putin.
  We also voted to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration 
bill. Obviously, this is important for public safety--to make sure our 
skies are safe--but also to provide the appropriate regulatory regime 
for the airline industry.
  Looked at individually, these bills may not seem like an end-all or 
be-all, but they are part of a bigger picture and part of a larger 
goal, which is getting this legislative body back to work again, as it 
was meant to do, considering and passing legislation that will impact 
our country for the better. Don't get me wrong. Sometimes the right 
answer is to stop bad ideas. Sometimes the right idea is to stop bad 
ideas, but where there is an opportunity for consensus and where we can 
actually craft something that helps move our country forward--I believe 
all 100 Senators came here with that sort of goal in mind.
  The bottom line is, we are working again to advance the priorities of 
the American people. In the same way we debate and discuss the Energy 
and Water appropriations bill, we have to keep the bigger picture in 
mind. It is not just about passing a single appropriations bill or to 
check items off our to-do list, it is part of a larger process, which 
is to fund the Federal Government in a fiscally responsible way, 
hopefully--that is our goal--and to make sure we review the programs 
that are funded by Federal appropriations and make sure they are still 
the priorities we believe they should be. If they aren't, then they 
shouldn't be funded. That is part of the process--to go back and look 
at what the programs are, whether they are still working, whether they 
are still necessary, and if they are not working or no longer 
necessary, then we simply no longer fund those as part of the 
appropriations process.
  We know this sets our country's priorities by giving guidance on 
everything we support--from our veterans to how we provide for our 
energy structure needs, to how we equip and train our troops. Funding 
the government is actually one of the most important and basic duties 
of the Congress. As the Senator from Tennessee has pointed out, one of 
the biggest problems we have--one we are not going to solve here today 
or this week, unfortunately--is that so much of the money

[[Page S2436]]

that gets spent by the Federal Government is on autopilot--so-called 
mandatory spending. In other words, it is not even subject to the 
appropriations process in the Senate. Currently, only about one-third 
of the money the Federal Government spends actually goes through this 
sort of transparent and open process, where everybody knows what is 
going on and can offer their input. The rest of the money is spent on 
autopilot, and it is projected to rise, according to one recent 
projection I saw, at a rate of roughly 5.3 percent over the next 30 
years.
  We know that is far beyond the rate of inflation, and it is an 
unsustainable amount of spending. Some of the most important programs 
that are government funded, such as Medicare or Social Security, cannot 
be sustained at the current level of spending unless we do everything 
we can within our ability to shore them up and save them for the next 
generation. That is what we actually need to be doing in the larger 
picture.
  Until that day, we can continue to do what we can to deal responsibly 
with discretionary spending, and that is what we are trying to do. If 
we don't deal with these appropriations bills in a methodical and 
deliberate sort of way--all 12 of them--we are going to find ourselves 
at the end of September, at the end of the fiscal year, back in the 
same situation we were in last year--with the need for an omnibus 
appropriations bill or a continuing resolution, which is something I 
know there is not a lot of appetite for.


                               Zika Virus

  Mr. President, let me just say a word about the Zika virus and the 
emergency funding request made by the President. Some of our 
colleagues--notably the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip--
talked about this this morning and raised the question of whether we 
are going to responsibly deal with this threat of the Zika virus. I can 
tell my colleagues we will. We are committed on a bipartisan basis to 
try to make sure we respond responsibly both from a public safety point 
of view and from a fiscal point of view.
  The President requested $1.9 billion. Thankfully, there is money that 
has been identified that was left over from the Ebola threat--some $500 
million--that can be used as a downpayment to make sure our world-class 
scientists, like the ones I have met at the University of Texas medical 
branch in Galveston and just this last week at the Texas Medical 
Center, are doing the research that is necessary in order to identify 
how to stop this threat by controlling the mosquitoes that bring it 
into the country. We know the mosquito that carries the Zika virus is 
common in more temperate and warmer parts of the country, and that is 
why it has been primarily a threat in Brazil and places like Haiti and 
Puerto Rico. We also know that in places like Texas, Florida, and 
Louisiana, this mosquito is present and there are already established 
cases of Zika, primarily occurring in, I believe, either people who 
have traveled to Central America or South America and who have been 
bitten and brought it back with them or, in the case of--apparently it 
has now been discovered that this virus can be sexually transmitted. So 
one of the things we need to make sure of, particularly for every woman 
of child-bearing age, is that they get the sort of protection they need 
so these horrific birth defects that we have seen in the news don't 
occur. We are all committed to doing that.
  We also ought to make sure we don't overshoot our goal and write a 
blank check for something when we don't even know what the plan of 
attack is. In some ways, this is like the President asking us to fund a 
war without telling us what his strategy is for fighting and winning 
that war. I think that is the sort of commonsense question our 
constituents want us to ask, and which we should ask.
  I realize not everything is knowable. Hopefully, within a couple of 
years, our scientific community will have developed a vaccine which can 
protect people from this virus, but in the meantime we need to continue 
to fund the basic research. We need to continue to fund at the local 
level the mosquito eradication, and we need to keep our eye on this 
emerging threat.
  We can do that, and we will do that in a responsible sort of way. We 
don't need our colleagues on the Democratic side to say we have to do 
it right here, right now, without even having a plan from the 
administration on how we will fight and win this war against the Zika 
virus and hold up the regular appropriations process. I can tell from 
the saber-rattling going on from some of my colleagues across the aisle 
that they are looking for a reason to disrupt the regular 
appropriations process and that can be a mistake. First of all, it will 
not accomplish anything that can't otherwise be accomplished in terms 
of funding our research and the fight against the Zika virus. We are 
committed to doing that in a bipartisan sort of way but in a 
responsible sort of way that doesn't add to the national debt and pass 
the bill on to the next generation, as well as a proportional response 
to the threat. Just throwing money at it without a plan does not seem 
like a responsible thing to do.
  I implore our colleagues across the aisle, do not try to use the Zika 
crisis to hold hostage our ability to do our regular appropriations 
work. It is too important to avoid the year-end Omnibus appropriations 
bill that nobody says they like, and it is important for us to 
demonstrate--as we have tried to and I believe succeeded in doing, in 
large part--that we can continue to do our work day in and day out on a 
bipartisan, responsible basis, not that we are all going to agree on 
everything--that is just not the way people are built--nor do they want 
us to agree on everything. This is the place where we have the great 
debates on the issues that confront our country, both now and in the 
future, and that is appropriate. Nobody should take it personally. We 
need to have those debates. We need to have those verbal confrontations 
so we can get to the truth and figure the best path forward for the 
country.
  So we are not here to kick the can down the road. We are here to do 
the Nation's business, and we are here to deliver results to the 
American people. I hope we can continue to do that by carefully 
discussing, debating, and then voting on all 12 appropriations bills.
  In addition to talking about how, I hope to explain a little bit of 
the why it is so important that we do this now in order to avoid that 
year-end rush to an omnibus appropriations bill later on.
  Mr. President, I don't see any other Senators seeking recognition, so 
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. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, first, to the majority whip, I thank him 
for his comments on the Zika virus. He is absolutely right to raise 
awareness of that issue. It is a great concern. In Ohio we happen to 
have some military assets that have been used in the past for aerial 
spraying, and I know they are interested in being even more involved in 
some of the eradication of some of these mosquitoes in the southern 
part of the country that may end up causing some of this infection. It 
is a very serious matter, and I am glad to know the Appropriations 
Committee is working on it as well as our authorizing committees. I 
know the Senator from Texas has a personal interest in this.
  I rise to speak about the underlying legislation--the Energy and 
Water appropriations bill. I thank the chairman of that committee, 
Senator Alexander, for working with me to include a couple of important 
provisions for the State of Ohio.
  One is the cleanup of what is known as the Portsmouth Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant. This is a site that for half a century enriched 
uranium. This uranium was used by our Navy, for our military, and for 
other purposes, including our nuclear arsenals, but it also has been 
used for our powerplants. So for decades the people in Piketon, OH, 
have been helping keep Americans safe and also helping thousands of 
Ohioans to keep the lights on and to stay warm at a reasonable cost. 
Now we have to clean up this facility. We moved on to other technology. 
It is an efficient

[[Page S2437]]

technology, but it is a heck of a cleanup removing all this gaseous 
diffusion material and properly disposing of it.

