[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 74 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2677-S2699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2016
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2028, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Alexander/Feinstein amendment No. 3801, in the nature of a
substitute.
McConnell (for Cotton) amendment No. 3878 (to amendment No.
3801), of a perfecting nature.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, but I ask
that the time be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in about 5 or 6 minutes, the Senate
will proceed to the scheduled vote on the Cotton amendment on the
Energy and Water appropriations bill. Actually, it will be cloture on
the Cotton amendment. Before that vote, I ask unanimous consent that I
first be allowed to speak for a few minutes, and following me, Senator
Feinstein, and then we vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will save most of my remarks for
after the vote, but I wish to make two kinds of remarks. One is to give
an update on the bill, where we are. The second remark is to restate my
reasons why I will not vote for cloture on the Cotton amendment. First,
in terms of where we are, we have the Cotton amendment at 10:30. The
Senator from California and I have agreed--and I think our staffs and
the Republican and Democratic leaders have discussed it--that there
could be a vote for Senator Cardin and Senator Fischer at 60 votes, a
voice vote on Senator Flake. That is it. Then we would have another
cloture vote if we need it and a vote on final passage.
In my view, and I believe in terms of Senator Feinstein's view, we
ought to easily be able to finish the bill today. I think we should
finish it today. I thank the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, for
starting the appropriations process earlier this year than it ever has
been started before. I thank the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, for
working with us through some difficult issues we had on this first bill
that we didn't expect and to make it possible for us to come to what
looks like a prompt conclusion.
This is an important bill. The Senators know that. We have had nearly
80 Senators contribute parts of this bill. Some are very important to
their States and this country. Whether it deepens the Mobile port or
the west coast ports or rebuilds locks in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee
or whether it properly funds the national laboratories across the
country or moves ahead with our nuclear weapons program, this is one of
the most important appropriations bills that we have.
Today we will have spent 2 weeks on it, not counting the week we had
for recess. We will have processed 21 amendments, if I go through the
amendments I just described. If we succeed today in finishing the bill,
it will
[[Page S2678]]
be the first time since 2009 that the Energy and Water appropriations
bill has gone across the floor in regular order.
Senator Feinstein and I have worked pretty hard together, and as she
likes to say, both of us have engaged in some give and some take in
order to create a result that the Senate can be proud of and set a good
example for the next 11 appropriations bills. We have a lot waiting to
be done. The majority leader has already announced he would like to
move ahead with the transportation and military construction bill. On
both sides of the aisle, there is concern about moving ahead with Zika,
which could be done during that bill. The Defense authorization bill
needs to be dealt with before we get to the next recess. We have nine
more appropriations bills to deal with, and there is a very important
biomedical research bill called the 21st Century Cures Act. I hope we
get to that bill sometime before July.
Amendment No. 3878
Mr. President, I have one other thing to say. Senator Feinstein and I
have worked hard to give all the Senators who had germane, relevant
amendments a vote on their amendments, and we succeeded very well with
that. We processed 21 amendments, and that includes the amendment by
Senator Cotton, which prohibits the United States from using tax
dollars to buy heavy water from Iran in the year 2017. I defended his
right to have a vote on that amendment, which we are about to have, but
I will vote no on that amendment because I don't believe it belongs on
the bill. No. 1, I think it should be considered first by the Foreign
Relations and the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees because it
is filled with national security implications. No. 2, if it were
adopted, I think there would be dangerous complications because it
could increase the possibility that heavy water from Iran, which in the
United States would be used for peaceful purposes, could be sold by
Iran to another country, such as North Korea, and used to help make
nuclear weapons. I don't want to have the Senate approve an amendment
that would create that kind of possibility. No. 3, the President said
he will veto it, which would result in not only having the Cotton
amendment rejected, but the bill would fail as well.
The discussion of where Iran's heavy water goes is an important
discussion, and the Senator has a right to bring it up. Iran has it,
and we don't want them to have it because they could use it to make
nuclear weapons. We don't produce it, but we need it for medical and
scientific research, so it makes sense for us to buy it. In the great
scheme of things, it is not a great amount of money. But the idea of
letting it go on the international market and perhaps find its way to
countries building nuclear weapons is something I can't support, so I
will vote no.
I thank the Senator from California for working through all of these
issues with us, and I am glad that following Senator Feinstein's
remarks, we will vote on the Cotton amendment. I hope that with the
cooperation of the majority leader and Democratic leader, we will be
able to finish the bill today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of
the Energy and Water Subcommittee for his leadership and willingness to
settle issues to get this bill to the point where it really is ready to
be voted on by this body. I think he has made the argument against the
Cotton amendment eloquently and correctly. I am very grateful for the
fact that he did what I think is a noble thing and changed his vote and
will be voting against the Cotton amendment.
Let me say something about this process. Both the chairman and I have
been here for a long time, and we were here when appropriations bills
were passed. The key to doing that is keeping poison pills off
appropriations bills so they can be passed quickly. In addition to the
arguments made by the chairman, the White House had very strong
feelings and indicated they would veto this bill if it passed with this
amendment. How do we start an appropriations process with a
Presidential veto in the wings? I don't think we do. Hopefully, the
appropriate thing will happen in this vote, and cloture will be
defeated. I hope that it sends a signal--a strong signal--for the rest
of the appropriations process. We want to show that we can run this
place and get business done and poisons pills have no place on
appropriations bills. That is my very deep belief, and that is where it
once was.
Once again, I thank the chair for his help, cooperation, and
leadership. It is quite wonderful to be able to work with the Senator
from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, and I too urge a ``no'' vote on
cloture.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment
No. 3878 to amendment No. 3801 to Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2028,
an act making appropriations for energy and water development
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2016, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran, Lamar Alexander, Johnny
Isakson, Marco Rubio, David Vitter, Patrick J. Toomey,
Steve Daines, Richard C. Shelby, James Lankford, John
Thune, James M. Inhofe, Lisa Murkowski, Tom Cotton, Pat
Roberts, John Barrasso, John Hoeven.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 3878, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, for the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton, to amendment No.
3801, as amended, to H.R. 2028, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--42
Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are
42.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Amendment No. 3878
Cloture not having been invoked on amendment No. 3878, under the
previous order, there will be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the
usual form.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I regret that the Senators failed to
invoke cloture on my amendment, but I am gratified that a large
bipartisan majority of the Senate agrees that we should not use U.S.
taxpayer dollars to subsidize Iran's nuclear program over and above the
obligations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Now that cloture has not been invoked, my amendment is still pending,
and I understand that Democrats denied cloture on the bill three times
because my amendment is able to be called up after cloture on the bill.
[[Page S2679]]
I want this bill to move forward, I want it to pass in an expeditious
fashion, and therefore I intend later today to withdraw my amendment so
it cannot be called up postcloture on the bill, leaving Democrats no
reason not to agree to cloture on the bill and agree to final passage
of the bill.
Finally, I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee as well as the
Senator from Kentucky, the majority leader, for working with me to make
sure we have the Senate on record on this important issue. I regret
that it took multiple days to get to a point we could have reached very
early on, as I had agreed to a 60-vote threshold 2 weeks ago, but I do
think it is important that the Senate has spoken on this most critical
issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for
withdrawing his amendment. I defended his right to have the amendment.
I opposed the amendment, and I explained before the vote why I did
that, so it is not necessary for me to say more about it.
As Senator Feinstein and I said before the vote, we are ready to
finish the bill. We have had terrific cooperation from Senators on both
sides of the aisle. We will have included 21 amendments in the bill by
the time we are finished. More than 80 Senators have made a
contribution to the bill. It has importance to every part of our
country. It is the first bill of a series of 12 that we need to deal
with. It is within the budget levels. It is not a part of the Federal
debt problem because the discretionary spending we are talking about is
fairly flat.
It is a well-designed bill, and we are ready to finish the bill. When
it will be finished, of course, is up to the majority leader and the
Democratic leader as they schedule.
All that remains to be done, since Senator Feinstein and I have
recommended that we have votes on the Cardin and Fischer amendments at
60 and that we adopt a Flake-modified amendment by voice vote--then all
that remains is a cloture vote, if necessary, and final passage. In our
view, that could be done today, but there may be larger issues that
have to do with the Senate schedule that would cause that to be put off
until tomorrow, and we will wait for an announcement from the majority
leader and the Democratic leader about what that schedule is.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. For the information of Senators and staff, there will
be a vote at noon. We expect a cloture vote at noon on the bill. There
may be other things to discuss at that time. Several Senators have
asked me about votes, and I indicated that there were a couple and that
there might not be votes until after lunch, but the plan now is to have
a vote at noon on cloture on the bill. Perhaps by then we will be able
to lock in some other votes, which would occur after lunch.
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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Zika Virus
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Zika virus and the
urgent need for Congress to provide the $1.9 billion President Obama
has requested to combat this health crisis.
The Zika virus was first identified in Uganda in 1947. The virus is
transmitted by the same mosquito species that transmits dengue, yellow
fever, and chikungunya. Prior to 2007, the Zika virus had no known
outbreaks and only 14 documented human cases. However, in the spring of
2007, scientists documented 185 suspected cases of Zika on Yap Island,
Micronesia, followed by more than 30,000 suspected cases in French
Polynesia and other Pacific islands between 2013 and 2014, and in May
2015 the first case of Zika was reported in Brazil.
On February 1, 2016, the World Health Organization declared the
ongoing Zika outbreak to be ``a public health emergency of
international concern.'' According to the World Health Organization's
International Health Regulations, a public health emergency of
international concern is a situation where the disease outbreak
``constitutes a public health risk to other States through the
international spread of disease, and potentially requires a coordinated
international response.'' The World Health Organization predicts that 3
to 4 million people--3 to 4 million people--in the Americas will
contract Zika within 1 year.
There is a common refrain among scientists and experts studying Zika:
There is much they still do not know about Zika, and what they do know
is worrisome. Until recently, the Zika virus has been viewed as a
relatively minor virus. The majority of individuals infected with the
virus are asymptomatic, and those who do experience symptoms often
complain of fever, rash, joint pain or conjunctivitis.
However, newer research has shown the Zika virus can cause a number
of previously undetected medical conditions, especially in regard to
pregnant women. Last month the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention confirmed the link between Zika infection during pregnancy
and severe fetal brain defects like microcephaly. The World Health
Organization recently concluded that Zika can cause Guillain-Barre, a
rare condition that attacks the body's nervous system, causing muscle
weakness and even paralysis. Scientists have also recently confirmed
the virus can be transmitted sexually--a first for this type of virus.
As of April 2016, the World Health Organization documented Zika virus
transmission in 62 countries and territories around the world,
including 33 in the Americas. Brazil has been hardest hit by the virus,
recording more than 91,000 cases of the virus and nearly 5,000
suspected cases of Zika-related microcephaly. Across the U.S.
territories, nearly 600 people have contracted Zika, including more
than 400 in Puerto Rico. Here in the Continental United States, there
have been over 420 related Zika cases, including 12 in my home State of
Maryland.
As we continue moving toward the summer months and the height of the
mosquito season, the number of locally acquired and travel-associated
Zika infections in the United States and its territories will
undoubtedly climb. Just last month, CDC Director Tom Frieden indicated
that clusters of locally acquired Zika were possible in the southern
United States by the summer.
Last month, the administration officially announced they would
transfer $510 million from the remaining Ebola funds to jump-start the
Zika response while waiting for congressional action. While $510
million is a good start, it is just a fraction of what is needed to
mount a full response to Zika. Congress does need to act because the
$510 million Ebola fund isn't just found money. Those dollars were
sustaining efforts to detect and prevent another Ebola outbreak in West
Africa while also helping developing countries better respond to
outbreaks on their own. It is unacceptable that we would force our
public health professionals to choose between addressing Ebola or
addressing Zika.