  This cleanup effort employs about 2,000 Ohioans. They are doing their 
job and doing it very well. We have to support them. Unfortunately, 
over the years they have not gotten the support they deserve. In a 2008 
campaign trip to Ohio, the President gave a commitment that he would 
accelerate that cleanup. Frankly, that just hasn't happened under the 
President's budget, so every year we have to fight for more funding to 
be sure that we can continue the cleanup, which is so important, but 
also to ensure that we aren't losing jobs in Pike County. We just had 
this tragic occurrence where we had four different homes where family 
members were present during the horrible shooting out there in Pike 
County. This is one of the counties in Ohio that have relatively high 
unemployment. It is a county that has a lot of economic issues. These 
2,000 jobs are good-paying jobs with good benefits, so it is very 
important that we keep the jobs there.
  Just as importantly, it is the right thing to do for the taxpayers 
because as the Obama administration has pulled back funding for this 
cleanup, it ends up costing the taxpayers more because delaying this 
cleanup ends up adding huge additional costs as funding is cut back and 
there is less cleanup going on. Our analysis shows that an accelerated 
cleanup could save the taxpayers $4 billion, getting this done and 
moving the site on to commercial use. Having adequate funding will save 
the taxpayers money.
  Second, cleaning up the radioactive waste and other hazardous waste 
there is incredibly important for the community. It makes that site 
cleaner, of course, and is better for the environment. It is important 
for the community and these people who have for many years been 
providing us with the enriched uranium for our military and for our 
powerplants to know they are not going to be left with this 
environmental problem.
  Third, these are good-paying jobs in a county that really needs them.
  Finally, we owe it to the community to clean up the site so they can 
redevelop it. They want to reindustrialize this site, and it is a great 
location to do maybe an energy project or maybe a nuclear powerplant at 
some point and other exciting opportunities, but they have to clean up 
what is there in order for the site to be used for that.
  The people of Piketon have helped shore up our economy and our 
national defense. We owe it to them to clean up this site. I am pleased 
that in this legislation we are considering an increase of $20 million 
over this year's level of cleanup work and an additional $20 million 
over this year's level for constructing a needed onsite disposal cell. 
We are at the point where we need to dispose of this material, and we 
need more money for that disposal cell. I am hoping that the House will 
increase the funding for the disposal cell even more, and if so, we 
will work in conference to get that number up further because that 
makes a lot of sense in order to actually move forward on this cleanup 
for all the reasons I have stated.
  Again, I thank the chairman, Senator Alexander, for his help on this. 
One thing the chairman knows well is that part of the funding for the 
cleanup work comes from the Department of Energy's barter of uranium. I 
ask that as we move forward with the completion of this legislation 
over the next few months, if the price of uranium should change--should 
drop--that the chairman continue to work with us to ensure that there 
are no job losses and to ensure that the cleanup work is not delayed as 
it has been in the past.
  Second, I thank the chairman for including another provision that is 
incredibly important to Ohio and to Lake Erie. For many years the Army 
Corps of Engineers has been dredging the Cuyahoga River. It is 
necessary to do that for commercial purposes. They have a big steel 
plant there, which anybody who comes to the Republican Convention will 
see. It is very important, for that plant and other commercial 
purposes, to keep this waterway open for boat traffic, including 
bringing iron ore in for the steel mills.
  Unfortunately, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wants to take the 
dredge from the river and dump it into Lake Erie. Time and time again, 
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and others have said this is 
not good for the environment. Specifically, the dredge has PCB 
material. The PCB pollutants get into the fish, and the Ohio EPA has 
told them that if they keep dumping it into the lake, at some point 
they will have to issue a warning that the walleye in Lake Erie, which 
is our great game fish, is not to be eaten more than a certain number 
of times per month. This would kill the fishing industry. It is also 
the wrong thing to do with all the algal bloom problems we have in the 
lake because that is driven by nitrogen and phosphorous mostly, and 
those nutrients would get into the lake through this dumping. So we are 
saying: Let's use an onsite disposal facility. We have one on land that 
they can use. They are refusing to do that.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has gone so far as to, in the last 
appropriations bill, actually cut their own funding--which is something 
I have never seen before--to not be able to meet the requirement we put 
into law, saying that they have to provide for the disposal of this 
product not into the lake but onto a land facility.
  We have now worked with Chairman Alexander to include language in 
this legislation before us. Senator Sherrod Brown and I were successful 
in getting that in last year. Once again we are working with the 
chairman to get that language in this year. I thank Senator Alexander 
for including it. It maintains the requirement that ensures that the 
Corps uphold its funding obligations to dispose of this dredge material 
upland and not in the lake.
  Again, it concerns me that the Corps seems to want to try to get 
around this. In fact, instead of putting money into the operations and 
maintenance account, as they are required to do to comply with not just 
what Congress says but, frankly, what the court has ordered them to 
do--because the court has consistently said they have to dredge and 
then dump on land, they have actually put that into a risky position by 
saying they don't need the funding. They have gone so far as to 
indicate that maybe other dredging projects on Lake Erie or other Lake 
Erie funding could be in jeopardy of not receiving the full amount of 
money they need if there is a need to dispose of this on land.
  There is a better way. The Corps should request use of unallocated 
funds provided by Congress in order to dispose of the dredge material 
at Cleveland Harbor safely without putting other projects at risk. They 
can do that.
  Our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, is 
currently investigating whether the Corps intentionally requested a 
decrease in funding in last year's spending bill so that they would 
have no choice but to dump this dredge material into the harbor. I hope 
that is not true. I hope we find out that is not what happened, but 
there are indications of that. Again, doing so would threaten the 
health of the area, the city of Cleveland, Lake Erie's ecosystem, and 
specifically our fishing industry in Lake Erie, which is so critical to 
economic growth in that area. Lake Erie is the most productive of all 
of our Great Lakes in terms of fishing. It has a $6 billion fishing 
industry and is the No. 1 tourist attraction in Ohio.
  I urge the Corps to revise its work plan for this year to request the 
additional funds necessary to safely dispose of the dredge sediment at 
the Cleveland Harbor during the 2016 dredging season if, as I suspect, 
the Federal judge again rules that the Corps cannot place it in Lake 
Erie. I urge them to work with us to come up with a solution so we can 
have this dredge material disposed of on land and actually recycle that 
material so that it has value. A couple of weeks ago when I was at the 
site, I saw how some of the material is being mixed with other fill and 
being used not just for landfill but also for gardens and for farming 
and agriculture purposes. This is a way to take the dredge and to 
actually have it have value and be able to recycle it.
  Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to give 
this statement today and for his patience. I also thank Chairman 
Alexander and others who have worked with us on this so that we can 
indeed be sure that we clean up this site and that we are able to get 
this dredge material coming out

[[Page S2438]]

of the Cuyahoga River onto a site on land to avoid the environmental 
damage that would otherwise occur.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 17 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Portman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               Zika Virus

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I first want to talk about the Zika public 
health emergency that is coming to the United States of America. We 
have to act now to fund the administration's request of $1.9 billion in 
supplemental funding.
  Zika is a disease carried by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, a vector 
that has already caused a dengue epidemic in my State of Hawaii. The 
Aedes mosquitoes are in more places than we previously thought 
throughout the United States.
  Zika is the first mosquito-borne illness to be associated with a 
congenital birth defect. We are continuing to learn more about this 
devastating disease every day, including its association with Guillain-
Barre syndrome--a type of paralysis--eye abnormalities, and more.
  While there have not yet been any locally transmitted diseases of 
Zika in the continental United States, we do have hundreds of travel-
related cases and up to 500 cases of active transmission in Puerto 
Rico, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As I mentioned, 
Hawaii is recovering from a dengue epidemic. So we must provide 
emergency funding for mosquito-borne illnesses, and we must do it now. 
This is an emergency.
  The administration has clearly laid out its request to combat Zika, 
which includes the following: $830 million for the CDC. This money 
would include grants and technical assistance to Puerto Rico and the 
U.S. territories and help our domestic and international response 
activities; about $250 million for the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, or CMS, to increase the Federal match rate to Puerto 
Rico; and several hundred million dollars for the National Institutes 
of Health and BARDA to invest in vaccine research and development. That 
is the long-term solution. There is a high degree of competence that we 
will be able to get a vaccine but not without the funding. This is an 
absolute emergency. We need $10 million for the FDA vaccine and 
diagnostics development and review, which is absolutely critical--we 
don't have diagnostic tests that are quite as efficient and effective 
as we are eventually going to need--and $335 million for USAID efforts 
abroad in public health infrastructure.
  I was fortunate to visit the CDC in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago to 
learn more about their efforts to combat Zika, dengue, and other 
vector-borne diseases. I saw firsthand how the CDC has activated its 
Level 1 Emergency Operations Center to combat Zika. During my questions 
at the Labor-HHS appropriations hearings, I heard how the CDC is 
strapped for funds and has already programmed its Ebola funds and how 
these Ebola funds are critically needed to prevent another Ebola 
crisis. I have total confidence in the CDC, but they need this 
emergency funding request to be granted.
  We are about to go on a 1-week recess. There is no reason that we 
can't at least get on the supplemental this week. This is an absolute 
emergency. There are a lot of things we are doing that are important 
this week in terms of individual appropriations bills, but let's be 
clear: None of these appropriations bills are going to pass in the next 
week or even the next month. We still have the House that needs to take 
action, and there is no doubt we are going to go to conference. So in 
terms of whatever other legislative vehicles are pending or about to be 
pending, there is no urgency for us to move to those instead of what is 
happening right now in terms of a public health emergency with Zika. 
This is an absolute emergency.
  The reason this is not smashing through every headline online, on 
television, in the newspapers, and on the radio is that it is still 
cold outside in a lot of places and the mosquitoes haven't come out. 
This is about to be a very serious public health crisis.
  For those of us who have differing views about the size and scope of 
government, I just want to say this: We have arguments about the EPA's 
role, about the Department of Human Services' role, about the 
Department of Education's role, and the size and scope of government 
across the board, but can't we agree that government's basic job is to 
protect its citizens, and can't we agree that the CDC is one of the 
best agencies in the government across the board, and can't we agree 
that this is a real emergency and ought not to wait until May or June 
or July and ought to be taken up immediately?
  Mr. President, this is an emergency, and we ought to fund the 
supplemental on a big bipartisan vote.


                       Trans-Pacific Partnership

  Mr. President, I would like to talk about the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. Many promises were made about the TPP. Before the final 
text was available, I received dozens of phone calls from advocates of 
the deal asking for my support. They said that this trade agreement was 
going to be different; that it would raise standards rather than lower 
them; and that my concerns about labor, the environment, climate 
change, public health, and consumer protection would be addressed. But 
since the text was released, I have read it, and unfortunately this 
deal does not turn out to be any different from the previous deals. It 
looks like just another race to the bottom.
  Proponents claimed that the labor and environment chapters would 
contain enforceable commitments, and I know a lot of people worked very 
hard to make that true. But when you look closely at the wording of 
these chapters, you see that the commitments are basically just 
strongly worded suggestions. There are very few requirements. Instead, 
the countries have promised to ``promote,'' ``encourage,'' 
``cooperate,'' ``strive,'' and ``endeavor'' to do various things. I 
have no clue how one can enforce an obligation to encourage something 
or discourage something. Many of the provisions contain this weak 
language, carefully written by lawyers to be unenforceable.
  Here are a few examples from the environment chapter, which is 
particularly weak.
  First, the chapter opens with a general commitment that ``each Party 
shall strive to ensure that its environmental laws . . . provide for, 
and encourage, high levels of environmental protection.'' That is 
right; they are to ``strive to ensure.''
  On transitioning to a low-emissions economy, ``Parties shall 
cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest.'' There is 
nothing more on climate change whatsoever.
  On marine animal conservation, ``Each party shall promote the long-
term conservation'' of sharks and various marine animals through ``such 
measures'' considered appropriate. I don't even know what that means. 
What is clear is that none of this is enforceable. So the problem is, 
no accountability. There is no requirement that countries meet their 
obligations before Congress has to vote on the agreement and no 
independent verification of whether those obligations are ever met.
  We will vote to open our markets on day one to goods made under 
terrible labor and environmental conditions and hope that over time, 
after we have forfeited our leverage, these countries will implement 
and enforce the kinds of labor laws our country has had for decades.
  What this means is that we are giving them the deal, and after we 
forfeit all of our leverage, we hope they will see the light and do the 
right thing. Take Vietnam as an example. The economic benefits to 
Vietnam of reduced or eliminated U.S. duties are enormous. Importers 
from Vietnam currently pay around $2 billion in annual tariffs. Most of 
that comes from imports of apparel and footwear--industries that 
frequently utilize forced and child labor. Although Vietnam is supposed 
to comply on day one with the labor side agreement it signed with the 
United States, there is no independent verification. The side agreement 
sets up a long process of consultation before punitive action can be 
taken. At that point, Vietnam will already be enjoying the benefit of 
the elimination of the tariff, and the United States will have lost 
jobs that cannot compete

[[Page S2439]]

with forced child labor. No punitive action will bring back those jobs.
  Now let's talk about the enforcement side. Our track record, 
unfortunately, is not good. In the limited instances in which there are 
enforcement mechanisms in our trade agreements, we rarely utilize them. 
Recently, the GAO reported a systemic failure to enforce labor and 
environmental commitments across several trade agreements, even in 
light of compelling evidence of violations. The reason for this is that 
we don't really provide the resources for enforcement. But more 
importantly, there is a real lack of political will. For instance, the 
inclusion of Malaysia in this trade zone gives us insight into the lack 
of political will.
  When we debated fast-track authority last year, Congress agreed on an 
important negotiating objective: No trade deals with countries that 
earn the worst human trafficking ranking, according to the U.S. State 
Department. This seems like something everyone ought to agree to. At 
the time, this included Malaysia, which had the lowest ranking. But 
just after fast-track became law, Malaysia's ranking was upgraded--to 
the surprise of human rights experts everywhere. The upgrade allowed 
the circumvention of Congress's will and the continued inclusion of 
Malaysia in TPP. This came just a few months after the discovery of 
human cages and 130 graves at a human trafficking detention camp on the 
Malaysia-Thailand border. Against this backdrop, it is hard to have 
confidence that we will ever prioritize labor rights, human rights, or 
environmental protection over commercial interests.
  I am also deeply concerned about the inclusion of investor-state 
dispute settlement provisions, or ISDS for short. ISDS provides a 
special forum outside of our court system that is just available to 
foreign investors. These investors are given the right to sue 
governments over laws and regulations that impact their businesses--a 
legal right that is not granted to a labor union, an individual, or 
anyone else.
  Here is how it works: If a decision is made by a national government 
that is contradicted by a provision in a trade agreement, the trade 
agreement wins. If a law that we pass contradicts a provision in TPP, 
TPP trumps our law. Corporations are increasingly seeing this as a 
viable legal strategy to increase profits and undermine public health 
and environmental and labor protections.
  The ISDS forum is not available to anyone other than foreign 
corporations. It is not open to domestic businesses, labor unions, 
civil societies, or individuals who allege a violation of a trade 
agreement obligation.
  The arbitrators in ISDS who preside over these cases are literally 
not accountable to anyone. Their decisions cannot be appealed. By 
profession, the arbitrators usually make their living working as 
lawyers for multinational corporations. The arbitrators cannot force 
the government to change its laws, but they can order the government to 
pay the investor when they lose money as a result of a law that 
contradicts a trade agreement, which can have the same effect.
  It is one thing for the United States to decide to pay a penalty to 
keep a law in place, but small countries cannot afford to go up against 
these multinational corporations in the ISDS context. Not only will 
they repeal their national laws, they sometimes will not enact national 
laws knowing that they will be subject to fines under this ISDS 
process.
  The government often agrees to change the law or regulation that is 
being challenged, in addition to paying compensation. The threat of a 
case can be enough to convince a government to back away from 
legitimate public health, safety, or environmental policies. The 
practical implication is potentially sweeping. ISDS could prevent us 
from addressing climate change, raising the minimum wage, protecting 
consumers from harmful products, or preventing another financial 
crisis.
  Each time we pass a law or regulation to improve the lives of the 
American people, foreign investors will effectively have the final say. 
These risks are not theoretical. In fact, for the United States, the 
risk of ISDS has become very real. In January, TransCanada--the 
Canadian company behind the Keystone XL Pipeline--filed a claim against 
the U.S. Government under NAFTA's ISDS provisions for failing to 
approve the pipeline. If TransCanada wins, taxpayers--U.S. taxpayers--
would be on the hook for $15 billion in damages being demanded by 
foreign corporations.
  Make no mistake. This is a new strategy for fossil fuel companies to 
challenge laws and regulations that are attempting to reduce carbon 
emissions and combat climate change. There are hundreds of billions of 
dollars at stake, and with that on the line, you have to believe that 
law firms are spending hours systematically scouring every trade and 
investment agreement for provisions they can use to invalidate Federal 
law. This is the legal strategy to bust up laws designed to protect 
public health, the environment, and consumers.
  Corporate interests should not be the driving force for public policy 
decisions. Yet that is exactly what this trade agreement would allow. A 
lot of us had hopes that this trade agreement would be different, but 
in a lot of ways, it is the same as the bad agreements that have come 
before it, and in some ways, it is actually worse.
  We are forfeiting valuable leverage across a huge area of the Asia 
Pacific that we could have used to lift labor and environmental 
conditions and level the playing field for our workers. This is not a 
question of whether you are for trade or whether you believe we should 
be engaged in the Pacific region, it is a question of how.
  This deal is, unfortunately, a lowest common denominator agreement. 
For these reasons, I must oppose the TPP.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Wyoming.


                       The Republican-Led Senate

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I head home to Wyoming just about every 
weekend. Lots of people from Wyoming come here to Washington to visit 
as well. When I am home, I get a chance to talk to people, and here in 
Washington, I get to talk to people. So yesterday is a day I flew here. 
I had talked to folks in Wyoming early in the morning and then 
yesterday afternoon got off the plane, and there were a number of 
students here from Sheridan High School from ``We the People.'' One of 
our pages here is also from that high school. So you get to hear a lot 
from people. Some folks have been asking: What has the Republican 
Congress actually accomplished? So I would like to take a few minutes 
to talk a little bit about what the Senate has actually done this year 
and during this Congress since the Republicans have taken over the 
majority.
  We are not even 4 months into this year, and we have already had a 
very productive year in the Senate. It is true. We have been active, we 
have been effective, and it is only April.
  In February, we passed legislation to add tough new sanctions against 
North Korea. As the Presiding Officer knows, the President in the White 
House was very reluctant when we started proposing these sanctions--
hesitant about the sanctions that we proposed against North Korea. 
Let's face it. North Korea has been aggressively testing missiles, 
testing nuclear weapons, and needs to be stopped.
  When other countries threaten their neighbors, as North Korea has 
done in their general geographic area, what happens is the United 
States must stand up and stop them. President Obama has done far too 
little. I am very concerned about the aggression and the ambitions of 
North Korea. That is why the Senate had to act. So Congress has stood 
up and pushed against this action. We had more action against North 
Korea; that is exactly what we did.
  The Senate also acted by passing a Defend Trade Secrets Act to help 
businesses protect their confidential information.
  We passed a piece of legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction 
and Recovery Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation to help fight the 
misuse of prescription drugs, in terms of prescription pain killers 
called opioids. Now, look, it has been a huge problem in our country--
communities all around the country. Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire 
and Senator Portman of Ohio were two of the main sponsors of this 
legislation. I know

[[Page S2440]]

Senator Portman was on the floor recently, talking about different 
legislation. But he has shown heroic leadership in an area that 
certainly needed to be addressed.
  The Senate worked and reauthorized the Older Americans Act. This was 
another bipartisan piece of legislation. It works to help provide 
senior citizens with things like meals, transportation--ways to help 
people live in their own homes longer and ways to help in terms of 
their quality of life, which is very important for Americans all across 
the country.
  We passed legislation to overhaul and reauthorize the Federal 
Aviation Administration. This is a significant accomplishment. This 
legislation promotes U.S. aerospace jobs by cutting through some of the 
redtape that has been hurting airplane designers.
  Then, just last week, we passed a comprehensive overhaul of American 
energy policy, something we had not done in about 8 years. Over the 
past few years, hard-working Americans have made this country into an 
energy superpower. Yet we had not passed any kind of major energy 
legislation for about 8 years because Washington's regulations have 
simply not kept pace, and they have actually worked against the energy 
producers, people that are getting back to work, getting this country's 
economy returned.
  The legislation we passed is going to rein in some of this needless, 
wasteful bureaucracy that the Federal Government has imposed on the 
people creating energy jobs and working to produce more energy because 
energy is called a master resource for a reason. We have it in great 
abundance.
  One of the very important parts was language to expedite the shipment 
of America's natural gas to buyers around the world. It is good for our 
economy, and it is good for our allies who will be able to decrease 
their dependence on Russian gas.
  Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska did an outstanding job of making 
sure that this legislation had ideas from both sides of the aisle. That 
is a big part of why this piece of major energy legislation--first time 
in 8 years--passed 85 to 12--85 to 12. That is another big 
accomplishment of the Senate this year that does not get enough 
attention. It is not just that we are passing important legislation 
that helps Americans, but we are doing it in a bipartisan way that 
allows every Senator--every Member of this body--to represent the 
people back home with their ideas and their suggestions.
  We have voted on 129 amendments so far this year--129 amendments 
voted on this year. When the Democrats under Harry Reid were in 
control, a lot of people around here got used to the idea that people 
did not actually get to vote on amendments. In 2014, the last year 
under Democratic control under Harry Reid, the Senate had only 15 up-
or-down votes on amendments all year--full calendar year 2014.
  When Republicans took the majority, we changed that. The Senate has 
been working this year just as we worked last year. We could have done 
a lot more if a few Democrats had not blocked progress on some very 
important pieces of legislation. The people in Wyoming now know that 
there are some important things they really care about, and they were 
actually blocked by President Obama. In January, the President vetoed 
legislation that we had passed to improve health care in this country 
by repealing major parts of ObamaCare.

  Remember, the President said to Democrats that they should forcefully 
defend and be proud of that health care law, but one out of four 
Americans--25 percent of Americans--say they have been personally 
harmed by the President's health care law. So we put it on his desk to 
do a repeal, and he vetoed that.
  Now, only about one in eight people in this country say they have 
been helped by the health care law. When you take a look at major 
legislation that impacts the country, it is no surprise that this 
health care law continues to be very unpopular, especially when you see 
that for every one person who says they have been helped, there are 
almost two people who said they have personally been hurt by the law.
  The President also vetoed legislation that we passed here to bring 
some sanity to something called the waters of the United States rule--
again, a rule put out in regulation by the President, a 
reinterpretation of the law. The law is very clear to me, but the 
President had his own approach. We put a bill on his desk to overturn 
what he has tried to do. The courts have actually stopped him in his 
tracks, but he once again vetoed our efforts.
  Last year the President actually vetoed five different bills passed 
by Congress. This kind of obstructionism from President Obama doesn't 
help our country move forward. It is not helpful when the Democratic 
leaders do everything they can to convince people that nothing is being 
done in the Senate, but we hear that day after day from Minority Leader 
Harry Reid.
  It is interesting, because when Senator Reid was the majority leader, 
he had a very firm strategy, and the strategy seemed to be to do as 
little as possible.
  Well, he is now the minority leader, and I think he went from the 
majority to the minority for a reason. It seems to me that he is still 
hanging on, clinging on to that losing strategy. The plan didn't work 
then, and I think that one of the reasons that he continues to try to 
talk down and slow down some of our progress is because, actually, he 
is envious--envious of anyone who gets things done in the Senate.
  Republicans in the Senate are not interested in working at Harry 
Reid's pace and neither are the Democrats--many of the Democrats. Most 
Senators agree that we have a lot of work to do and that it is good for 
America when we actually do the work.
  That is why we have been working our way through the appropriations 
bills. This year we got the earliest start ever to appropriations 
bills--and really in the history of the modern budget process. So we 
continue to work on that.
  I wish to be clear on one important point. Doing our job in the 
Senate doesn't mean setting aside the priorities of the American people 
just to help President Obama build a political legacy. That is why the 
Senate is going to stand firm and strong to give Americans a voice in 
who gets to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Now President Obama 
wants us to set aside everything else and let him appoint his Justice 
to the Supreme Court. It is not going to happen.
  We do our job every day, doing the things that will make an immediate 
difference to the families all across the country, things that 
Republicans and Democrats agree on and that everybody knows we should 
be doing. That is what you are seeing with this Republican-run Senate. 
That is what the people want us to do. That is what they expect us to 
do, and that is what we will continue to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today is the 135th time I have come to 
give voice to the issue that I feel will most significantly define this 
generation of leadership in the United States and, frankly, around the 
globe.
  I know that there are many people in Washington who would prefer to 
ignore what our carbon emissions are doing to our oceans and to our 
climate, but we disregard nature's warnings at our peril.
  The changes to our environment, fueled by our carbon pollution, are 
far-reaching--from the coastlines to the prairies, from mountain tops 
to deep oceans, from pole to pole. As a terrestrial species, we 
naturally pay more attention to what is happening on land, such as 
increasing average global temperatures and upheavals in extreme 
weather. We don't so much see what is happening in our oceans.
  Every year we emit into the Earth's thin atmosphere tens of gigatons 
of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels--nearly 36 gigatons of 
carbon dioxide in 2014. Not all of that carbon dioxide stays in the 
atmosphere. Our oceans--the Earth's oceans--absorb approximately one-
third of all our carbon pollution. That means they have absorbed 
roughly 600 gigatons in our industrial era.
  For the record, a gigaton is a billion tons--not a thousand tons, not 
a million tons, but a billion tons--and 600