There is no question the United States must take the threat of Zika
seriously and mount an urgent, aggressive, and sustained response to
the virus. As we speak, a Federal interagency task force, led by the
Department of Health and Human Services, is working around the clock to
mitigate the impact of Zika. Within the task force, the CDC is working
closely with laboratories in affected countries, in the United States,
and its territories to enhance laboratory and surveillance capacity and
improve diagnostics.
[[Page S2680]]
The CDC is also engaging in public health studies and is providing
guidance to health professionals and educating the general public about
prevention. The agency is also working with local authorities in the
United States to improve mosquito control efforts.
In Maryland, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases at the National Institutes of Health is supporting preclinical
and clinical development of vaccines for the mosquito virus and other
mosquito-borne diseases. The Institute is also collaborating with
stakeholders to conduct vital research that will allow us to better
understand the origins and pathology of Zika and bring us closer to
developing a vaccine.
The Food and Drug Administration is working to improve and refine
diagnostics for the Zika virus. Most notably, the FDA recently issued
two Emergency Use Authorizations for two newly developed Zika
diagnostic tests. To date, more than 25 States and the District of
Columbia have verified their ability to test for Zika using these
methods, which will enhance our ability to monitor this growing
epidemic. The FDA is also working closely with the Biomedical Advanced
Research and Development Authority to advance vaccine research and
development.
I am also pleased the U.S. Agency for International Development,
USAID, is working with UNICEF to develop and implement communication
campaigns and community mobilization for behavioral change related to
personal protection against mosquitos, as well as community-based
mosquito mitigation and elimination efforts--commonly referred to as
vector control--in areas hardest hit by the virus. The agency is also
partnering with the World Health Organization and its South American
arm, the Pan American Health Organization, to implement and monitor
vector control programs.
In addition to providing personal protection commodities, USAID is
also working closely with the international health partners to develop
and adopt guidelines for addressing Zika in at-risk populations,
particularly pregnant women.
This is just a fraction of what a Zika response looks like. I would
be here much longer if I were to go through every detail of what our
agencies are doing to respond to the threat. Suffice it to say, this is
an all-hands-on-deck emergency, and we cannot implement and sustain an
adequate response without fully funding the President's request.
More than 2 months have passed since the President sent his request
to Congress. The Zika virus is not some nebulous foreign threat. It is
already on our shores. Congress needs to act. I call on my fellow
Senators to come to an agreement on a robust and comprehensive Zika
supplemental that enables us to better prevent, treat, and respond to
the virus both at home and abroad, while also replenishing the critical
Ebola funds.
When it comes to global health pandemics, which know no borders, the
Congress of the United States can and must act to protect American
citizens and people around the world.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, within a few minutes, we will be voting
for the fourth time on cloture on the bill. This time I expect it to
pass. The Cotton amendment has been disposed of. Following that, if it
is successful, Senator Feinstein and I have recommended to the majority
leader and the Democratic leader that we move to a vote on the Cardin
and Fischer amendments, at 60 votes, and a voice vote on the Flake
amendment. Then, all that would be remaining would be a final cloture
vote, which may or may not be necessary, and final passage. None of
those votes have been agreed to yet, and we will let Senators know when
they are. But in the opinion of the bill managers, we are ready to
finish the bill, and we thank Senators for their cooperation to get us
to this point.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3878 Withdrawn
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Arkansas,
Mr. Cotton, I withdraw the Cotton amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment
No. 3801 to Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2028, an act making
appropriations for energy and water development and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and
for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker, Tom Cotton, Thom Tillis,
Mike Crapo, Joni Ernst, Jerry Moran, John Boozman,
Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Daniel Coats, Chuck
Grassley, Shelley Moore Capito, Thad Cochran, Lamar
Alexander, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 3801, offered by the Senator from Tennessee, Mr.
Alexander, as amended, to H.R. 2028, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--2
Heller
Lee
NOT VOTING--1
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 2.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am glad to see an enthusiastic vote
of support on the cloture motion on the fourth try. We gain a little
bit every time.
For the information of Senators, there will be two votes at 4:30
p.m., on the Cardin and Fischer amendments at 60 votes each.
Amendments Nos. 3871, 3888, and 3876 to Amendment No. 3801
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up
the following amendments and that they
[[Page S2681]]
be reported by number: Cardin amendment No. 3871, Fischer amendment No.
3888, and Flake amendment No. 3876; further, that the time until 4:30
p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees for
debate on the amendments concurrently; and that following the use or
yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the Cardin and Fischer
amendments in the order listed, with a 60-affirmative-vote threshold
for adoption for amendments Nos. 3871 and 3888; I further ask that
there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of these
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for others,
proposes amendments numbered 3871, 3888, and 3876 to
amendment No. 3801.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3871
(Purpose: To use Federal and State expertise to mitigate fish and
wildlife impacts at Corps of Engineers projects)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. PROTECTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.
(a) In General.--None of the funds made available by this
Act shall be available to carry out project or project
operation studies unless the Secretary of the Army ensures
evaluation of and mitigation for impacts to fish and wildlife
resources consistent with recommendations developed by the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the States pursuant to section
2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 662),
including recommendations to properly evaluate impacts and
avoid adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary of the Army shall not select a recommended
alternative for a water resources project if the Director of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service concludes that
the impacts of that alternative cannot be successfully
mitigated.
(2) Mitigation.--The mitigation requirements under this
section shall be in addition to any other mitigation measures
required under section 906 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283) and any other applicable Federal
or State law (including regulations).
amendment no. 3888
(Purpose: To provide for the operation of reservoir projects by the
Bureau of Reclamation)
At the end of title II, add the following:
Sec. 2__. None of the funds made available by this Act
that would be provided to the Bureau of Reclamation for
reservoir projects, operations, administration of water
rights, or other action in the Republican River Basin may be
used in a manner that does not comply with each applicable--
(1) current resolution of the Republican River Compact
Administration, dated November 24, 2015, for accounting and
reservoir operations for 2016 and 2017; and
(2) State order necessary to carry out that resolution.
amendment no. 3876
(Purpose: To require that certain funds are used for the review and
revision of certain operational documents)
On page 5, line 22, strike the period at the end and insert
the following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds
provided herein, for any Corps of Engineers project located
in a State in which a Bureau of Reclamation project is also
located, any non-Federal project regulated for flood control
by the Secretary of the Army located in a State in which a
Bureau of Reclamation project is also located, or any Bureau
of Reclamation facilities regulated for flood control by the
Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Army shall fund
all or a portion of the costs to review or revise operational
documents, including water control plans, water control
manuals, water control diagrams, release schedules, rule
curves, operational agreements with non-Federal entities, and
any associated environmental documentation.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Zika Virus
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
the threat that the Zika virus poses--a threat to the health of
Americans and to people around the world.
Every day we learn more about this virus. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention has confirmed a link between Zika and
microcephaly. That is a condition where babies are born with smaller
heads and with brain defects. It is a devastating problem that we are
all facing.
Studies have linked Zika to something called Guillain-Barre
syndrome--a condition I studied in medical school and have seen
patients with. It can lead to paralysis, which is another very serious
condition.
Last week the Centers for Disease Control also confirmed the first
Zika-related death in Puerto Rico.
Because this virus is mostly spread by mosquitoes, the potential risk
is only going to become more urgent as the weather turns warmer. So we
must do what we can now--today--before this turns into a true epidemic
rather than the threat it is today. America's drug companies and
researchers need to continue working on treatments, tests, and
vaccines. Our cities and towns need to start taking aggressive measures
to control mosquitoes. Doctors can help to educate people who are at
risk of contracting the disease--this virus--but we really do need all
hands on deck.
Washington has an important part to play, and Republicans in the
Senate are ready to address this issue. Congress has already passed
legislation that adds Zika to what is called the priority review
voucher program. This program awards financial incentives to the
sponsor of a new drug that is approved to prevent or treat a tropical
disease. That is a good way Congress can help speed up the research
process in dealing with Zika. Congress has also approved the transfer
of nearly $600 million in existing, unobligated funds for an immediate
Zika response, so the money has already been moved to help.
We can also make a big difference by cutting through redtape, and
there is significant redtape in this city that actually makes it harder
to kill mosquitoes that carry this virus. We would think we would want
to make it easier to kill mosquitoes, but there is redtape in
Washington, DC--bureaucrats making it harder to kill the mosquitoes
that carry the virus.
Today it is hard to believe that there are requirements for permits
that I think are absolutely unnecessary and that make it more difficult
and more expensive to spray for mosquitoes in the United States. So if
a farmer or a rancher, a city or a community wants to spray for
mosquitoes, they have to use a pesticide that has been approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency; that is No. 1. In a lot of cases,
people who want to spray for mosquitoes also have to get a separate
permit under the Clean Water Act. That is No. 2. There are two steps--
one, to get the permit to spray, and two, to get the EPA approval of
what they are going to spray with. This doesn't add any benefit to the
environment, and it certainly doesn't help protect anybody from the
Zika virus. It is Washington getting in the way. It adds another hoop
for people to jump through before they can get rid of the mosquitoes
that carry the Zika virus.
Senator Mike Crapo from Idaho has written legislation that would
eliminate this second unnecessary requirement. It is not saying that
anyone can go out and spray whatever they want. The pesticide would
still have to be approved so that we know they are safe. But the
legislation says that we don't need this second permitting process that
Washington demands. It is a commonsense change. It is the kind of thing
we could do to help local officials on the ground make the best
decisions about how they can fight these mosquitoes and this virus in
their communities, in the places they know the best, and do it quickly.
The Crapo bill has 18 cosponsors, and I am proud to be one of them.
It is a bipartisan bill with bipartisan support, and it has already
passed the Environment and Public Works Committee. We should take up
this bill and pass it and get these tools into people's hands as
quickly as possible.
I know that some of what America can do to help fight Zika--and
people understand this--is going to require us to spend money, and I
support that. That is why the Appropriations Committee is looking at
the need for additional funding, additional spending to address this
threat. Regular appropriations bills are the best way for us to
carefully look at where the priorities are for spending the taxpayers'
dollars. That is how we should be paying for things around here, not
just another
[[Page S2682]]
continuing resolution or some emergency measure.
When something new comes up, we can look at it, figure out how to
balance the costs, and if we have to do an emergency bill to get some
money out the door more quickly, we can take a look at that as well,
but we can't do that without at least having a plan from the
administration on where and how this money they are requesting is going
to be spent.
The Obama administration has not yet given us the level of
information we need to make an informed decision. It appears that the
administration is trying to take advantage of this Zika emergency to
give itself an additional $2 billion to use however it wants--maybe to
fight Zika but maybe to do other things. What the administration is
saying is that they want the money to be used for ``assistance or
research to prevent, treat, or otherwise respond to Zika virus . . . or
other infectious diseases.'' The wording is much too vague. It would
allow the administration to use these emergency funds on other
priorities well beyond a Zika response.
The President's request for emergency funding goes on to say that
most of the money, they say, could be transferred to other parts of the
government, like the Environmental Protection Agency and even the
Department of Defense. It includes a lot of expenses that don't
necessarily qualify as emergency spending outside the regular
appropriations process.
Both sides of the aisle know the Zika situation is serious, and both
sides want to do what we can to help. But Congress also has an
obligation to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are being spent
responsibly, that there is accountability. We shouldn't be writing a
big check for the Obama administration to cash without adequate
explanation and adequate accountability. We deserve that. The American
people deserve it. They will expect it, and they deserve it.
I want to be clear. Zika is a very real public health threat, and it
deserves serious discussion. It deserves urgent action. This fight
against the Zika virus should not be turned into a political game. So I
think it is a terrible sign that some Democrats in the Senate have
begun to treat this devastating health issue like just another
political talking point. That is what they have done here on the floor
of the Senate. A couple of weeks ago, Democrats actually held a press
conference calling on Congress to approve emergency funds for Zika.
Then these same Democrats turned around and blocked passage of the
Energy and Water appropriations bill for a number of days.