[[Page S2441]]

billion tons of carbon dioxide have gone into our oceans. We know what 
that does. All that carbon dioxide in the oceans changes the ocean's 
very chemistry, and it makes ocean water more acidic. The chemical 
reaction, carbon dioxide reacting with water to form carbonic acid, is 
simple. You can replicate it in a middle school science lab, but its 
effects in the oceans are profound.
  According to research published in the journal Nature Geoscience, the 
rate of change in ocean acidity is already faster than at any time in 
the past 50 million years on Earth. We are rapidly spiraling into 
unknown territory. By way of context, the human species has been around 
on Earth for about 200,000 years. The human species started farming and 
herding, went from hunting and gathering to the basics of socialized 
human life less than 20,000 years ago. We are doing something to our 
planet now that has no precedent for 50 million years.
  This line shows the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere in 
parts per million. This line shows the absorption of the CO2 
by the ocean, and this line shows the pH change in the oceans as a 
result. I would point out that pH is actually measured on a logarithmic 
scale. So if you were to adjust this to the standard percentage-type 
display of information, you would see this falling much more steeply. 
This is a very conservative way of showing what is happening to our 
oceans. The logarithmic scale is a multiple, not just a steady line. So 
as you move down the pH numbers, you are actually creating much more 
massive effects in the ocean.
  People have measured this drop in ocean pH from climate change. This 
is not a theory. You can go out and measure it with equipment that is 
not very different, again, from what a middle school with an aquarium 
would use to measure pH in the aquarium.
  People measure something else in our oceans also. They measure the 
rise in ocean temperature. For decades, the oceans have absorbed over 
90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse 
gas emissions. The heat that comes in, that gets trapped in our thin 
atmosphere when the Sun's warmth gets trapped by these greenhouse 
gasses, lands in a variety of places. The Antarctic ice sheet gets two-
tenths of a percent of the heat. The Greenland ice sheet gets two-
tenths of a percent of the heat. Arctic sea ice gets eight-tenths of a 
percent of the heat. Glaciers and icecaps take up nine-tenths of a 
percent of the heat. All of our continents together, the land mass of 
the Earth, take up 2.1 percent of the added heat from climate change.
  The atmosphere, that thin membrane that allows us to live and breathe 
on this planet, has taken up 2.3 percent of the heat. All the rest of 
it, 93 percent, has been taken up by the oceans. They are our 
refrigerant. They are our cooler. They are the air conditioner for the 
planet. But when you take up that much, things begin to change, and 
ocean heat is ramping up.
  A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change found that in 
the last 20 years--actually, less than 20, from 1997 to now, to be 
exact--the oceans absorbed the same amount of heat energy just in that 
20-year period as they had in the previous 130 years. That is a 
dramatic increase in heat uptake by the oceans. It is our human 
activity, specifically our unfettered burning of fossil fuels, that has 
made our oceans both warmer overall and more acidic.
  One result of this is the calamity now taking place in the world's 
coral reefs. A healthy coral reef is one of the most productive and 
diverse ecosystems on Earth. It is an engine for the propagation of 
life. Coral depends on a symbiotic relationship with tiny, 
photosynthetic algae called zooxanthellae. They live in the surface 
tissue of the coral. Within a limited range of temperature, pH, 
salinity, and water clarity, this symbiosis can thrive, and it gives us 
reefs all over the world--these engines of life in the ocean. Living 
coral has evolved for millions of years to maintain its symbiosis 
within that range. We are now measurably--not theoretically but 
measurably--altering the ocean in ways too fast for coral to adapt.
  Push corals out of their comfort range for very long, and the corals 
get stressed and they evict their algae. This process is what is known 
as coral bleaching. Because corals get most of their food out of that 
symbiotic relationship with these algae, if the algae can't be 
reabsorbed quickly, the corals die. Coral bleaching sounds benign, but 
it is like cardiac arrest for a reef. There is a good chance it dies 
and, even if it doesn't, it is a long recovery. We are currently in the 
middle of a massive bleaching of the world's coral reefs--cardiac 
arrest at a global scale.
  Dr. Mark Eakin of NOAA's Coral Reef Watch Program says of this coral 
cataclysm: ``It very well may be the worst period of coral bleaching we 
have seen.'' And when he says ``we have seen,'' he means that which we 
have ever seen in the human record.
  Worldwide, coral has already declined by approximately 40 percent. 
Closer to home, across the Caribbean and the Florida Keys, two key 
coral species have declined by an astonishing 98 percent in the last 
four decades.
  In my lifetime, I have seen once-radiant underwater ecosystems 
teeming with life become barren fields of white skeletons reaching into 
an empty ocean. One of my climate trips took me down to Monroe County, 
FL, where I met Mayor Sylvia Murphy, the Republican mayor of Monroe 
County, home to the famous Florida Keys. I asked her how the reefs were 
off the Keys. ``Beautiful,'' she said, ``unless you were here 15 years 
ago.''
  Australia's Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral ecosystem on 
Earth. It is one of the seven wonders of the natural world. Severe 
bleaching is now hitting ``between 60 and 100 percent of corals'' on 
the Great Barrier Reef, according to Dr. Terry Hughes of James Cook 
University in Queensland, Australia.
  Professor Hughes tweeted out a map of the current devastation, 
writing in the text: ``I showed the results of aerial survey of 
bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef to my students, and then we wept.''
  As with many other effects of climate change, it can be difficult to 
convey the magnitude of events when they aren't taking place in front 
of our terrestrial human faces. In his 2010 TED talk, one of the great 
marine scientists we have, leading coral ecologist Dr. Jeremy Jackson, 
tried to bring this coral bleaching calamity a little closer to home. 
He put it like this:

       Imagine you go camping in July somewhere in Europe or North 
     America, and you wake up the next morning, and you look 
     around you, and you see that 80 percent of the trees, as far 
     as you can see, have dropped their leaves and are standing 
     there naked. And you come home, and you discover that 80 
     percent of all the trees in North America and in Europe have 
     dropped their leaves.

  Remember, this is his example from July.

       And then you read in the paper a few weeks later, ``Oh, by 
     the way, a quarter of those trees died.'' Well, that's what 
     happened in the Indian Ocean during the 1998 El Nino, an area 
     vastly greater than the size of North America and Europe, 
     when 80 percent of all the corals bleached and a quarter of 
     them died.

  Jeremy came to speak to our caucus recently. He told us that every 
ocean ecosystem he studied in his career is gone, as he first found it, 
changed dramatically from his first visit.
  Coral reefs are one of the first places that truly irreversible 
effects of climate change seem to be manifesting themselves--the 
proverbial canary dying in the coal mine of our carbon-ridden planet. 
To say the ocean we knew in our childhood is already gone is not 
doomsaying or pessimism, it is a grimly realistic assessment of where 
we stand, sadly.
  In the Senate, there will likely be snickering about this. Some will 
say: Who gives a damn about coral reefs? If it can't be monetized by a 
corporation, the hell with it, is too often our motto here. Well, God 
made these glories. God made them on our planet. In some cases, they 
have been growing for tens of thousands of years. We are wrecking them 
in a single generation, and if that doesn't mean something to us, a 
long look in the mirror might be in order.
  Even those who can only see this tragedy through their monetizer 
goggles ought to know that a decline in healthy coral reefs is a huge 
blow to us all. According to an article last month in The Atlantic, 
coral reefs are home to 25 percent of the world's fish biodiversity. 
Reefs are incubators for ocean life, support systems for fisheries we 
depend on, tourist attractions for divers and snorkelers who fill local 
communities with their visiting and

[[Page S2442]]

their spending, and they are coastal protection for coastal 
infrastructure and homes against storm waves. It is not nice to fool 
with Mother Nature. As Pope Francis warned, ``God always forgives; 
mankind sometimes forgives; nature never forgives. You slap her and she 
will slap you back.'' As he says, we are sinning with our actions 
against nature, and nature will not forget.
  We just don't have that right. We are making a mark on the Earth in 
this generation that will not go away. If mankind lasts 10,000 years, 
well, 10,000 years from now they will see and know the mark of this 
generation on our planet, and they will justly inquire: How could we 
have been such fools? How could we, in this generation, have been such 
greedy, reckless, self-infatuated fools?
  In 1954, the United States detonated a hydrogen bomb over the Bikini 
Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The explosion vaporized everything on 
three islands, raised water temperatures to as much as 55,000 degrees, 
and left a crater over a mile wide and 240 feet deep. More than 60 
years have gone by and scientists observe the corals in this part of 
the Pacific flourishing again. If you give it a chance, life finds a 
way.
  Dr. Zoe Richards, one of the scientists involved in the study, said: 
``The healthy condition of the coral at Bikini Atoll today is proof of 
their resilience and ability to bounce back from massive disturbances, 
that is, if the reef is left undisturbed and there are healthy nearby 
reefs to source the recovery.''
  So that is the caveat. Reefs can recover but not if we continue to 
stack the deck oceanwide against them by pumping so much heat and 
carbon pollution into the oceans.
  Senator Schatz of Hawaii--not coincidently another ocean State--
introduced, along with me, the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act last 
year to address climate change with a market-based solution built on 
principles espoused by leading Republican economists. We went to 
Republicans--former Cabinet officials, former Members of Congress, 
economists, think tanks--and we said: How should we do this? If you 
don't like the President's plan, if you don't like the regulatory way, 
what is your way? Virtually every single person on the Republican side 
who has thought this problem through to a solution has come to the same 
place, a revenue-neutral carbon fee with an appropriate border 
adjustment. So that is what we wrote. When you are ready, we are here. 
We did it your way.
  As a Senator, John F. Kennedy once said:

       Let us not despair but act. Let us not seek the Republican 
     answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer. Let us 
     not seek to fix the blame for the past--let us accept our own 
     responsibility for the future.

  This is particularly true for our oceans. As one Florida mayor put 
it: ``The ocean is not Republican, and it's not Democratic . . . it's a 
nonpartisan ocean,'' and that nonpartisan ocean is screaming warnings 
at us that we ought to heed in nonpartisan fashion.
  We have a clear scientific understanding of the problem, and we have 
a moral obligation to act. Time is not on our side. We need to pay 
attention to the evidence. We need to accept the reality of our 
predicament as it is communicated to us by the laws and signs of 
nature--God's signals to us on this Earth.
  That is what healthy coral looks like under the water. Here it is 
bleached out and dying. It is our ocean. It is our responsibility. I 
urge this body to wake up and lead.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tribute to Dr. Emily Lembeck

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate to do 
something I periodically like to do when a citizen of my State deserves 
recognition for the contributions they have made to my State and the 
citizens of my State. Today is such a day.
  Dr. Emily Lembeck is the superintendent of the Marietta City Public 
School System. Recently, she was inducted into the Hall of Fame for 
Education, and her palm print is embedded in the walk around Glover 
Park Square in Marietta, GA.
  I am close to Emily in more ways than one. When I chaired the State 
board of education in 1996, she was an elementary school principal at 
Dunleith Elementary in Marietta, GA. She had been at West Side, she 
moved on to Marietta Middle School, and later became superintendent of 
the Marietta Public Schools--8,900 students, 1,200 employees--a 
challenge but a wonderful community.
  Throughout her career, she has gifted more to children in our 
community than any person I know of. In particular, she has taught 
those who didn't know how to read to read. She has made reading a 
passion in our community. She has made children's ability to read and 
comprehend and understand and move forward in life a reality, in a 
place where at one time it was no reality at all.
  In fact, let me tell you, when I was chairman of the State board of 
education we were working hard to make Reading First a movement in this 
country. She came forward with this idea about adopting something 
called Marietta Reads. It was a very simple program but a program where 
leaders in the community, such as I, would come to elementary schools 
in Marietta, GA, sit down ``Indian style'' on the floor with first 
graders and teach them to read, read with them, and help them identify 
with the joy of reading and the understanding of reading. From that 
day, I gained a greater appreciation for the challenge every teacher 
faces as they teach our children in classrooms.
  Emily Lembeck has been awarded almost every award you can possibly 
get, from the chamber of commerce to the Kiwanis Club, to the Rotary. 
She has received the Living the Dream Award from the NAACP during King 
Week a few years ago, she received the Whitney M. Young Jr. Service 
Award from the Boy Scouts for her leadership.
  Time and again, Emily Lembeck has been represented to be the great 
person she is--a leader in education, a leader of children, somebody 
our community is proud of. So on this day in Washington, DC, on the 
floor of the Senate, I want the name of Emily Lembeck to ring from one 
corner to the other for all she has contributed and all she has done to 
make our community a better, more wholesome, and more meaningful 
community, and for what she has done to make the lives of our 
community's children just a little bit better.
  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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Indian Health Service

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, for years now, patients on Indian 
reservations in the Great Plains area have been receiving substandard 
medical care.
  The most recent example of the Indian Health Service's failure 
occurred in December of 2015, when I was notified that two federally 
operated Indian Health Service facilities in my State were at risk of 
losing their Medicare provider agreements. In other words, these two 
facilities have been delivering such a poor level of care, the 
government isn't sure it is willing to continue paying these facilities 
to care for Medicare patients.
  In February, at the request of several Senators, myself included, the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing to address the state 
of patient care at the Indian Health Service in the Great Plains area. 
Thanks to the graciousness of our colleague from Wyoming, Senator 
Barrasso, who chairs the Indian Affairs Committee, I was able to 
participate in this hearing and question several Indian Health Service 
officials. I wish I could report that this hearing reassured me that 
the Indian Health Service is on track to solve the problems facing 
patients on the reservations, but it just left me more concerned. The 
hearing underscored the government's massive failure on this issue: its 
failure to deliver quality care, its failure to ensure patient safety, 
and its failure to live up to treaty responsibilities.

[[Page S2443]]

  I have read the reports from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, and some of the stories really are beyond comprehension. 
Incredibly, a report of dirty, unsanitized medical equipment left 
exposed in an emergency room isn't even the most shocking of those 
stories.
  One patient who had suffered a severe head injury was discharged from 
the hospital mere hours after checking in, only to be called back later 
the same day when his test results arrived. The patient's condition was 
so serious that he was immediately flown to another facility for care.
  One health service facility was in such disarray that a pregnant 
mother gave birth on a bathroom floor--a bathroom floor--without a 
single medical professional nearby, which shockingly wasn't the first 
time this had happened at this facility.
  I wish I were able to stand here today and report that conditions are 
getting better. Unfortunately, I cannot. Since February's hearing, we 
have been made aware of another tragic event that occurred at Pine 
Ridge Hospital. Reports from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services indicate that a 23-year-old patient complaining of nausea and 
cramping in his hands and lower extremities died from cardiac arrest 2 
hours after he was discharged from the emergency department. An 
investigation conducted by CMS verified that this young man failed to 
receive an adequate medical screening evaluation before his discharge. 
Even worse, the report indicated that there was no documentation 
showing nurse and doctor communication.
  It hasn't helped that Congress's attempts to address these problems 
have been hampered by less-than-honest reporting from the Indian Health 
Service. Time and again, we have found that conditions on the ground 
have not matched up to information reported to Congress.
  In 2014, I requested a status update from the then-Acting Director of 
the Indian Health Service. In her response, she stated that ``the Great 
Plains Area has shown marked improvement in all categories'' and that 
``significant improvements in health care delivery and program 
accountability have also been demonstrated.''
  Significant improvements? Sending a man home with bleeding in his 
brain and having a mother give birth prematurely on a bathroom floor 
are not signs of significant improvements.
  On December 4, 2015, officials from the Indian Health Service stated 
that a majority of the concerns at Rosebud Hospital had been addressed 
or abated. Yet, mere hours later, I was informed that the Rosebud 
Hospital emergency department was functioning so poorly that emergency 
patients would be diverted to other hospitals beginning the next day. 
It has now been 143 days, and the Indian Health Service leadership has 
been unable to reopen the Rosebud Hospital's emergency department.
  For the last 143 days, incoming emergency patients have had to travel 
between 44 and 55 miles to receive care. That is similar to requiring a 
resident of Harpers Ferry, WV, to travel to Washington, DC, to receive 
emergency services. And to date, the Indian Health Service has been 
unable to tell us when it anticipates emergency department services 
will resume.
  The Rosebud Sioux Tribe informs me that since this emergency 
department has been on diverted status, six individuals have lost their 
lives in ambulances while being transported to a hospital farther away. 
Six families are now left to wonder whether their loved ones could have 
been saved if the Indian Health Service had been doing its job. This is 
unconscionable.
  The Indian Health Service has one last chance this Friday to reach an 
agreement with CMS to set the Rosebud Hospital back on a path to 
compliance with basic safety and administrative requirements. If the 
Indian Health Service fails to do so, Rosebud will lose its status as a 
Medicare provider.
  Additionally, the Indian Health Service has until Friday to address 
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act violations found at 
Pine Ridge Hospital.
  The administration has drafted report after report promising to 
correct these issues, yet time and again it has failed to follow 
through. During the recent Indian Affairs Committee hearing, the former 
Principal Deputy Director of the Indian Health Service could not 
remember that he was in charge of implementing a 2011 report. Where is 
the accountability? Who is in charge? We have got to do better.
  Simply shifting staff between positions and offices, as the Indian 
Health Service has done in response to these problems, is not enough. 
It is time for action. We must do everything within our power--we will 
do everything within our power--to hold the Indian Health Service 
accountable and to make sure this never happens again.
  I continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate on a path forward 
to demand accountability from an agency that, by all accounts, is 
disconnected and unresponsive to the needs of our Native Americans.
  I will also continue to consult with the nine tribes in South Dakota. 
Our tribes are in the best position to help figure out the path forward 
for their own health care, and I believe the Indian Health Service must 
do a better job of consulting with our tribes when it comes to the care 
they receive.
  I am going to do everything I can within my power to get all of our 
tribal citizens the quality care they deserve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burr pertaining to the introduction of S. 2854 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BURR. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


               Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 
one in three Ohioans who knows somebody who is struggling with 
addiction to heroin or prescription drugs.
  I rise today on behalf of the over 5,000 Americans who have lost 
their lives to a prescription drug overdose since the Senate passed the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act back on March 10.
  I rise today to talk about an epidemic which is affecting my home 
State of Ohio, which is affecting all our States, whichever it is, and 
which is affecting our country and must be dealt with.
  This is the fourth time I have come to the floor of the Senate since 
we passed CARA, which is the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, 
and I come to floor to talk about our legislation and to ask the House 
of Representatives to please pass that legislation, which would then go 
to the President for his signature and could begin to help in 
communities all across the country.
  The legislation I am talking about is legislation that the Senator 
from New Hampshire, now who is the Chair right now, the Presiding 
Officer, has been involved with in a very deep way in her own State of 
New Hampshire and also here on the Senate floor. I appreciate all the 
hard work she has put into this, and I know she agrees with me that it 
is time for the House to act.
  We passed it on March 10. That means it has been 47 days since the 
Senate acted. About 120 Americans die every day of a drug overdose. It 
has been 47 days. That means we have lost 5,600 Americans to drug 
overdoses since the Senate passed this bill.
  By the way, it is not just about that tragic loss of life, it is 
about so many people who may not have overdosed but have this addiction 
and are not taking care of their families, are not able to work and be 
a productive citizen, are not achieving their God-given potential. It 
is about those who have overdosed but have been saved by this miracle 
drug that police and firefighters and other first responders and 
sometimes family members now are administering called Narcan or 
naloxone.
  It means that since the Senate passed this bill, this epidemic is 
getting worse, not better. That is based on