The appropriations process is the best way for us to fund the Zika
response, and the Senate Democrats are holding up this process for
political purposes. We need to get moving beyond this appropriations
bill to the next one that is going to address the issue of Zika. Then
we hear that the minority leader might want to wait until next week to
get on this bill. We need to get on this bill now.
So the Democrats have made it clear that they don't even want to talk
about offsetting any of the Zika funding. The Obama administration
continues to stonewall our reasonable requests for adequate information
about how it wants to spend these taxpayer dollars.
Senate Republicans are going to keep asking for this information. We
are going to keep pushing to use the appropriations process the way it
is intended, and we are committed as Republicans to addressing the
public health threat posed by the Zika virus. We will continue working
across the aisle to respond to the threat and to do it in a way that is
reasonable, responsible, and accountable.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Merrick Garland
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor to once
again urge my Republican colleagues to listen to the vast majority of
the people across the country, do their job and allow us to do ours:
fulfill our constitutional responsibilities, hold hearings for Judge
Merrick Garland, and give him a vote.
We owe that to the people we represent. It is simply the right thing
to do. Two months ago, the President did his job. He selected a
nominee. For 2 months, Judge Garland has been ready and willing to meet
with any Senator who will make the time. Yesterday Judge Garland did
his job by submitting a questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee
outlining his background and his work history, which is standard for
judicial nominees.
What about the Senate? In complete disregard of what so many Members
continue to hear in their home States across the country, Republican
leaders are refusing to act. Senate Republicans will not say they are
opposed to Judge Garland. They are refusing to even live up to their
constitutional responsibility and consider him. This kind of pure
obstruction and partisanship is so wrong. People across the country are
not going to stand for it. We are now at an unbelievable 88 days into
this Supreme Court vacancy. Especially after knowing what I do after
meeting with Judge Garland and what many Republicans know after meeting
with him as well, his distinguished career and work history show that
he is, without a doubt, someone who deserves fair consideration by all
of us in the Senate.
Judge Garland led a massive investigation of the Oklahoma City
bombing and supervised the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh. He called
his work for the Justice Department, following the Oklahoma City
bombing, the most important thing he has ever done in his life.
His fairness and diligence earned him praise from Members of both
parties, from victims' families, law enforcement officers, and even
from the lead lawyer who was defending McVeigh. As a prosecutor, he
ensured proper respect for the rights of criminal defendants.
He was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 with a
strong bipartisan vote of 76 to 23. Several of those who confirmed him
in 1997 still serve in the Senate today. Clearly this is less about
Judge Garland as a nominee and more about political obstruction and
partisanship, especially after one Republican Senator admitted that if
it looks as if Donald Trump will lose the November election, we should
quickly confirm Judge Garland. This comes after weeks of saying the
Senate should not do its job until we have a new President.
Evaluating and confirming Supreme Court Justices is one of the most
important roles we have in the Senate. I have heard from people all
over my State of Washington who want the Senate to do its job.
If Republicans continue to refuse to do their jobs, they aren't
saying the people should decide; they are saying they believe the
Republican Presidential nominee should. That is just wrong, especially
after we heard from the presumptive Republican nominee last night on
FOX News.
Recently, he said that he thinks women should be punished for
exercising their constitutionally protected reproductive rights.
Last night he went a step further. He would only appoint ``pro-life''
Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Let me repeat that. The
candidate Republicans would like to see in the White House nominating
Supreme Court Justices has committed to taking our country back to the
Dark Ages.
That is appalling, and it is something I know millions of men and
women across the country are scared of. It is just one more reason that
people will continue demanding that Senate Republicans do their jobs
now.
Washington State families should have a voice right now. Families
across America should have a voice right now. The tea party gridlock
and dysfunction that has dominated too much of our time and work in
Congress should be pushed aside right now.
I hope Republicans will reconsider. I hope they will meet with Judge
Garland, hold a hearing, and give him a vote. We need nine Justices
serving on the highest Court in the land.
[[Page S2683]]
The American people deserve a fully functioning Supreme Court.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about a very
important responsibility that the Senate has to deal with in an
expeditious manner--a Supreme Court nomination.
In a practice consistent with every single Supreme Court nominee
before him, President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy, Judge
Merrick Garland, submitted his completed questionnaire yesterday to the
Senate Judiciary Committee. Inside 6 boxes were 141 pages--with 2,066
pages of appendices--in which Judge Garland provided incredibly
thorough answers to the standard questions asked of every Supreme Court
candidate.
He detailed the highlights of his career, his published writings, the
many honors and awards he received, the cases he litigated, the
judicial opinions he gave, as well as his speeches and his interviews.
Despite the fact that Senate Republicans have forced Judge Garland
into an unprecedented limbo, he remains focused on the task before him.
He has acted with the greatest decency, thoughtfulness, and
bipartisanship while agreeing to meet with 46 Senators, including 14
Republicans.
Judge Garland respects the process. Why can't Senate Republicans?
President Obama clearly respected the process when he picked Judge
Garland, who--as Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia, the second most important court in the country--
has more Federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court
nominee in history.
Let me repeat that. Judge Garland, the nominee from our President,
who was duly elected not once but twice, has more Federal judicial
experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history.
Judge Garland has committed much of his life to public service, from
his days leading the successful prosecutions of the Oklahoma City
bombers and the Unabomber, to his nearly two decades as a Federal
appellate judge. He is brilliant and he is evenhanded.
The Congressional Research Service called him ``pragmatic'' and
``meticulous,'' a nominee who prioritizes ``collaboration over
ideological rigidity.''
Let me repeat that. He is a nominee who prioritizes ``collaboration
over ideological rigidity.''
He has also received high praise from some Republican Senators, and
that praise deserves repeating.
Senator Lindsey Graham said: ``He's honest and capable, and his
reputation is beyond reproach.''
Senator Jim Inhofe, the chairman of the committee on which I serve as
ranking member said: ``I think a lot of him.''
Senator Rob Portman: ``He's an impressive guy.''
Senator Jeff Flake said: ``Nobody has a bad thing to say about him.''
Yet in the same breath, these are some of the very same Republicans
who refuse to hold a hearing and schedule a vote on Judge Garland's
nomination, even though article II, section 2, clause 2 of the
Constitution says that it is the Senate's job to provide ``advice and
consent'' on the President's Supreme Court nominees.
This is what gets me--that my Republican friends say they care about
the Constitution. They love the Constitution. They abide by the
Constitution. They want a literal reading of the Constitution. Well,
let's read it together--article II, section 2, clause 2: The President
``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.''
It doesn't say the President ``may nominate''; it says the President
``shall nominate.'' It doesn't say the Senate ``may give advice and
consent''; it says they ``shall.'' The President shall, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. They also shall appoint Ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, and judges of the Supreme Court.
So here it is. This clause wasn't put in some bottle and miraculously
washed up on the shore and read--this is what our Founding Fathers
wanted. It is in the Constitution. It doesn't say ``may.'' It doesn't
say to the Senate: ``And by the way, p.s., if you don't like the
President, forget it.'' No, no, no. It is not in there. I looked. It
doesn't say: ``Well, if you think that a President isn't a good
President and that you are going to get a better one, you can put it
off.'' No, it doesn't say that.
The American people have three words for the Republicans who are
disrespecting this process, disrespecting our Constitution,
disrespecting our President, and threatening to create a man-made
crisis at the Supreme Court. And it is a crisis. If they deadlock, it
is a crisis. We will have one set of laws in one part of the country
and one set of laws in the other part of the country, or we are not
going to have a ruling on a very important issue. It doesn't matter
what your ideology is, you are setting up deadlocks.
It is bad enough that there is obstruction here. I know my friend,
the Senator from Illinois, will talk about the obstruction when it
comes to judges and Ambassadors and the like because we face it every
day. That is bad enough. But the highest Court in the land, governed by
this Constitution--it doesn't say: ``Look at the other side of the
paper. You really don't have to act.'' No.
Across party lines, the American people are saying three words to my
Republican friends: Do your job. Do your job.
Since 1916, when the Senate Judiciary Committee began holding public
confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees, the Senate has never
denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. Let me say that
again. Since 1916, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee
a hearing and a vote. The Democrats never did it, and the Republicans
never did it--until now. And this is from the very people who say:
``Oh, I carry the Constitution in my heart. I am a strict
constructionist.''
If you are such a strict constructionist, read this and follow the
Constitution.
I am not sure about this. I think I read that somebody is either
thinking about filing a lawsuit or they have filed a lawsuit because of
inaction. I tell you, if I wasn't here, I would truly think about that.
You can't read this Constitution and come up with any conclusion other
than that what they are doing is unconstitutional--the very same people
who say: ``Follow the Constitution.''
So in closing, which are the words my friend is waiting for, here is
what I want to say. Our Republican friends have to rethink their
obstructionist approach because they are going to do lasting damage to
two of our country's most important institutions--the Senate and the
Supreme Court. I know they love their country. I know they may not like
this nominee, even though a lot of them seem to like him quite a bit.
Maybe they are waiting for Donald Trump to put someone up. I hope that
never happens. But I am going to tell you now that you are obstructing.
You are obstructing the will of the people. You are obstructing a
President who was elected twice. You are obstructing justice for the
American people, and they all hate what you are doing, including the
Republicans who have been polled.
My Republican colleagues have to end these political games. It is
time to give Judge Garland the same consideration as every other
nominee before him. It is time to bring some respect back to the Senate
and to the Supreme Court nomination process. The American people are
going to hold my Republican colleagues accountable for this because you
cannot do this. This is not right.
If you want to vote against a nominee, fine. I have done it. Of
course, vote against the nominee. But as much as I have opposed
nominees before--and I have--I have never suggested, nor has any other
Democrat I know of ever suggested, that you don't go forward with the
process.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor, noting that my friend from
Illinois is going to address us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Presiding Officer tell us what
the order of business is.
[[Page S2684]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is postcloture on amendment No.
3801.
Mr. DURBIN. There are no time limits agreed to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is evenly divided until 4:30 p.m.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
Judicial Nominations
Mr. President, the Executive Calendar is sitting here on the table
for each Member of the Senate to take a look at. I have renamed it. It
is no longer the Executive Calendar; it is the political obituaries.
These are men and women who have been nominated to serve in positions
of our government, who are excited about the opportunity to be public
servants, many of whom have gone through extensive background checks,
FBI checks, with staff having taken a look at their resumes, asked hard
questions, demanded answers, and put these nominees through hearings.
Many went through extensive periods of investigation and hearings and
then were reported--20 of them, 20 judicial nominees--by the Senate
Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate. Were they
controversial? No. All 20 came to the floor by unanimous vote.
Think about it. Here is a Senate divided--54 Republicans and 46
Democrats--and 20 judicial nominees made it through what I just
described to the Executive Calendar of the Senate, Wednesday, May 11,
2016. And there they sit, day after weary day, month after weary month,
thinking they might have a chance to serve this Nation but realizing
the clock is running out. What do I mean by that? In this Congress we
have approved 17 judges--2 circuit judges, those at the appellate
level, and 15 at the district level. Twenty still sit on the calendar.
And across the United States, we have 87 judicial vacancies, including
29 that are in districts we think are in serious trouble if they aren't
filled quickly.
The Republican majority in the Senate puts these men and women
through this process, reports them out of committee, and then lets them
languish on the floor of the Senate. They will not call them for a
vote. What are they waiting for? Well, it is a political decision. Here
is what it comes down to. There is an unwritten rule--you will not find
it in our rule book--called the Thurmond rule. It relates to Senator
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. He must have articulated this at some
point in his career, but he said: When it comes to an election year--
like this one--we will stop approving nominations as of the beginning
of the political conventions.
Well, in this year, that is going to be about the middle of July. So
if you do the countdown of when we are in session, we have probably 5,
6 weeks left to consider nominations before they die under the
unwritten Thurmond rule. So what the Republicans are doing is running
out the clock on these 20 people. We shouldn't be surprised. If they
would do this on a nomination to fill a vacancy on the highest Court of
the land, it shouldn't surprise us they would do the same thing when it
comes to these 20 nominees. What are they waiting for? Why don't they
want to approve these noncontroversial judges? They are waiting in
prayerful reflection for the election of Donald Trump as President.