[[Page S2444]]

all of the information I get back home. Last week in Lebanon, OH--it is 
a small town north of Cincinnati, OH, where my family has roots going 
back to the 1920s--in Lebanon, OH, a 34-year-old woman, who was engaged 
to be married, overdosed and died in front of her children, one aged 10 
and one baby girl who was still learning to walk. By the way, that 
little girl's father has now been arrested. Within days of her mother's 
addiction--she has now lost both her mom and her father.
  Last week, from Tuesday afternoon to Wednesday morning--Tuesday 
afternoon to Wednesday morning--six people died of overdoses in one 
small town called Elyria, OH. It is not a big city; there are about 
53,000 people in Elyria. We lost six people in 24 hours. That does not 
include the 14 people who were saved by this miracle drug I talked 
about, Naloxone, that reverses the effects of an overdose.
  That is what has been happening. That is happening on our streets, 
and in the case of my home town of Cincinnati, it is happening in our 
parking lots. At noontime on Sunday, in my hometown, a man overdosed in 
the parking lot of the Museum Center in Cincinnati, OH. First 
responders moved quickly and were able to save his life. But it is 
happening in broad daylight, unfortunately, more and more frequently.
  Since 2007 drug overdoses have killed more people in Ohio than car 
accidents, making it the No. 1 cause of accidental death. I am told 
that nationally, now, it is the leading cause of accidental death in 
the country. It is not car accidents, which we would might have 
assumed, it is overdoses. They have more than tripled in Ohio from 1999 
to 2010.
  We are told that 200,000 Ohioans are addicted to opioids--200,000 
people. That is the size of a major city like Akron, OH. That is 
something which should concern us all.
  Last week there was a poll that showed that 3 in 10 Ohioans know 
someone who has abused prescription drugs, and 1 in 8 knows someone who 
has overdosed. We are talking about more than 1.3 million Ohioans.
  According to NIDA--the National Institute on Drug Abuse--the United 
States, even though we make up about 5 percent of the world's 
population, consumes 75 percent of the prescriptions drugs, including 
the vast majority of the world's prescription painkillers, the narcotic 
painkillers. They say four to five of the people who are heroin addicts 
started on prescription drugs.
  We have heard more about this this week in the news, about the fact 
that so many people get addicted to the opioid, which is the 
prescription drug. Sometimes it is actually prescribed to them; 
sometimes they obtain it illegally. They turn to heroin as a less 
expensive alternative and then end up overdosing. The results are 
tragic.
  If this is not an epidemic, I don't know what is. It is affecting 
every area. It knows no ZIP Code. So when you think about drugs and 
drug abuse and the effects of it, you might think inner city. That is 
not so. It is everywhere--in the suburbs, in the rural areas. It knows 
no ZIP Code.
  I mentioned that this legislation we worked on here for a few years 
passed the Senate. It was bicameral legislation, meaning it was the 
House and Senate working together for 3 years. We had five conferences 
here in Washington. We brought in experts on the issues of prevention 
and education and treatment and recovery and how to deal with our 
veterans who are coming back, who have a high rate of addiction, how to 
deal with women and their babies. In my home State of Ohio, we have had 
a huge increase in the rate of babies being born addicted, and what do 
you do about that?
  We put together this legislation in a comprehensive manner to handle 
not just one part or one sector but to be something that would deal 
with the holistic approach so that we could actually get at this issue.
  In the House, by the way, the identical legislation was introduced, 
and they now have over 120 cosponsors of that legislation in the House. 
Yet they have not been able to move on that legislation. Instead, they 
are moving on other legislation to deal with the issue. That is good. I 
am sure there are a lot of other things that can and should be done. 
Some of what they are doing is consistent with CARA. But we know CARA 
works. We know that if we can pass it, the President would sign it. We 
know it would help immediately in our communities. So I again call on 
the House to move quickly.
  Last week a subcommittee in the House chaired by Joe Pitts marked up 
one dozen bills that have to do with how we fight this epidemic. Joe 
Pitts is a man who cares a lot about this issue. He has a passion for 
it. This week my friend and full committee chairman Fred Upton is going 
to mark up those 12 bills. The House has a lot of good ideas. That is 
fine. That is good.
  I joined Congressman Bill Johnson of Marietta, OH, who has been a 
passionate advocate on this issue, to introduce something called the 
Preventing Abuse of Cough Medicine Act, which would restrict the sale 
of certain cough medicines that are frequently abused. That is good. It 
is a commonsense Ohio idea. I thank my friend and colleague for doing 
his part to help our constituents. That should be passed in addition to 
CARA, along with other legislation.
  I certainly respect my colleagues over there very much, as I said, 
but let's just give CARA a vote, and then let's move on this other 
legislation as well. It takes a while, as all of us are painfully 
aware, to get something through the process around here. This one went 
through with a 94-to-1 vote. It is comprehensive. It was introduced in 
both the House and the Senate. They have over 120 cosponsors. Let's 
just move that. Then, if there are other things to be dealt with, like 
the one I talked about, we can work on those as well and find ways to 
work together to find common ground. I will support that. I cannot 
speak for all of my colleagues, but I can speak for all of them--with 
the exception of one who voted the other way--to say that we will help 
get CARA to the President. In fact, it doesn't need to come back to the 
Senate if they pass the CARA legislation.

  More and more Members in the House are focused on this issue. That is 
good. Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee is also marking up 
legislation in this area. So this is a separate committee--the Energy 
and Commerce Committee--and now the Judiciary Committee. They are going 
to mark up five related bills, including what they consider the 
alternative to CARA. It has some of the CARA provisions but not all of 
them.
  Let me tell you what the experts out there are saying. There are over 
120 groups who have endorsed our legislation, helped us to get our 
legislation through.
  Yesterday, the policy director of the Harm Reduction Coalition sent a 
letter to the Judiciary Committee saying that its alternative ``omits 
vital provisions in CARA addressing recovery, collateral consequences, 
prevention, and education. These omitted provisions represent critical 
community priorities, which truly relate to the comprehensiveness of 
CARA's approach. CARA was developed through a thorough process of 
extensive consultation with dozens of stakeholders . . . and has 
secured the broad support of national, state, and local addiction and 
recovery, public health, and criminal justice organizations. . . . The 
version of CARA passed by the Senate represents substantial consensus 
among both community stakeholders and bipartisan lawmakers.''
  The House Judiciary's alternative to CARA does contain some of CARA's 
best proposals. I appreciate that. But unfortunately it dropped out a 
number of really important ones as well. Some of the most important 
ideas that are missing include provisions expanding drug takeback 
programs. Again, we talked about this earlier. These prescription drugs 
are at the heart of this problem. These takeback programs get these 
prescription drugs off the bathroom shelf, allow us to pull these drugs 
away from our communities so that people are not using these drugs to 
get into more drugs, to get into heroin. That is not in there.
  There is also a heroin law enforcement task force that was dropped 
out and a drug court for veterans called the veterans court. That is a 
very important issue for all of us. The veterans' testimony we got made 
it clear to us that these courts are working. I have toured some of 
these courts. I have had a chance to sit down at a roundtable 
discussion in Ohio with one of our

[[Page S2445]]

great veterans courts to talk to veterans whose lives have been 
entirely turned around by these veterans courts. After years and years 
of bouncing around in the prison system or at the VA, finally they get 
into these drugs courts for veterans, where they are surrounded by 
other veterans and they are able to pull their lives together, to get 
their families back together, and in one case go back to school. There 
is one guy who is about to graduate from Ohio State University after 
years and years of not being able to find a way to move forward.
  Here is another one. Patty McCarthy Metcalf of Faces and Voices of 
Recovery wrote in a letter today that taking out the CARA recovery 
provisions ``will prolong the crisis of addiction by not providing the 
critical support in communities across our nation where it is most 
needed. Recovery services provided by recovery community organizations, 
including recovery coaching and emergency rooms and drug courts and 
recovery education and awareness, are desperately needed and highly 
effective in getting people with addiction on a long-term path to 
recovery.''
  What does she mean by all that? She means that these recovery coaches 
and the services that are supported by the CARA bill help people who 
might go, as she said, to an emergency room because they have an 
overdose to be confronted by somebody who says: Look, we can help you 
get better. You don't have to do this again. You don't have to overdose 
again. You don't have to go through this near-death experience. We can 
get you into a program where you can get treatment and recovery.
  Someone has to provide the resources for those coaches. We want those 
coaches. All of us as citizens should want them. We don't want people 
to keep overdosing again and again. We want to break that cycle. That 
is what our legislation would do.
  Patty makes the critical point that our response has to be 
comprehensive. I think she is right. She says:

       Prevention, treatment and enforcement cannot solve the 
     opiate problem without recovery supports. National experts on 
     addiction, and millions of people in recovery, will agree 
     that a comprehensive approach is critical.

  That is what we do. CARA is comprehensive. There are 71 recovery 
groups, including the Ohio State University Collegiate Recovery 
Community, which sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee and the 
Education and Workforce Committee today expressing concern that two 
sections of CARA which expand recovery supports for students in high 
school and in college were dropped out. These are amazing programs. I 
am so impressed with these brave young men and women who stand up and 
say: I have a problem. I have an addition. For other students at this 
high school or at this college, who, like me, have this addiction, have 
this disease, I want to help you. We should work together and come 
together in support groups.
  There did not use to be any of these hardly, as far as I know. Now 
there are a number of them. Ohio State University is one of the places 
that took the lead in this. I am so proud of those students who stood 
up and said: Despite the stigma around this, I am going to stand up and 
say that I have this problem, and I know many of you do too. If you do, 
come, and we can work together to work through this problem.
  Again, what they say is, ``We support a comprehensive approach to 
addressing this epidemic, which must include providing recovery 
supports that enable individuals to enter and sustain their recovery.'' 
Again, CARA is comprehensive. No other bill comes close.
  As this process moves forward, I hope we will insist that any final 
agreement represents a comprehensive approach because this epidemic has 
to be combated from all angles. The approach we took to writing CARA 
was to say we are going to take the best ideas regardless of where they 
come from. We don't care who brings them. We just care what the idea 
means to help address this problem.
  We had ideas from Democrats. We had ideas from Republicans. We had 
ideas from House Members, from Senators, from experts in law 
enforcement, and from patients in recovery. We didn't ask who had the 
idea, we asked if it was a good idea. That is how you cobble together 
good legislation that makes a difference in our communities.
  On Friday I was in Ohio chairing a hearing of the Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Committee. It was at University Hospitals of 
Cleveland, OH. We heard from law enforcement experts such as the 
attorney general, Mike DeWine, and the acting U.S. attorney, Carole 
Rendon. She was great, as was Senator DeWine. Law enforcement, 
including the Fraternal Order of Police, has been strongly supportive 
of CARA because they believe this comprehensive approach works.
  We also provide training for the administering of this naloxone we 
talked about, the Narcan, and being sure that law enforcement has what 
they need to be able to help combat this issue. We also create these 
law enforcement task forces to combat heroin and methamphetamines. They 
want better tools, law enforcement does, so they can save lives. We owe 
them that.
  In Ohio I am that our first responders have used naloxone more than 
16,000 times in the last year alone. Thank God for those first 
responders because they have saved thousands and thousands of lives.
  On Friday we also heard from Tracy Plouck from the Ohio Department of 
Mental Health and Addiction Services. We heard from Dr. Nancy Young of 
Children and Family Futures and Dr. Margaret Kotz, who is the director 
of Addiction Recovery Services at University Hospitals in Cleveland, 
one of the experts we have relied on. They talked about the recovery 
process.
  Their point was that probably 9 out of 10 people who need treatment 
are not getting it. That is a clear sign the status quo is not working. 
Some of it is the stigma we talked about earlier, people are not coming 
forward. Some of it is not having treatment programs that are 
accessible. We heard about waiting lists, sometimes 3 or 4 days, 
sometimes 14 days, sometimes a couple of months--and people being at 
that point in their lives where they are willing to come forward and 
say: I need to solve this problem. Yet there is a waiting list.
  Last night I had a tele-townhall meeting. We had 25,000 Ohioans on at 
any one time. It was a big group. People were talking about all kinds 
of issues, from the terrorist threat we face to energy and environment 
issues, to the jobs issue.
  One guy called in and he asked: What are you doing about treatment 
for people who have drug problems?
  So I told him about the CARA legislation and he seemed to have a 
quiver in his voice.
  I asked him: You seem to have a lot of interest in this and some 
information about it. Can you tell us your background?
  I thought perhaps he was a doctor or a treatment specialist.
  Unfortunately, he said what you hear more and more from parents, 
which is: I lost my child to addiction. She had an overdose. She died. 
And the reason I am so focused on treatment, Senator Portman, is 
because we got her to the place in her life where she was willing to 
go, finally, to a treatment center and get the treatment and recovery 
services she needed to deal with this disease that had gripped her--and 
there was no room at the inn. There was a waiting list. We couldn't get 
her in, and it was during that period that we couldn't get her into the 
treatment center that would have helped her that she overdosed.
  This is a caller from last night who--on a call--was willing to say 
this in front of 25,000 people. I told him I appreciated the fact that 
he had the courage to call in and the courage to talk about it. Of 
course, I expressed my sympathy to him and his family but asked him to 
continue talking about it, to channel that grief into something 
positive.
  Until we get more people into treatment, this is going to continue to 
be a huge problem in every one of our communities. Until we change the 
law, until we get legislation passed in Washington so we can be better 
partners, we are not going to be doing our part. Will Washington solve 
this problem? No. This problem is going to be solved in our 
communities, it is going to be solved in our families, and it is going 
to be solved in our hearts. We have to get people to pull away from 
this, to understand the dangers, better prevention and education.
  In our legislation, we have a prevention program to build awareness 
about the connection with prescription drugs and heroin. I bet most 
people listening