Mr. President, you know that many people in your party have mixed
feelings about the candidacy of Mr. Donald Trump. But I would say,
stepping aside from the merits of his candidacy, we shouldn't have
mixed feelings when it comes to the Constitution, and the Constitution
is explicit when it comes to vacancies on the Supreme Court. The
Founding Fathers, in the Constitution--quoted a few minutes ago by my
colleague from California--in article II, section 2, didn't mince words
or equivocate. They said the President shall appoint nominees to fill
vacancies on the Supreme Court, subject to the advice and consent of
the Senate.
We both have a role. The President is required by the Constitution to
appoint someone to fill a vacancy. And 3 months ago, the untimely
passing of Justice Antonin Scalia created that vacancy. Two months
ago--56 days ago--President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to be the
next Justice on the Supreme Court. The President met his constitutional
responsibility. But the Republicans in the Senate announced, hours
after Justice Scalia was found to have passed away, they would not even
consider a nominee by this President to fill that vacancy--not a
hearing, not a vote.
You might say to yourself: Well, that is politics in Washington.
Should we expect anything different? Should we expect a Republican
Senate to approve a nominee from a Democrat? Come on, this is hard ball
here; this isn't bean bag.
Well, let me tell you a little story. In 1988, with a vacancy on the
Supreme Court, Republican President Ronald Reagan, in his last year in
office, nominated Anthony Kennedy to fill that vacancy and sent the
nominee to this Chamber in the Senate when it was controlled by the
Democratic side. What did the Democratic majority say to the Republican
President, trying to fill a Supreme Court vacancy? We know our
responsibility. And that Senate, under control of the Democrats, took
up the name offered by the Republican President, approved him, and sent
him to the Supreme Court in 1988.
So to argue ``This is just typical politics. Don't make a lot of
noise. We do this all the time''--let me make it clear: What the
Republican Senate majority is doing today has never--underline that
word ``never''--happened in the history of the United States of
America.
This is disrespect for a constitutional provision that is explicit.
This is disrespect for a Court which now sits with 8 members on the
Court--a Court which could find itself--and already has in several
instances--tied 4 to 4. How important is that? Let me read a quote from
back in 1987: ``Every day that passes with the Supreme Court below full
strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important
body.'' Who made that statement? Republican President Ronald Reagan.
What he said then applies now.
What the Republican majority is doing in the Senate--refusing Merrick
Garland a hearing and a vote, holding up on the calendar 20 nominees
who should be on the Federal bench--is obstructionism at its worst. It
is what the people are sick of across this country. It is disrespectful
to the Constitution, it is obstructionism, and it is pure politics.
Why? Why are they so determined to keep this vacancy? Some of them,
as I said, are dreaming of the possibility of a President Trump picking
the next Justice on the Supreme Court. I will let your mind race away
with the possibilities if ``The Donald'' is going to choose the next
Justice on the Supreme Court, but others really bring it down to a much
more basic level.
There are special interest groups who want to make sure the next
Justice on the Supreme Court is their friend. They do not want to run
the risk that someone is going to be put on the Court who will not rule
in their favor. So they are praying their political prayer: Hang on,
hang on, Senate Republicans. Take the grief that two-thirds of the
American people think you are wrong in what you are doing and be
prepared to accept that grief if you want the support of these special
interest groups.
That is what this comes down to. It is the sad reality of politics in
Washington today. And I will tell you, there is blame for both sides on
many issues, but on this one there is crystal-clear clarity. The
President has met his constitutional responsibility. The Senate
Republican leaders, for the first time in the history of the United
States of America, are denying a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a
vote. That is fundamentally wrong under the Constitution and
fundamentally unfair to Merrick Garland.
Merrick Garland was born in Illinois, so maybe I am partial to him a
little bit, but he has quite a record. He has been touted as one of the
best nominees in terms of qualifications. He is now the chief judge of
the D.C. Circuit Court, right below the Supreme Court. That is a big
job, but he is the man for it, according to people from both political
parties.
Solicitors General of the United States of America just sent a letter
to the Senate. Nine of them signed, Democrats and Republicans. These
are men and women who have argued before the Supreme Court representing
the United States of America--attorneys who are familiar with that
Court, the gravity of the decisions they face, the requirements to
serve on the Court--and
[[Page S2685]]
unanimously, Democrats and Republicans, they said to the Senate:
Merrick Garland is the right man to serve on the Supreme Court.
We come today with sadness, and even more with a sense of injustice
that the Republicans would allow this political gambit to continue. To
think that they are waiting for President Donald Trump to fill this
vacancy is almost impossible to say or to believe, but it is a fact.
I will close by saying I have checked the Constitution, and I check
it regularly. There has been no change in the provision that says, in
November of 2012, Barack Obama was reelected President of the United
States to serve for 4 years--4 full years--and that would include this
year. The Republican argument that he is out of business now and we
will wait for the next President defies the verdict of the American
people in that election. By 5 million votes they said: Barack Obama,
you are the President of the United States for 4 years, with the powers
attendant to that office. The denial by Republicans of that
constitutional reality is a reflection on their feelings about a
document which they have sworn individually to uphold and defend.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from South Dakota.
The Economy
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago we received the initial report
on economic growth in the first quarter of 2016. The news was not good.
As my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Sullivan, has pointed out
many times on the floor and in many forums, our economy grew at a
dismal rate of one-half of 1 percent during the first 3 months of
2016--one-half of 1 percent economic growth. In other words, the
economy barely grew at all.
While this report was particularly terrible, the truth is, weak
economic growth has become the norm under the Obama administration.
Since the recession ended in June of 2009, the economy has grown at an
average rate of just 2.1 percent. In the typical post-1960 recovery, by
contrast, economic growth averaged 3.7 percent. That is a huge
difference. It is the difference between a stagnant economy and a
flourishing economy--and, for millions of American families, it is the
difference between surviving and thriving.
Middle-class families are making 6.5 percent less than they were
making in 2007, before the start of the great recession. A large part
of the reason for that is the sluggish economic growth we have
experienced in the Obama recovery. For too many families, this slow
recovery has meant the end of cherished dreams--the dream of owning
their own home, the dream of sending their kids to college, the dream
of a secure retirement--and the kind of growth we need to escape from
these economic doldrums is nowhere in sight.
In fact, the Obama economy has led some economists to wonder if 2
percent growth is the new normal. Right now, the Federal Reserve is
projecting the economy will grow at a median rate of just 2.2 percent
in 2016 and 2.1 percent in 2017. I would argue, based upon the 0.5
percent economic growth the first quarter of this year, they may be
dramatically overshooting the rate of economic growth if the current
trend continues, and the St. Louis Fed expects that weak growth to
continue for the next decade. That is very bad news for American
families who are facing a less prosperous future with less economic
opportunity and mobility.
During the entire postwar period from 1947 to 2013, our Nation
averaged 3.3 percent economic growth. At that pace, Americans' standard
of living almost doubles every 30 years, incomes rise, financial
security increases, and more people are able to afford homes, take
vacations, and save for higher education. On the other hand, at the
pace of growth we have seen since 2007, it will take far longer for the
standard of living to double.
Fortunately, we are not condemned to weak economic growth. If we look
at the President's record, it is easy to see why our economy is still
sputtering along: We had a failed $1 trillion stimulus program; $1.7
trillion in new taxes; the President's health care law, which raised
premiums for families and increased costs for small businesses; more
than 2,700 new Federal regulations--and counting, we are not done yet--
get added to by the day; and a Federal debt that has nearly doubled on
the President's watch and more.
The President's policies don't have to be permanent. We can repeal
ObamaCare and the incredible burdens it is placing on so many families
and small businesses. We can replace it with something that makes more
sense, creates competition, gives consumers more choices, and drives
down prices.
We can replace the President's tax hikes with comprehensive tax
reform that focuses on lowering taxes for families and making America
the best place in the world to do business, we can take serious action
to address the spending that is fueling our national debt, and we can
repeal some of the thousands of burdensome regulations the President
has imposed during his tenure.
It is easy to forget that every regulation the government imposes, no
matter how small, has a cost--and those costs are paid by American
families and American businesses. Take the national energy tax the
President imposed on coal-fired powerplants. This rule will potentially
drive up electricity bills for families by hundreds of dollars each
year, and it will be especially harmful to low-income families and
seniors who are living on fixed incomes.
Take the President's decision to allow the EPA to regulate ponds and
ditches on private land. This regulation will have significant economic
impacts for farmers and property owners who will likely be hit with new
Federal permits, compliance costs, and the threat of significant fines.
Over the past 7-plus years, the Obama administration has imposed more
than 2,700 regulations, including hundreds of major regulations. When I
say ``major,'' those are regulations that cost American families and
businesses more than $100 million each year. Out-of-touch Washington
bureaucrats reaching into our States and imposing regulatory burdens
from afar has become all too common in the Obama administration.
Repealing some of the worst of these regulations would drastically
reduce the burdens facing American families and businesses, and that
would put more money in American families' pockets and free American
businesses to do what they do best; that is, to innovate and create
new, good-paying jobs.
If we continue on the path we are on right now, we might be the first
generation of Americans to leave the next generation of Americans worse
off, but we don't have to be. We can reverse the course the President
has set during his administration and put in place the kind of policies
that will create conditions that are favorable to economic growth, to
grow our economy and lift the burdens on American families.
Republicans in the Senate have already been working to undo the worst
policies of the Obama administration. We are going to continue to fight
until our Nation's economy is thriving and all families have the
opportunity to achieve the American dream.
If we can just achieve 1 percentage point additional growth in the
economy each year, we are told by leading economists that would add 1.3
million jobs to our economy, raise wages by $9,000 a year, and generate
an additional $300 billion of Federal revenue that would make our
fiscal picture look a lot smaller by comparison.
We have to get spending under control. We have to reform entitlement
programs that are unsustainable, that are going to bankrupt future
generations of Americans, to get our fiscal house in order, but we also
have to grow the economy at a faster rate. One-half of 1 percent is not
adequate--nor is 1 percent, nor is 2 percent. We need to get back to a
normal growth period in our economy. As I said, since the end of World
War II, 3.3 percent has been the average, 3.7 percent has been the norm
in a recovery coming out of a recession. If we get to that level of
growth, we will see millions of new jobs in our economy, we will see
American families getting their wages back to where they are growing
with the economy, better paying jobs for American workers, and a fiscal
picture that looks a lot more manageable than the one we face today.
Economic growth is key to so many things that affect Americans' lives
on a
[[Page S2686]]
daily basis. We in the Senate ought to be focused like a laser on what
we can do to put the right policies in place that would encourage and
promote economic growth, rather than coming up with new ways to make it
more difficult and more expensive in this economy to create jobs. Far
too often, everything that happens in Washington, DC, today leads to
more expenses, more mandates, more requirements, more regulations, and
higher taxes, making it more difficult for our economy to get to that
faster growth that is so important if we are going to make Americans'
standard of living and quality of life better and hand off to the next
generation a standard of living they deserve and that will improve on
the one we enjoy today. That is what this is all about, and that is
what we ought to be focused on.
I am pleased the Senator from Alaska is here. I am told the Senator
from Indiana will be joining him in just a minute to discuss the
subject. The Senator from Alaska, Mr. Sullivan, has been a great
advocate of growth in our economy and has been down on the floor
talking about the implications of a half percent of growth and what
that means; that if we don't change that trajectory and change it soon,
we are going to continue down a path that makes it more and more
difficult for American families to get ahead. That needs to change--
faster growth, higher growth, the right kind of policies--to make that
possible.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I compliment my good friend from South
Dakota, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, for coming down and
leading the discussion on a very important topic that, to be honest, we
are not talking about nearly enough in the Senate--and certainly the
Obama administration is not talking about nearly enough--and that is
the importance of our economy.
I was on the floor a couple weeks ago and I made a prediction. I said
there is going to be big economic news coming out, and my prediction
was that nobody in the administration was going to talk about it and
none of our friends in the media were going to talk about it.
Unfortunately, my prediction came true.
The big news, as Chairman Thune said, is that last quarter we grew at
0.5 percent GDP growth. We essentially didn't grow. We didn't grow. The
great American economy, the thing that has made us great as a country
for 200-plus years, just stalled--and nobody talked. The Obama
administration didn't talk about it. The media didn't talk about it.
When we talk about gross domestic product, this is essentially the
health of the economy. It is the measure of opportunity in America.
Unfortunately, what we saw last quarter was additional proof that the
Obama administration on this critical issue--economic growth for our
citizens--is one of the worst in U.S. history. It is not just me saying
that. People should take a look at these numbers. These numbers are
actually from the administration and other administrations. This looks
at recent economic growth for the last 50 years, starting with
President Kennedy's administration, but as my colleague from South
Dakota said, the average growth for the United States in our 200-plus-
year history has been about 3.7 percent GDP growth.
We look at this chart--and this is very bipartisan, of course--almost
4 percent GDP growth average for the country. This is what has made us
great, strong. We look at this chart, and it shows the ups and downs.
This red line is 3 percent GDP growth, which is considered pretty good.
It is not great but pretty good. We certainly should be targeting that.
Look at the Obama administration right here in the corner. It has
never even hit 3 percent GDP growth--not once, not even in one
quarter--ever.
What we are seeing right here, in the almost 10 years of President
Obama, relative to any other administration, Democratic or Republican--
Johnson, Nixon, even Carter, Reagan, Clinton, real strong growth
there--clearly, the Obama administration has been, by any measure, a
lost decade of economic growth. Unfortunately, you don't hear the
administration talking about it at all. You can understand why. It is
an abysmal record. But the truth is, if you look back in history and
that news came out--whether it was a Democratic or Republican
administration--the Secretary of the Treasury would have said: Don't
worry America, we know you are hurting; we have a plan. The Secretary
of Commerce would have said: We have ideas on growing the economy; we
know that 0.5 percent GDP growth--essentially flat growth, no growth--
is not the historical tradition of America. Historically, Cabinet
members in any administration would have told us: We know it is a
problem, and here is how we are going to fix it.
When this news came out 2 weeks ago, we heard nothing from this
administration--nothing. When they do talk about the economy, there are
typically three types of responses: One is, as my colleague from South
Dakota mentioned, there is this talk in Washington about the ``new
normal.'' In my view, it is one of the most dangerous phrases being
bantered about in DC. The new normal says that we know America has been
growing at this robust rate, almost 4 percent GDP growth for most of
our history, but there are new factors, and we should not expect that
anymore. We shouldn't even expect 3 percent. Let's just dumb down our
expectations.
They talk about the new normal. The new normal should be about 1.5, 2
percent GDP growth, maybe. The people in Washington are telling the
rest of the country: You guys should be satisfied with that. We
shouldn't be. That is a surrender of the American dream. So that is one
response--the new normal.
The second thing the President has done for a while, but he can't do
it anymore, unfortunately. He has looked around the world and said:
Well, at least we are growing better than Europe or Japan or Brazil.
Really, the only measure that actually matters is not another country;
it is how do we stack up against America? He does not want to talk
about that, so he talks about Europe. He can't talk about Europe
anymore because we are growing at 0.5 percent GDP growth, and last
quarter Europe grew at 2.2 percent. It is not great, but it is
certainly better than ours. Obviously, they have to get rid of that
talking point.
The third thing they do is come out and try to tell us: Hey, you know
what, you are actually doing better. I know you are feeling horrible
and your wages haven't gone up, but you are doing better, trust me.
In a New York Times article, the President recently lamented that,
looking back, he didn't sell all the great stuff he was doing on the
economy. He didn't sell it better. I don't think he needs to sell it.
Most people feel it, and it is not great. He even said:
Anybody who says we are not absolutely better off today
than we were just seven years ago, they're not leveling with
you. They're not telling the truth. By almost every economic
measure, we are significantly better off.
I think it is astounding that the President of the United States is
saying that kind of stuff to the American people because it is simply
not true.
Let me provide some facts. The story they tell is of a country that
by almost every economic measure is actually worse off than we were
when the Obama administration started. In the past 8 years, the labor
force participation rate has slid to its lowest measure since the mid-
1970s. Essentially, that is people who have quit looking for a job
because they can't find one.
According to the most recent census data, the percentage of Americans
below the poverty line in the last 8 years has grown. It is up almost 4
percent. Real median household incomes in the last 8 years have
declined from $54,900 to $53,600. Since the President took office, food
stamp participation has actually soared. It is up by almost 40 percent.
The percentage of Americans who own homes--a marker of the promise of
the American dream--is down 5 percent. This is all in the 8 years, 7\1/
2\ years, since President Obama has been in office.
The late Vice President Hubert Humphrey once said:
Propaganda, to be effective, must be believed. To be
believed, it must be credible. To be credible, it must be
true.
No matter how much this administration uses soaring speeches or
articles from media sources that have been favorably disposed toward
them or
[[Page S2687]]
clever tweets insisting that the economy is doing well, it simply is
not. These are the facts, and Americans know it. Americans know it.
We are spending more on housing and food. Wages are stagnant. As I
have mentioned, many have given up looking for good jobs. Some are
questioning the ability to put their kids through college.
What is interesting is that Washington, DC, is doing fine. When you
grow the government the way we have in the last 8 years, this part of
the country actually never had a recession. It is not one of the
richest places in America, right here in Washington, and that is why so
many in the DC press corps weren't writing about this. The President
says the economy is doing well, so it must be doing well.
I think the good news is that even now the media is starting to pick
up on this because the problem is so pervasive. In this election
season, this is what we are hearing Americans talk about.
Here is a heading from a recent Atlantic article: ``The lonely
poverty of America's white working class.'' Here is another one from
the same publication: ``The Resurrection of America's Slums.'' Here is
one from another publication: ``Poverty in America: the Deepening
Crisis.''
Recently, there have been numerous articles about how poverty leads
to addictions and to higher mortality rates. The New Yorker had an
article entitled ``Life-Expectancy Inequality Grows in America.''
The Washington Post is now starting to do some heartbreaking stories
about poverty, death, and economic despair in our great country.
Talking about the recent West Virginia primary election, the Washington
Post stated: ``But many poorer, less-educated folks who have been left
behind in the 21st century--the ones who have seen their wages
stagnate, their opportunities for upward mobility disappear and their
life expectancies shorten--are looking to disrupt a status quo that has
not worked for them.''
What does this mean for our great country, our citizens? One
indication is, in poll after poll, Americans are telling us they are
running out of hope. Sixty-five percent of Americans now believe the
country is on the wrong track. That is not surprising. We never hit 3
percent GDP growth in the last decade.
The vast majority of Americans don't believe their kids are going to
be better off than they are. They are telling us that the quality that
has made America great, the quality that is in the DNA of the United
States, and that is progress, is losing out to this idea of the new
normal. It is a new normal where our children are not going to be
better off than we are, where we can't grow the economy. The American
dream is all about progress. We need to remember that. We can't settle
for another lost decade of economic growth. We can't settle for
stagnation.
A number of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the
aisle, come to the Senate floor--and I have respect for everybody in
this great body--and they talk about the moral imperatives they believe
are important, moral imperative on this topic, moral imperative on
another topic, but they rarely talk about the moral imperative of
growth and opportunity. To me, that is the biggest moral imperative we
have, with the exception of national defense in this body.
It is a moral imperative to recognize that we have experienced a lost
decade of economic growth. We have a moral imperative to talk about the
pervasive poverty, what that does to our citizens, how it creates holes
in the social fabric that holds us together, and how, when our own
citizens fall through those holes, a piece of all of us goes with them
because although we are individuals, we are all Americans together.
We have a moral imperative to tell our fellow citizens that working
together we don't have to accept this, the new normal. We have the
moral imperative to lift up American workers with policies that
actually help them.
Like most Americans, I was shocked when Presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton said that under her administration she would put coal
miners out of work. Here is the quote: ``We are going to put a lot of
coal miners and coal companies out of business.'' That is shocking.
Think about that. I come from a State where there is a lot of mining.
These are great jobs. These are important jobs. These are important for
the national economy of America. To have a candidate say that she
intends to put coal miners out of work is part of the problem.
As Senator Thune mentioned, the other part of the problem is that
Washington is no longer a partner in opportunity for coal miners, for
workers, for growing the economy, but it has become an obstacle.
We have to do a lot to get this economy moving. My colleague from
South Dakota mentioned a number of ideas. We are going to be on the
floor talking about them--the moral imperative to provide economic
opportunity and hope for Americans.
One thing for certain we have to do is get control of the Federal
Government that wants to regulate every single aspect of our lives and
economy. This is a chart that shows how Federal rules from this town go
straight up. Every year there are more. As a matter of fact, the Obama
administration is going to be the first in U.S. history to have
proposed in a single year 80,000 pages of new Federal regs. If you
think that is going to help the coal miners or other Americans or
working-class families with hope and opportunity, that is not the right
solution. What we need is less government and more economic freedom and
the truth about what is going on with this great economy of ours in our
great country. That is what we are going to continue to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska, Senator
Sullivan, for what he just presented to us here. He hit the nail right
on the head. Along with our colleague from South Dakota, I want to add
my voice to what has been said here.
As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, we pay a lot of
attention to the state of the economy. We are presented with numbers
and facts about where we are as a nation. The refrain that is becoming
all too familiar; that is, we really are in a stagnant position, not
going anywhere.
Of all the statistics that come to us, two stand out here just
recently. One is the fact that the April jobs report was significantly
lower than it needs to be in order to provide meaningful jobs for
Americans who are searching for jobs, and for Americans trying to move
from part-time jobs to full-time permanent jobs, to put some certainty
into their lives. With just 160,000 jobs created in April, basically
that covers those who are retiring--maybe fewer than that--but
certainly not the number of new jobs that give an indication of growth
in the economy. That was a disappointing number, and obviously Wall
Street paid attention to it. Hopefully it won't be repeated, but it is
a worrying signal that we are not creating the kind of dynamic growth
in the economy that will put our out-of-work individuals across this
country back to work, that will provide opportunities for our young
people who are graduating from college and high school this month and
next month. That is nowhere near the number of jobs we need to even
reach an average growth rate over the years, as my colleague from
Alaska said.
I think we have had eleven major recessions from World War II to the
present. The recovery rate out of each of those recessions has been at
4 percent. That rate of growth provided new hope for the people who
lost their jobs and new hope for those coming out of educational
institutions to secure a good job and begin the process of building a
family, buying a home, and living the American dream. Yet this
recovery--from a recession that began in late 2007 with the collapse of
Lehman Brothers and the bank failures has been long. It was a deep
recession. And it has taken a considerable amount of time to get moving
in the right direction.
Clearly, after the last 7\1/2\ years of the Obama administration, we
have not begun to achieve the kind of recovery that has been the
average of all the recoveries since the end of World War II. We've been
about half of that, and because the recoveries have been half of that,
we have not been able to provide opportunity for the American people.
I think what we have seen here can best be defined as a result of the
failed policies by this administration. We
[[Page S2688]]
have policies that have raised taxes significantly on the American
people even though their incomes have not increased. We have had
policies of overspending here in Washington to the point where our
national debt--based on years of deficit spending--has almost doubled
from $10.7 trillion when this administration began to over $19 trillion
after their 7\1/2\ years of governing and putting policies in place
that have clearly failed.
You can come to no other conclusion, despite what the White House
puts out. The American people know better because their situation is in
contrast to the White House saying that things are going well and that
we are on the march forward. When the American people compare that with
their situation, there is no comparison to be made whatsoever.