[[Page S2446]]

right now didn't know about that connection, a lot of people don't. Why 
would you, if you hadn't faced this issue? That awareness alone is 
going to make people make better decisions for themselves, for their 
children.
  Friday in Cleveland we had a man testify whose son died of an 
overdose. Do you know why? Because he had his molars--his wisdom 
teeth--taken out. When he had his wisdom teeth taken out, what 
happened?
  You know where I am going.
  They gave his son, a kid, Percocet--a narcotic, a painkiller. The 
rest of the story you know, which is he started taking more of those 
and more of those. Then he took some from the bathroom shelf of one of 
his relatives. He developed this addiction and eventually turned to 
heroin and overdosed.
  Now his father, God bless him, is out there talking to high 
schoolers, talking to middle schoolers, talking to young people about 
the dangers.
  We can address this issue. We know we can. There has been success 
with other awareness programs. Think of smoking and teen smoking. We 
have made great progress there. We have to make progress on this one. 
This is about life and death.

  We heard testimony on Friday from Dr. Michele Walsh, the director of 
neonatology at University Hospitals. She talked about how she is 
increasingly seeing babies who are born with what is called neonatal 
abstinence syndrome. That is a fancy way of saying these poor babies 
are born with an addiction. She said the symptoms are the same you 
would see with an adult. It is the fidgeting. It is the sweats.
  These are little babies. I have gone to these neonatal units, and I 
know some of my colleagues have. You see these babies. They are so 
small they can fit in the palm of your hand, and they are addicted. You 
have these doctors and nurses with incredible passion, such as Dr. 
Michele Walsh, who are taking care of them. In my home State of Ohio we 
have had a 750-percent increase in the last 12 years with babies born 
with neonatal abstinence syndrome--a 750-percent increase. Every single 
neonatal unit in Ohio is facing this.
  I have been to Rainbow Babies & Children's in Cleveland, which is at 
this hospital. I have seen what they do. I have been to St. Rita's 
special care nursery in Lima, OH. I have been to Children's Hospital in 
my own hometown. They are doing great work, but wouldn't it be great if 
we didn't have to deal with this issue because we had better prevention 
and education to let mothers know what the danger is when they are 
pregnant and they could have better treatment and recovery to get those 
women out of this grip of addiction so their babies can be born without 
these issues.
  Frankly, the long-term effects we talked about at our hearing, 
talking to experts and doctors, I don't think people know what the 
long-term effects are--and of course that is scary. They basically take 
these babies through withdrawal. We have to provide babies with the 
medication at a lower level--but that you would provide an adult--to 
take them through the withdrawal process.
  CARA, the legislation we are talking about, would help these women. 
It would help these babies by expanding treatment for expectant and 
postpartum women as well as awarding grants to evidence-based treatment 
services and residential treatment programs for pregnant women who are 
struggling with addiction. It would create a pilot program to provide 
family-based services to women who are addicted to opiates in a 
nonresidential outpatient setting. It is what we learn from experts--
how to help address this problem--that is in this legislation.
  I know there are other ideas out there, and that is great, but 
stripping out some of CARA's core provisions just didn't make any sense 
to me. Let's keep it comprehensive. Let's be sure and get this 
legislation done and then work on additional legislation.
  The House could simply put CARA on the suspension calendar and have a 
vote on it. That is the calendar where you have to have a two-thirds 
vote, but something like this with all the cosponsors and all the 
interest in this issues now, I think it would pass. That means we are 
one vote away of getting this help to our communities.
  That is how close we are to a historic achievement to help begin to 
turn the tide, to make the Federal Government a better partner with our 
States, our local communities. Our great nonprofits are out there in 
the trenches doing the work and our families. There is no reason it 
couldn't happen today, tomorrow, or the next day before we go into 
another congressional recess.
  After 3 years of work, it doesn't make sense to start from scratch 
and try to rewrite this. Let's work together to come up with additional 
ideas that are course appropriate. Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas 
around here.
  Believe me, I know some of these House Members. They have the right 
intentions. They are trying to help. I appreciate that, but I also 
think we all need to appreciate the fact that this is a crisis. We are 
losing more and more Americans, 5,600 since CARA was passed in the 
Senate. Roughly every 12 minutes we lose someone else. People's lives 
are on the line. Communities are being impacted. Families are being 
torn apart. It is time for us to act and act quickly.
  I appreciate the time today. I urge the House to move quickly on this 
legislation so we can begin to help our communities in need.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          ``El Faro'' Tragedy

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss, 
first of all, the successful location of the El Faro voyage data 
recorder by the NTSB. As you all recall, that was the ship that had 
sailed from Jacksonville and was lost at sea and everyone perished. 
Today, the NTSB found the data recorder.
  The U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, and other search partners were 
also involved. That gives me hope that we will soon have more answers 
about this terrible disaster and how to prevent a similar one from 
happening again. So I want to thank the men and women of the 
investigative team who worked together to find this important piece of 
the El Faro puzzle.
  Today we are also reminded of those who were lost on the El Faro and 
the loved ones they left behind. They remain in our thoughts and 
prayers.


                               Zika Virus

  Madam President, on a different topic, I wanted to come to the floor 
today and talk again about the Zika virus. Once again there was an 
announcement that there had been additional cases identified in 
Florida.
  Just to recap where we stand now, Zika has now spread to over 43 
countries. There are 500 cases in U.S. territories, most of them on the 
Island of Puerto Rico. In my home State of Florida, there are now 93 
cases--the most of any State--and the peak mosquito season is directly 
ahead.
  A lot has happened regarding Zika. We have learned more and more 
about this disease. For example, we are now learning the virus has a 
direct link to Guillain-Barre syndrome, a very debilitating, often 
fatal, illness, and it is striking people affected with it. We are 
learning through recent science that it is not just the first trimester 
of pregnancy but also potentially in the second trimester that unborn 
children can be impacted by this, and the impacts are devastating.
  We are learning that of the two species of mosquitoes that spread the 
disease, one of them has developed an immunity, a resistance to the 
most commonly used pesticide to remove them. So there is real concern 
as we head into the summer months and mosquitoes begin to appear that 
soon we will wake up to the news that there has now been a mosquito-
borne transmission within the continental United States.
  Here is the bottom line: We don't know everything about this disease. 
We already know it is bad, but we don't know how bad it is. Every day 
we find out more things. We know during these summer months it will be 
increasingly warm in many parts of the country where the two mosquito 
species that spread the virus can be found--in 30 out

[[Page S2447]]

of 50 States. We know those mosquitoes tend to grow even faster during 
warm seasons and when there is a lot of water on the ground. And we 
know one of the countries most impacted by it--Brazil--will soon host 
the Summer Olympic Games, which means there is going to be a tremendous 
amount of travel to and from Brazil, and, in fact, there already is. We 
know the disease is not just spread through mosquitoes, but it is also 
sexually transmitted.
  The result of all this is that there is a real concern about what 
direction we are headed. The President has asked for $1.9 billion in 
funding, and I am generally supportive of that request. I believe we 
need to deal with these issues on the front end as quickly as possible. 
We don't want to wake up one morning to the realization that we are now 
in the middle of summer, this has become an epidemic or a catastrophe, 
and we didn't do anything on the front end. Everyone here will have to 
explain what their position was at the time.
  I also think you can be for Zika funding--you can even be for Zika 
funding at $1.9 billion--and you can also ask questions about how this 
money is going to be spent and, if possible, how we are going to pay 
for it because we are facing a debt situation in this country. I 
believe we can find $1.9 billion to pay for it. I have suggested some 
of my own.
  What we don't want to do is to play political games with this. I 
think it is important. On the one side, you can't just say: Look, I am 
against anything they are asking for that comes up unless you prove 
otherwise. I think it is important that we now admit this is a serious 
issue that needs to be confronted. But it is also not being an 
obstructionist to ask: How is the money going to be spent? What 
programs will be funded? Where is the prioritization going to be? I 
think it is not too much to ask to have a level of detail about that 
$1.9 billion.
  What I am concerned about is some of the reports in the news that 
there are games being played with this. We have heard the news that the 
administration has redirected $44 million in emergency preparedness 
grants promised to State and local governments this summer. Oftentimes 
in politics this is a very typical maneuver. What you do is, you cut 
money from an organization somewhere and you blame it on congressional 
inaction--or in the States, on legislative inaction. And they say the 
reason you are losing this money is that someone is not doing what we 
want, so you find the most painful, alarming cuts and use them as a 
leverage point to get pressure built on Congress. So I want to make 
sure that this is not part of some game. We shouldn't be playing games 
with this. I think it is also important to understand why, in addition 
to the $1.9 billion, they are also saying on top of that we also have 
to repay the $510 million in Ebola funds since the Ebola situation is 
now under control.
  These are all legitimate issues that need to be confronted. But in 
the end, we have to do something about this. I know the Senate and the 
Congress were not meant to move at warp speed, to say the least. It is 
a place in which action takes time, and I understand that. But there 
are things we don't have time for. This issue has to be dealt with on 
the front end. Summer is here already. If you have been in South 
Florida, as I have on weekends, and back in my home State, as I will be 
again this Friday and into the weekend, it is already hot. That heat, 
combined with a wet season, means mosquitoes.