Deficit spending, plunging into debt, and overregulation are
burdening innovators and burdening businesses from having the ability
to expand their business. Overtaxing and clearly overspending. Those
three policies determine economic growth.
I have had the great privilege of representing a State that has done
just the opposite. Under Republican leadership, our State has
controlled spending, controlled regulations, and put innovative
processes in place that have allowed our State to thrive and grow. We
came out of a deep deficit situation some years ago and have turned
that around to the point where we now have a triple-A credit rating. We
went from deficit spending, which caused borrowing, to a surplus well
over $2 billion. We have become an attractive State to live and do
business in.
Let me state a couple of things that have been said about our State.
Chief Executive Magazine recently named Indiana one of the top five
States in the Nation for business. The magazine asked 513 chief
executive officers to rank the States they were familiar with on tax
and regulatory regime, workforce quality, and living environment. Let
me state a couple of their quotes.
Indiana . . . has its act together and is impressive.
Indiana . . . has consistently ranked in the top 3 in
offering not just competitive incentives for business, but
also packages that improve the skill sets to hire a
qualified, work-ready workforce.
Don Brown, chief executive officer of Indianapolis-based Interactive
Intelligence, Inc., recently said that the State's low costs and low
taxes allow job creators to invest more resources into their businesses
and their employees. He went on to say:
Limited regulations make it easy to grow here, freeing up
time, which is perhaps an entrepreneur's most coveted gift. .
. . We have great universities turning out lots of talented
graduates. . . . The public and private sectors work
effectively together in an effort to improve conditions for
everybody.
How I wish that quote would reflect what is happening here in
Washington. How I wish I could use that quote to say this is what is
happening across the United States. I wish I could use that quote to be
able to say that under the direction of this President and with the
support of this Congress, we have reined in our overspending, tamped
down our overregulation, put incentives in place to create jobs, and
put policies in place that to create economic growth. Unfortunately,
that is not the case, as has been made clear by my colleagues, and the
case I am trying to make now.
The contrast between a geographic entity called a State and the
Federal Government and the policies which govern that State and govern
our Federal Government in the three areas of taxation, regulation, and
spending is dramatic. Why wouldn't we look at the States that have
succeeded? Why wouldn't we look to the policies implemented by a State
that has succeeded and demonstrated dynamic economic growth over the
same timeframe as the Federal Government, who has done exactly the
opposite relative to taxation, regulation, and spending, and draw the
clear conclusion that the policies that have been implemented by this
administration have failed?
Let's stop pointing fingers at what the motives are. Let's just look
at the results, and the results are very clear: We have a stagnant
national economy, people not receiving opportunities to increase their
income. If you go back to what the average earnings in America per
family were at the start of this administration, it was $3,000 higher
than it is today.
Whatever releases come out of the White House or whatever the
spokesman for the President says or the President himself says just
simply doesn't match up to the facts. The facts are related to the
policies that either have been put in place. It is clear that in the
remaining months of this administration, those policies are not going
to change. Simply there is denial of the fact that the country is not
growing at a rate that provides opportunity and gives us hope for the
future.
But we do have a model, and my State is not the only model. We have
models of States that have done exactly the opposite of that. Yes, they
have regulations, but they are there for safety and health. They are
beneficial and were not put in place to micromanage how businesses
operate. States have been careful with the tax dollars and revenue that
come in, and they balance their fiscal budget on an annual basis. They
don't throw themselves ever deeper into debt. They recognized that is
not the path to growth, and they spend the taxpayers' money wisely.
Overtaxation, overregulation, and overspending clearly are not the
path to economic growth. It is clear that the path is just the opposite
of that.
In the remaining months I have here, I will keep talking about this
issue. I hope my colleagues will pay attention and make decisions on
the basis of fact, not on the basis of ideology or what they have been
told by the administration or the President. They need to look at the
results, and the results are dramatic in terms of application of the
basic principles that stimulate economic growth and provide hope for
the American people.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act
Mr. KING. Mr. President, when Senators rise on this floor, typically
we are identifying problems, we are talking about how to solve them,
and we are talking about how prior actions haven't quite worked. Today
I have the pleasure of rising for the opposite reason. I am here to
talk about something that has worked, something that we did, something
that we worked on together on a bipartisan basis that has made an
enormous difference for the students of our country.
In the spring of 2013, there was an impending deadline. The interest
rate on student loans, which in the past had been set by statute by
Congress without regard to what the underlying economics were at the
time or what the borrowing rate of the Federal Government was--it was
an arbitrary number set by Congress, and it was due to double. In July
of 2013, it was due to double to 6.8 percent.
There was a proposal put forward by the leadership and by the Members
on this side of the aisle which did not get sufficient votes. There was
another proposal put forth by the Senators on the other side of the
aisle which also didn't get enough votes. We were left with a situation
with no proposal on the floor and an impending deadline that would have
doubled rates for student loans for millions of students across the
country. At that point, a small, bipartisan group of us got together
and said: There has to be a better way to find a solution. We can't let
this happen to our students.
This is a particularly important time of the year to talk about this
because this is when students are finding out where they are going to
college next year, they are making their arrangements for financial
aid, and they are thinking about what their commitment will be. Well,
as of this afternoon, those students are going to be able to breathe a
bit of a sigh of relief because we just learned that the interest rate
on student loans taken out for next year based upon the cost of
borrowing for the U.S. Government will be 3.76 percent. That is the
lowest it has been in a decade, and it is considerably below--by almost
half--what it would have been had we not come to that solution on that
hot summer day in the middle of the summer of 2013.
The group of people who worked on this and put it together were, as I
said, a bipartisan group. The group consisted of Senator Richard Burr
of North Carolina; Senator Manchin; Senator Tom Coburn, my friend from
Oklahoma; Senator Alexander; Senator
[[Page S2689]]
Tom Carper; Senator Dick Durbin; and Senator Tom Harkin. We had a lot
of meetings, discussions, negotiations, and ultimately worked together
to determine a fair and equitable way to set the rate for student loans
from the Federal Government based upon the Federal Government's own
cost of borrowing money and combined the best ideas from both plans. We
got the strong support of the President, who encouraged the Democratic
Members of our group to join in these negotiations, and we reached a
consensus. The Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act passed this body
with something like 80 votes, and that has made a real difference for
our students.
Here are some numbers: $50 billion, $5 billion, $275 million. Those
are the answers. What are the questions?
The first is, $50 billion is the amount of money students will save
over the next 10 years based upon the difference of what the interest
rate would have been and what it is going to be. This says 3.8 percent.
We made this yesterday. It is actually lower; it is 3.76 percent. But
this differential over 10 years equals $50 billion in the pockets of
students across this country. That is a $5 billion-a-year difference in
what they will have to pay in interest and what they would have paid
had the law not been changed. That is an enormous amount of money for
our students. In the State of Maine, the New America Foundation has
estimated that this translates into over $275 million in interest
savings to students just in the State of Maine.
Well, those are big numbers: $275 million, $50 billion, $5 billion.
So what does it mean in reality to an individual student? Here is what
we are talking about. Under the old law, an individual typical
undergraduate would have paid $17,000 in interest as opposed to
$10,000. That is at least $6,000 that goes into the pockets of our
students. That is going to make a real difference.
I am delighted that we have had this success and that we have been
able to report something that has actually been done right around here
and then has truly benefited millions of students across this country,
but we have plenty of work still to do. College is still too expensive.
The burden of student debt generally is very heavy and weighs on not
only the students but our economy. We need to reauthorize the Higher
Education Act. We need to enact meaningful changes in the whole
structure of how colleges can keep their prices affordable. We need to
give students the tools they need to succeed. We also need to look at
the structure of student loan programs to simplify, A, how you apply,
and B, how you pay them back, how the structure is, and have simple,
easily understood techniques to pay back according to your means,
according to what you are earning at the time, an earnings-based
repayment schedule so that students don't exit college with this
enormous burden. One student told me: Senator, I feel like I have a
mortgage but no house. That is essentially what is happening.
So what I am talking about today is truly good news, but it is not
the end of the story and we should not say: Well, we have taken care of
that issue. Let's move forward.
I do think every now and then it is important to acknowledge that
occasionally the policies work out, and this is one that has worked out
spectacularly for the students of America. Fifty billion dollars over
the next 10 years will be saved by students who would otherwise be
paying that money in interest, and that is money they can invest in
their own futures and so can make a better life for themselves, their
families, and our country.
I appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge the work that was done by
this entire body and by the House and by the President to resolve what
would have been a true crisis for our students and to move it toward a
much more manageable solution. I look forward to continuing to work on
this issue and to keeping in touch with Chairman Alexander and Members
of this body who are interested in continuing to work on this issue of
the cost of college and how student loans are structured in order to
make them work most effectively and fairly for the young people of this
country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3888
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my amendment No.
3888. I am proud to join my colleagues from Nebraska, Kansas, and
Colorado to offer this bipartisan amendment. Our three States are
signatories to the Republican River Compact, which allocates the water
resources from the Republican River Basin as it travels across our
States.
Through this allocation process, our States work closely with the
Republican River Compact Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation
to help ensure the most efficient utilization of our waters as they
head to families and businesses across the region. In Nebraska we value
clean water. Our citizens go to great lengths to preserve and protect
these resources.
However, in recent years, the Bureau of Reclamation has violated
administrative orders issued by Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado with no
justification for their actions. This lack of accountability from the
BOR is costing money. It is limiting citizens' access to precious water
resources.
Our bipartisan amendment that is before us would halt funding for the
BOR when it violates State orders. Federal law already requires the BOR
to comply with the States through interstate compacts. Our amendment
would hold this agency accountable for its actions. Our States have a
right to manage their own water resources for the benefit of compact
compliance.
But through its action, the BOR has effectively altered those
compacts. This agency was not created to operate unilaterally and exert
veto power over the decisions States make to comply with compacts. Our
amendment will ensure that Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas retain
control of their waters. It will protect other States that have these
interstate compacts from the consequential actions of an unaccountable
Federal agency.
Nebraska and its neighbors in Kansas and Colorado are good stewards
of natural resources. We protect our water. We protect it at the State
and the local levels. These States should be free to preserve their
resources without unjustified intervention by the Federal Government. I
urge all of my colleagues to consider this amendment, to consider the
impact of a Federal agency overreaching and violating the rights of
States to determine how to control, how to manage, how to work
together, and how to work within compacts in order to meet the
obligations they have.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Department of Education Rulemaking
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have come across an embarrassing
situation. The U.S. Department of Education has apparently earned an F
from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in its first
attempt to write a regulation under the new law fixing No Child Left
Behind that passed this body with 85 votes last year, passed the House
overwhelmingly, and that President Obama signed into law in December
calling it ``the Christmas miracle.''
Most of us will remember this law. I know the Senator from
Pennsylvania had a major role in some provisions in it. This was a law
to fix a law that everybody wanted fixed. It was 8 years overdue.
The law that needed to be fixed was called No Child Left Behind. Over
the last several years, what had happened was that the U.S. Department
of Education had become, in effect, a national school board. Everybody
was upset with how much those who worked in the Department of Education
were telling teachers, school boards, states, and students in 100,000
public schools what to do. They were telling them what to
[[Page S2690]]
do about how to evaluate teachers, what to do about what their academic
standards should be--adopt common core--telling them what to do about
how to use test scores, and saying how to fix a school that might be in
trouble. There are seven defined ways to fix a troubled school. People
grew so upset with it that we had a massive bipartisan uprising in the
Congress.
It is not easy to get 85 Senators on behalf of a big complex piece of
legislation, but we did. The Wall Street Journal said that it was the
largest transfer of power from Washington, DC, to the States in 25
years. Almost everybody liked it except some people in the U.S.
Department of Education, who set about almost immediately to try to
rewrite the law as if they had actually been elected to something.
We anticipated that. In this law we took the extraordinary step--we
in Congress who under article I of the Constitution are elected to
write laws--to write prohibitions into the law.
For example, in the law there is a specific provision that said the
U.S. Department of Education may not tell Tennessee or Pennsylvania or
any other State what its academic standard must be specifically. It may
not tell it that it must adopt common core. That is in the law. That is
a specific prohibition.
What I want to talk about today is a report by the Congressional
Research Service that Congressman Kline, chairman of the House
Education and the Workforce Committee, and I released today that says
in the very first attempt by the Department to write a regulation
implementing the new law, they flunked the test. Those are my words,
not those of the Congressional Research Service, but their words are
nearly as plain as mine.
A new report by CRS says that their proposed ``supplement not
supplant'' regulation goes beyond ``a plain language reading of the
statute'' and is likely against the law.
Congressman Kline said:
The administration spent years dictating national education
policy and failed to deliver the quality education every
child deserves. Now, the department seems determined to
repeat its past mistakes. There is no question this
regulation would violate both the letter and intent of the
law, and it must be abandoned. Congress and the
administration promised to reduce the federal role and
restore local control, and we will use every available tool
to ensure that promise is kept.
Mr. President, I know, Congressman Kline knows, and the Members of
this body know that a law is not worth the paper it is printed on
unless it is implemented properly. I am determined, as the chairman
overseeing the Committee on Education, to make sure that this law is
implemented properly.
We will have this year six hearings on implementation of this law.
There is a coalition of organizations that includes the Nation's
Governors, the National Education Association, the American Federation
of Teachers, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and others.
These are people who don't always agree on education policy. They
helped pass this law, and they are equally determined to make sure it
is implemented correctly.
They are not just working at a national level. The Governors in
Tennessee and in other States are working with coalitions of those same
organizations to make sure the law is implemented properly.
On April 12, we had a hearing in the Education Committee, and I
talked with the newly confirmed Education Secretary about this. I urged
the President to appoint an Education Secretary because I wanted
someone there who was accountable to the Senate, and he was confirmed.
His responsibility is to discharge his duties faithfully according to
the law, but based upon this first regulation, no one seems to be
taking that seriously.
Let me be specific about it. There is a provision in the law that
goes back to about 1970 that says that if you are going to get money
from the Federal Government--we call that title I money--that you have
to provide at least comparable services with state and local funding in
schools that get the money and schools that don't, except that teacher
salaries may not be included in that computation. That is in the law.
That has been there for decades now.
Now we had a debate in our committee and on the floor about whether
we should change that law. The Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet, feels
very strongly about it. He said that we ought to change the law to say
that teachers' salaries should be included in comparing spending in
title I schools and non-title I schools. I had a different proposal. I
said: Well, I agree with your point, Senator Bennet, but my proposal I
would call Scholarship for Kids. Let's just take the Federal dollars in
Tennessee, Pennsylvania, or Maryland and let the States decide to
create $2,100 scholarships--the amount it could be--and follow each
low-income child to the school that the child attends. Neither Senator
Bennet's proposal nor my proposal could be adopted by the Senate. So we
did not change the law.
We then put specifically into the law a provision that said to the
Department of Education that it may not write a regulation in such a
way that requires parity or equal spending among school districts. That
is in the law as well. Yet what happens? In the first regulation that
the Department of Education sought to do in what we call a negotiated
rulemaking process, they came up with a scheme, because as the
departing Secretary said, his lawyers are smarter than the people in
the Senate or the people who work here. They came up with a scheme and
requirements that would violate the law, and the method they chose to
require is prohibited by another provision in the law. I don't call
that being clever. I call that just ignoring the law, and I am not
going to put up with it. I am not going to allow the Department of
Education to sit here and watch us in both bodies of Congress--by big
bipartisan majorities and supported by Governors, as well as teachers
unions--decide that we don't want Washington dictating every little
thing that happens in the schools, and as soon as the President himself
signs the law, they start rewriting it over in his own Department.
If this one provision, this rule that the Department came up with,
were adopted, these are some of the consequences.
It would, No. 1, require a complete costly overhaul of almost all of
the State and local finance systems in the country. Maybe they need to
be overhauled, but we did not decide that they needed to be, and no one
is elected in the Department of Education to require that.
No. 2, it would require the forcing of thousands and thousands of
teachers to transfer from one school to another school. Perhaps they
should transfer, but there are 100,000 public schools and there are 3.5
million teachers, and we did not decide in our law that they had to
transfer, and the Department can't decide that either.
It would require States and local school districts to move back to
the burdensome practice of detailing every individual cost on which
they spend money to provide a basic educational program to all
students, which is exactly what we were trying to free States and
districts from under the law. We heard from superintendents and from
school boards that this nit-picking, ``mother may I'' approach of the
Department bureaucrats was wasting the time of superintendents, school
boards, and teachers. So we wrote more flexibility into the law. The
Department now wants to take it back.
According to the Council of the Great City Schools, this new proposed
rule would cost $3.9 billion just for the 69 urban school systems to
eliminate the differences in spending between the schools.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
following my remarks a copy of a statement that Congressman Kline of
Minnesota, the chairman of the House Education Committee, and I made
concerning the report of the Congressional Research Service that says
likely that the Department has ``exceeded its statutory authority and
appears to go beyond what would be required under a plain language
reading of the statute.''
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my
remarks a statement I made in connection with the April 12 hearing with
our Education Committee in the Senate, when Secretary King testified.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my
remarks an editorial from the Wall
[[Page S2691]]
Street Journal entitled ``Obama's Ed-Run'' that was published on April
18 of this year.
The Wall Street Journal said, among other things, that ``the
administration is now rewriting the parts of the law it doesn't like.''
A law passed with big bipartisan majorities.
This is an intolerable situation. This is a complete flouting of the
specific bipartisan intent of large majorities of the Senate and the
House by a small group of people in a single department who know better
than to do this. They know better than to do this. They are ignoring
what we have written into law.
They are not elected to anything. If they would like to be in the
Congress or the Senate, they can resign their positions and the
elections come up this year. They can run, and they can try to change
the law. It took us 8 years to debate. We debated these provisions with
very good people. The Senator from Colorado, who weighed in on this
whole question of parity of spending between school districts, is a
former distinguished superintendent of the Denver school district. He
feels very passionate about it. I used to be the U.S. Secretary of
Education myself. I have a different proposal about how to fix it, and
I feel pretty passionate about it. But I feel even more passionate that
if we are going to decide the answer to the question, we are going to
decide it here, and it is not going to be decided down the street by
regulations that are not authorized by law and in a method that is
specifically prohibited by the provisions of a law that was signed by
the President in December.
So this is the first such regulation, but there will be more. I would
hope that the Secretary of Education and the men and women who work for
him would stop and take a deep breath and realize that we were serious
when we passed this law, that we have the broad support of the entire
education community across the board, and that I am not going to rest
until I make sure that this law is implemented in the way it was
written. That means that we are going to continue to hold the remainder
of our six hearings this year. I am going to work with the coalition of
Governors, teachers organizations, chief State school officers, and
others to put a spotlight on the Department. I am going to urge the
State departments of education to begin to write their own state
education plans, which they then later submit to the Department in
order to obtain their Federal dollars under the law. Then, if the
regulations are not consistent with the law, I don't believe they
should follow them. That means the State should ask for a hearing. And
if the Department persists, then the State should go to court to sue
the Department.
If the Department persists, we have our own remedies in the Senate
and the House of Representatives. We have something called the
Congressional Review Act. It only takes 51 of us to overturn a final
rule that we believe is not consistent with the law. We can do that. I
will be at the head of the line in trying to do it. We have an
appropriations process. The U.S. Department of Education has to come
before us and be accountable to us for all of the money they receive.
I expect from here on out for those who write the rules to follow the
law. It is not just me saying this, it is not just Congressman Kline
saying this, we have the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
that has examined this regulation. I hope my colleagues will look at
this report. They have concluded that the regulation the Department
proposed does not follow the plain language reading of the statute that
was enacted and signed into law only last December, and is likely
against the law.
This is the first shot across the bow, as far as I am concerned. I am
going to be watching every single one of these regulations. I hope this
does not happen a second or third time or there will be a large number
of us seeking to do anything we can do to make sure the law is
implemented the way it should be.
This was the most important law passed by the U.S. Congress last
year. It affected 50 million children, 3.5 million teachers, and
100,000 public schools. It restored to the people closest to the
children the authority for dealing with those children. Everybody
wanted that. Virtually everybody wanted that except a few people in the
U.S. Department of Education who cannot keep their hands off America's
100,000 public schools. They need to do that. They need to learn to do
that. They are supposed to create an environment in which teachers,
students, and school boards can succeed; they are not supposed to serve
as a national school board.
Congressman Kline, the chairman of the House committee, and I
released this report today. I call it to the attention of my
colleagues. I call it to the attention of the Governors, teachers,
organizations, and all who care about our schools.
I can guarantee you that we are going to keep our eye on the ball and
make sure that future regulations are within the authority of the law
we passed and that this law--the most important law passed last year by
this Congress and signed by the President--is implemented the way
Congress wrote it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Alexander, Kline: Nonpartisan Government Analysis Confirms Education
Department's Proposed Regulation Is Against the Law
Washington, May 11.--A new report by the non-partisan
Congressional Research Service (CRS) finds the Department of
Education's proposed ``supplement not supplant'' regulation
goes beyond ``a plain language reading of the statute'' and
is likely against the law.
The CRS report was prepared in response to broad
congressional interest in the proposed regulation on the new
law that replaced No Child Left Behind and whether the
department has the legal authority to issue the regulation.
The report found that the department's ``interpretation
appears to go beyond what would be required under a plain
language reading of the statute,'' and that proposed
regulation ``appear[s] to directly conflict with this
statutory language, which seems to place clear limits on [the
Education Department's] authority.'' The CRS report also
states that a ``legal argument could be raised that [the
Education Department] exceeded its statutory authority if it
promulgates the proposed [supplement not supplant] rules in
their current form.''
Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-
Tenn.) said: ``This report from the non-partisan
Congressional Research Service confirms that what the
Education Department is proposing is against the law. So now
Congress has told the education secretary it's against the
law, a government agency has researched it and said it's
against the law, and members of the negotiated rulemaking
committee who rejected it said it was against the law. I will
use every power of Congress to see that this law is
implemented the way Congress wrote it.''
House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John
Kline (R-Minn.) said: ``The administration spent years
dictating national education policy and failed to deliver the
quality education every child deserves. Now, the department
seems determined to repeat its past mistakes. There is no
question this regulation would violate both the letter and
intent of the law, and it must be abandoned. Congress and the
administration promised to reduce the federal role and
restore local control, and we will use every available tool
to ensure that promise is kept.''
In writing the new law last year, Congress debated and
ultimately chose to leave unchanged a provision in the law
often referred to as ``comparability.'' This provision in the
law says school districts have to provide at least comparable
services with state and local funding to Title I schools and
non-Title I schools.
A separate provision, known as ``supplement not supplant''
or SNS, is intended to keep local school districts from using
federal Title I dollars as a replacement for state and local
dollars in low-income schools.
The department's proposed supplement not supplant
regulation attempts to change comparability by forcing school
districts to include teacher salaries in how they measure
their state and local spending and require that state and
local spending in Title I schools be at least equal to the
average spent in non-Title I schools.
The department proposed the regulation to a negotiated
rulemaking committee in March, but the committee could not
reach agreement on the proposal. Wisconsin Superintendent
Tony Evers, a member of the rulemaking committee, warned that
``Congressional intent isn't necessarily being followed
here.''
On the question of the department's legal authority for its
regulations, CRS says: ``The Supreme Court often recites the
`plain meaning rule,' that, if the language of the statute is
plain and unambiguous, it must be applied according to its
terms. Thus, if the language of the statute is clear, there
is no need to look outside the statute to its legislative
history or other extrinsic sources in order to ascertain the
statute's meaning or underlying congressional intent.''
[[Page S2692]]
``In the draft proposed rule . . . the Education Department
(ED) provided only a limited discussion of how this statutory
language gives ED the legal authority to require parity in
expenditures in Title I-A and non-Title-I-A schools.