  This is mosquito season. We have a disease that is already creating 
this catastrophic impact in countries neighboring us to the south. We 
know it is spread by mosquitoes. Mosquito season is rapidly 
approaching, and we have to get ahead of this. None of us wants to be 
in a position in June, July, and August where this thing breaks out and 
we start seeing cases in the continental United States, as we are 
already seeing in Puerto Rico and in Brazil, and we have no answer for 
why we did nothing during these months we were here.
  I don't know what all the impediments are. I know there are 
conversations going on at the committee level, but I hope we can bridge 
this rather quickly. There are so many other issues we can argue about. 
There are so many other issues we can have debates about in the 
partisan season. But I don't think a disease of this magnitude, with 
this level of risk, is one we should be playing games with.
  My hope is that cooler heads will prevail and that over the next few 
days we will find it within ourselves to find out how to appropriate 
the necessary money so we can begin to deal with this, at least on the 
front end. Maybe there is a chunk of money on the front end so we can 
begin to address it and then we can come back later and fund the rest 
of it. I think it is incumbent upon the administration and others to 
say ``This is what the money is going to be spent on'' so we can judge 
whether the money and the funds are actually going to things that work. 
But this needs to happen. This problem can't wait, and it shouldn't be 
a partisan fight.
  Combating Zika is an appropriate use of public dollars. It is an 
appropriate use of public dollars. I am for limited government. I am 
for a very limited Federal Government. But one of the things the 
Federal Government is tasked with is keeping our people and country 
safe, particularly from external threats. Traditionally, what that 
means is an invading army or some military threat from abroad or 
whatever. In this case, this is a threat emerging from abroad, but it 
is coming toward the United States. There is nothing that prevents the 
United States from becoming like some of these other countries that 
have been impacted by this--nothing. Our people are not genetically 
immune to Zika. It is a matter of time. It is not a question of if, it 
is a question of when there will be a mosquito-borne transmission of 
the Zika disease here in the United States. And when that happens, if 
the posture of the Congress has been that we did nothing--nothing has 
happened on this; we are still debating over $200 million or $50 
million--people will not be satisfied with that answer.
  So my hope is that this is dealt with according to the level of 
urgency it deserves. As I said, in my home State of Florida we already 
have 93 cases, with 2 new ones over the weekend. Those numbers are only 
going to grow. It is just a matter of time before there is a mosquito-
borne transmission somewhere in the United States--the continental 
United States, because, as I said, this has already occurred in Puerto 
Rico--and I hope we get ahead of it before it is too late.
  As I speak to the appropriators and those involved in this, my hope 
is that we can find our way forward on this rather quickly. There are 
so many other issues to argue about; this should not be one of them. 
The money needs to be spent the right way, but it needs to be spent and 
it needs to be appropriated, and we should endeavor to pay for as much 
of it, if not all of it, as we can. It needs to get quickly to the 
target. We need to move from this process and on to those programs so 
we can get ahead of it in May and June, before we get into the summer, 
before we get into mosquito season, and before we have an outbreak in 
the United States. If not, we then will have to answer to the people as 
to why nothing happened when we knew the risk was growing and the 
threat was emerging.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, it has been nearly 9 months since the 
United States had an Ambassador to Mexico. The President's nominee to 
that post, Roberta Jacobson, is eminently qualified for the post.
  The Arizona Republic noted in an editorial from March that ``she's 
qualified, respected and needed to do an important job.'' They are 
right.
  For more than 20 years, Ms. Jacobson has been immersed in the 
regional, political, economic, and security issues related to the 
Western Hemisphere. In fact, as part of her extensive background, she 
served for a time as Director of the Office of Mexican Affairs at the 
State Department. She is obviously

[[Page S2448]]

fluent in Spanish and has earned the respect of her colleagues. She 
served for 3 years as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Canada, Mexico, 
and NAFTA issues within the Bureau of Western Hemisphere--experience 
that would later serve the United States well given that Mexico is 
America's third largest trading partner, with bilateral trade totaling 
more than half a trillion dollars. However, she has been waiting for 
the Senate to confirm her nomination since the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee reported it to the Senate in November of last year by a vote 
of 12 to 7.
  It should be incomprehensible to anyone around the country to have a 
post of the top diplomat to one of our most important bilateral 
relations open for this long, but for Arizonans, it is particularly 
baffling. Arizona alone enjoyed a trade relationship with Mexico of 
nearly $17 billion last year. On the export side, Arizona exports about 
$9 billion in goods and services to Mexico every year, which, according 
to the Arizona Republic, ``accounts for 41 percent of the state's 
exports, and four times more than our state exports to our next biggest 
trading partner, Canada.''
  According to the Arizona-Mexico Commission:

       With an economy that now surpasses $1.3 trillion, Mexico 
     ranks as one of the top 20 economies in the world. Mexico's 
     economy has been increasingly focused on manufacturing, 
     particularly since the signing of the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994.

  More than $1 billion in goods are exchanged between the United States 
and Mexico every day. But the U.S.-Mexico relationship is about more 
than just our economies; transportation issues, security threats, and 
natural resource management are just some of the fronts on which we 
cooperate with Mexico.
  The Arizona Republic notes that ``the Arizona Department of 
Transportation recently signed a memorandum of understanding to study 
ways to improve the trade corridor that spans the border.'' Arizona 
alone shares six ports of entry with Mexico, and Phoenix's Sky Harbor 
Airport facilitates 122 flights a week to and from Mexico. All of this 
cooperation requires a close partnership between our two countries. The 
longer the United States goes without having an Ambassador to Mexico, 
the greater that partnership will suffer.
  To my knowledge, the holdup in this process is not based on any 
concrete concerns with the qualifications of this specific nominee. She 
enjoys overwhelming support. There is no reason not to move forward 
with this nomination. If there is opposition, then Members should have 
the opportunity to express it. As such, I will be asking unanimous 
consent for a time agreement with a rollcall vote on her confirmation. 
There is simply no reason we should not have an Ambassador to Mexico 
when we have a candidate as qualified as Roberta Jacobson.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic 
leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the 
following nomination: Calendar No. 365; that there be 30 minutes for 
debate only on the nomination equally divided in the usual form; that 
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the 
nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the 
Senate then resume legislative session without any intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I agree that the U.S.-Mexico relationship 
is one of our most important bilateral relationships. We do need an 
ambassador in Mexico City who has a track record of effectively 
advancing U.S. interests. I do, however, have serious questions about 
the policies that Assistant Secretary Jacobson has pursued during her 
tenure in the Western Hemisphere Bureau. I have had conversations with 
the administration and others, such as Senator Corker, about the 
concerns, and I remain hopeful that we can find a way to resolve this 
issue in the very near future, but until then, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I plan to return frequently for as long as 
it takes to shed a light on this nomination and to make sure it moves 
forward, so I expect to be here tomorrow to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                    World Intellectual Property Day

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the United States is one of the most 
dynamic and innovative countries in the world. Our Nation's success in 
areas such as agriculture, manufacturing, computer technology, and 
medicine can be traced in large measure to our respect for, and 
protection of, intellectual property.
  Every year on this day, April 26, we have the opportunity to 
recognize the important role of intellectual property rights in the 
fabric of our society when we celebrate World Intellectual Property 
Day.
  Nearly 230 years ago, our Founding Fathers recognized the importance 
of intellectual property and made provisions for its promotion and 
protection in the Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 empowers 
Congress ``to promote the Progress of Science and Useful arts, by 
securing, for limited Times, to Authors and Inventors, the exclusive 
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.''
  Since that time--and stemming from these values--intellectual 
property has played a vital role in our economy, supporting jobs and 
advancing creative and scientific industries.
  In our modern, innovation economy, patents, trademarks, copyrights, 
trade secrets, and other forms of IP are more critical than ever. As 
the Global Intellectual Property Center recently pointed out in their 
broad survey of Intellectual Property in America, IP-intensive 
industries employ over 40 million Americans, accounting for 38 percent 
of total U.S. gross domestic product. Workers in IP-intensive 
industries are paid better than the national average, earning an 
average salary of over $50,000 compared to those in non-IP-intensive 
sectors where the average is roughly $39,000. In fact, intellectual 
property is so important to the American economy that the collective 
worth of all of the intellectual property in the United States is now 
above $5.8 trillion.
  In Iowa, we have seen how intellectual property has become an 
integral part of our economy. Our system of strong intellectual 
property protection has led to $11.2 billion in annual IP-related 
exports from the State, a total of 667,557 IP-related jobs, and 19.9 
percent higher wages for direct IP workers than non-IP workers. Just as 
Iowans utilized strong IP laws 75 years ago when they were discovering 
how to feed the world through cutting-edge science, today's Iowans 
benefit from our system of IP protection as they start companies and 
create new tech success stories.
  The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in protecting 
intellectual property. The committee exercises jurisdiction over our 
Nation's intellectual property laws including those governing patents, 
trademarks, and copyrights. We consider legislation that helps to 
ensure that intellectual property rights continue to promote jobs and 
innovation. The committee also exercises important oversight of the 
Patent and Trademark Office, ICANN, the Office of the Intellectual 
Property Enforcement Coordinator, and various law enforcement entities 
charged with protecting IP.
  Some recent examples of important legislation that helps promote 
intellectual property rights are the PATENT Act of 2015 and the Defend 
Trade Secrets Act of 2016. The PATENT Act, which passed the committee 
by a vote of 16 to 4 last June, takes important steps to stop abusive 
patent litigation practices. As bad actors are exploiting the high 
costs of litigation and using deceptive tactics to prey on businesses, 
it is important that this legislation be considered in the Senate.
  Just 3 weeks ago, the Senate unanimously passed the Defend Trade 
Secrets Act of 2016, sponsored by Senators Hatch and Coons. Building 
upon the bipartisan consensus generated in the Judiciary Committee, the 
bill passed on the Senate floor by a vote of 87 to 0. It is estimated 
that the American economy loses 2.1 million jobs and over

[[Page S2449]]

$300 billion in economic losses every year because of trade secret 
theft. The Defend Trade Secrets Act brings much-needed uniformity to 
trade secret litigation. This will allow the creators and owners of 
trade secrets to more effectively address the growing problem of trade 
secret theft. The House of Representatives is expected to pass our bill 
this week and I hope it will be immediately signed by the President.
  Tomorrow, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on counterfeits 
and their impact on consumer health and safety. We will hear from a 
panel of experts, including witnesses from the Patent and Trademark 
Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and industry. These 
businesses include companies that provide home health care products and 
equipment to our troops. They will discuss how counterfeits can harm 
consumers and what their impact is on the economy. We will hear how law 
enforcement is addressing this problem as well as how stakeholders are 
educating consumers to protect themselves from counterfeits.
  The focus of this year's World Intellectual Property Day is ``digital 
creativity.'' As the World Intellectual Property Organization notes, 
the current era of Internet connectivity is transforming how consumable 
culture such as films, TV, music, books, art, and other cultural works 
are created and distributed. This has led to radical changes in the way 
we access content and in how businesses operate. As challenges emerge 
as to how we protect intellectual property rights in these new economic 
models, we must continue to search for effective solutions that promote 
creativity across different mediums.
  So on this World Intellectual Property Day, it is important to once 
again recognize the significance of our Nation's robust system of 
intellectual property protection and enforcement. This system has 
helped create the United States' enduring role as a leader in 
innovation and creativity. As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, I will continue to embrace my role as a promoter of 
intellectual property rights and American jobs.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________