According to ED, the reason that the proposal requires that
Title I-A schools receive at least as much in state and local
funding as non-Title I-A schools is `so that Title I funds
can provide truly supplemental support in Title I schools.' .
. . . On its face, however, the plain language of the SNS
provisions does not appear to require such a result. Notably,
the statutory language does not establish any type of
standard or requirement regarding how to demonstrate that a
Title I-A school receives all of the state and local funds it
would have received in the absence of Title I-A funds. . . .
ED's interpretation appears to go beyond what would be
required under a plain language reading of the statute.''
On the question of whether the law specifically prohibits
the department from requiring equalized spending, the report
says: ``(The Every Student Succeeds Act) retained the Title I
prohibition that states: `Nothing in this title shall be
construed to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a
State, local educational agency, or school.' The proposed SNS
regulations, however, appear to directly conflict with this
statutory language, which seems to place clear limits on ED's
authority. This prohibition against equalized spending thus
raises significant doubts about ED's legal basis for
proposing regulations that would require Title I-A per pupil
expenditures to meet or exceed those of non-Title-I-A
schools. . . . Congress's decision to expressly prohibit ED
from requiring equalized expenditures among schools indicates
that Congress did not intend to impose such a requirement in
the SNS context, particularly in light of the absence of
explicit language to the contrary.''
On the question of Congressional intent for the department
to address comparability, the report says: ``Meanwhile, the
legislative history behind Title I's comparability provisions
raises similar questions about ED's legal authority to
establish the proposed SNS regulations in their current form.
Over the eight-year period during which Congress considered a
comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA, several bills and
amendments were introduced that would have modified the
comparability provision to require that actual school-level
expenditures be used in the determination of comparability,
but none of these proposals have been adopted. Most recently,
during consideration of S. 1177 in the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Michael
Bennet offered and withdrew an amendment to require that
comparability determinations be based on state and local per-
pupil expenditures (including actual personnel and non-
personnel expenditures). Ultimately, the ESSA, which
comprehensively reauthorized the ESEA, did not make any
changes to the comparability requirement, leaving in place
the statutory prohibition on the use of staff salary
differentials for years of employment when determining
expenditures per pupil from state and local funds or
instructional salaries per pupil from state and local funds.
In other words, the ESSA did not alter the existing statutory
language that prohibits the use of staff salary differentials
for years of employment when determining expenditures per
pupil from state and local funds or instructional salaries
per pupil from state and local funds in making comparability
determinations.
``Thus, the proposed SNS regulations appear to effectively
require (local educational agencies) to use actual teacher
salaries for SNS purposes despite the fact that the ESSA did
not address this matter. Because a reviewing court could view
this legislative history as relevant evidence of
congressional intent to maintain current statutory
requirements related to comparability determinations, a court
could potentially conclude that ED lacks the statutory
authority to attempt to impose a similar requirement via
other methods, including promulgation of the proposed SNS
regulations.''
The report concludes: ``Based on the plain language of the
above provisions in conjunction with the legislative history
and the statutory scheme as a whole, it therefore seems
unlikely that Congress intended section 1118(b) to authorize
ED to establish regulations that would require Title I-A per-
pupil expenditures to meet or exceed those of non-Title-I-A
schools. Given some of the concerns identified above, it
seems that a legal argument could be raised that ED exceeded
its statutory authority if it promulgates the proposed SNS
rules in their current form.''
____
[From the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions]
Chairman Alexander: Already ``Disturbing Evidence'' That Education
Department Is Ignoring the New Law
Washington, DC, April 12.--Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-
Tenn.) today said there is already ``disturbing evidence''
that the Education Department is ignoring the law that
Congress passed in December and told the Education Secretary
he would use ``every power of Congress to make sure the law
is implemented the way we wrote it.''
Alexander said that in a negotiated rulemaking session,
``your department proposed a rule that would do exactly what
the law says it shall not do . . . Not only is what you're
doing against the law, the way you're trying to do it is
against another provision in the law.''
Alexander was chairing the second of six planned oversight
hearings on the law passed last year to fix No Child Left
Behind. Education Secretary John King was today's witness.
``As Secretary, you have sworn to discharge your duties
faithfully, and in your confirmation hearing, you said you
would `abide by the letter of the law.' The importance of the
hearing today is to make sure that you and your employees are
doing just that,'' Alexander said.
In writing the law last year, Congress debated and
ultimately chose to leave unchanged a provision in the law
often referred to as ``comparability,'' first put in there in
1970, that says school districts have to provide at least
comparable services with state and local funding to Title I
schools and non-Title I schools.
The law specifically says that school districts shall not
include teacher pay when they measure spending for purposes
of comparability.
At today's hearing, Alexander said: ``To accomplish your
goals on comparability, you are using the so-called
`supplement not supplant' provision that is supposed to keep
local school districts from using federal Title I dollars as
a replacement for state and local dollars in low-income
schools.
``The department is forcing school districts to include
teacher salaries in how they measure their state and local
spending and require that state and local spending in Title I
schools be at least equal to the average spent in non-Title I
schools.''
The chairman's prepared remarks are below
Mr. Secretary, I urged the president to nominate an
Education Secretary because I thought it was important to
have a confirmed Secretary when the department was
implementing the new law fixing No Child Left Behind.
As Secretary, you have sworn to discharge your duties
faithfully, and in your confirmation hearing, you said you
would ``abide by the letter of the law.''
The importance of the hearing today is to make sure that
you and your employees are doing just that.
Last year this committee worked to pass a bill that fixed
No Child Left Behind. The legislation signed by the president
passed the House 359-64. It passed the Senate 85-12. The
president called it a Christmas miracle.
The reason we were able to achieve such unusual unanimity
and consensus is that people had gotten tired of the
Department of Education telling them so much of what they
ought to be doing.
It wasn't just Republicans or governors who were fed up, it
was school superintendents, teachers, principals, parents,
state legislatures, school boards, and chief state school
officers.
There hasn't been a broader coalition that's helped to pass
a law in a long time.
The Department of Education had become a national school
board, telling Washington state how to evaluate teachers,
telling Kansas what their standards must be, and telling
Tennessee how to fix failing schools.
The legislation we passed got rid of all that. And then--it
went further--to the extraordinary length of putting in
statute explicit prohibitions on the department in
anticipation of another effort at regulatory overreach.
It's a dramatic change in direction for federal education
policy--the Wall Street Journal read it and said it's the
``largest devolution of federal control to the states in a
quarter-century.''
But it isn't worth the paper it's printed on if not
implemented properly.
Today, we're holding our second hearing of at least six to
oversee the implementation of this law and already we are
seeing disturbing evidence of an Education Department that is
ignoring the law that each of this committee's 22 members
worked so hard to craft.
It wasn't easy to pass a law that most of us could agree
to. As I said last year, there were crocodiles at every turn.
One of them was an issue people call ``comparability.''
They're talking about a provision in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, first put in there in 1970, that
says school districts have to provide at least comparable
services with state and local funding to Title I schools and
non-Title I schools.
The law specifically says that school districts shall not
include teacher pay when they measure spending for purposes
of comparability.
This committee has debated several times whether or not
teacher pay should be excluded. Senator Bennet felt very
strongly about his proposal to address this, and I felt
strongly about mine.
Ultimately the United States Congress made two decisions
about this issue, as reflected in the law we passed:
First, we chose not to change the comparability language in
law, so the law still says teacher pay shall not be included:
Second, we added a requirement that school districts report
publicly the amount they are spending on each student,
including teacher salaries, so that parents and teachers know
how much money is being spent and can make their own
decisions about what to do with it, rather than the federal
government mandating it be used in comparability
calculations.
The law that the president signed in December didn't do one
thing to change the law that teacher salaries not be
included.
[[Page S2693]]
But here's what your department did on April 1--you tried
to do what Congress wouldn't do in Comparability by
regulating another separate provision in the law.
In a negotiated rulemaking session, your department
proposed a rule that would do exactly what the law says it
shall not do--that is, force districts to include teacher
salaries in how they measure their state and local spending
and require that state and local spending in Title I schools
be at least equal to the average spent in non-Title I
schools.
If your proposed rule were adopted, it would:
1. Require a complete, costly overhaul of almost all the
State and local finance systems in the country.
2. Require forcing teachers to transfer to new schools.
3. Require states and school districts to move back to the
burdensome practice of detailing every individual cost on
which they spend money to provide a basic educational program
to all students, which is exactly what we were trying to free
states and districts from under this law.
4. According to the Council of Great City Schools, it would
cost $3.9 billion just for their 69 urban school systems to
eliminate the differences in spending between schools.
But I'm not interested in debating today whether what
you've proposed is a good idea or a bad one--the plain fact
of the matter is that the law specifically says you cannot do
it.
Not only is what you're doing against the law, the way
you're trying to do it is against another provision in the
law.
To accomplish your goals on comparability, you are using
the so-called ``supplement not supplant'' provision that is
supposed to keep local school districts from using federal
Title I dollars as a replacement for state and local dollars
in low-income schools.
According to a Politico story published on December 18, the
former Secretary of Education said: ``Candidly, our lawyers
are much smarter than many of the folks who were working on
this bill.''
We in Congress were smart enough to anticipate your
lawyers' attempts to rewrite the law.
So we included specific prohibitions in the ``supplement
not supplant'' provision that would prohibit you from doing
the very thing you have proposed.
Section 1118(b)(4), says ``Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize or permit the Secretary to prescribe
the specific methodology a local educational agency uses to
allocate State and local funds to each school receiving
assistance under this part.''; and
Section 1605, says ``Nothing in this title shall be
construed to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a
State, local educational agency, or school.''
I'll use every power of Congress to make sure the law is
implemented the way we wrote it, including our ability to use
the appropriations process and to overturn such regulations
once they are final.
In addition, if you try to force states to follow these
regulations that ignore the laws we wrote, I'll encourage
them to request a hearing with the department. And if they
lose, I'll tell them to take you to court.
Second, I'm not the only one who can read the law. You're
going to come right up against the broad coalition of groups
who helped pass this law--the governors, school
superintendents, teachers, principals, parents, state
legislatures, and school boards.
They've already sent you a letter saying that ``Regulations
and accompanying guidance should clarify how supplement, not
supplant is separate and distinct from maintenance of effort
and comparability, and steer clear of anything that would
change or modify any of those provisions beyond the statutory
changes already signed into law.''
Wisconsin Superintendent Tony Evers, a member of the
rulemaking committee, said last week that ``Congressional
intent isn't necessarily being followed here.''
Noelle Ellerson of the school superintendents association,
says that the prohibitions in the law, ``in tandem with
Congress' deliberate act of leaving comparability unchanged,
makes a seemingly tight case against expanding supplement not
supplant.''
You've testified here and in the House of Representatives
that you will ``abide by the letter of the law.''
It's not abiding by the letter of the law to require local
school districts to use teacher salaries and equalize
spending between Title I and non-Title I schools when the law
prohibits you from doing that.
It's not abiding by the letter of the law to use the
supplement not supplant provision to achieve your goals for
Comparability when Congress debated this issue and chose to
not make any changes in the law.
I'm making a point of this today because we're at the
beginning of the implementation of a law that affects 3.4
million teachers and 50 million students in 100,000 public
schools.
I'm determined to see that the law is implemented the way
Congress wrote it.
I think it's important at the beginning of this
implementation to make sure that you and those who work at
the department understand that.
____
[From Wall Street Journal, Apr. 18, 2016]
Obama's Ed-Run--The Administration Tries To Dictate State and Local
School Funding
President Obama has no inhibitions about rewriting laws he
doesn't like--even those he's signed. Witness the
Administration's revision of the Every Student Succeeds Act
to allow the feds to regulate state and local school
spending.
The law--which passed Congress last year with large
bipartisan majorities--devolved power to the states and
rolled back some federal mandates. In doing so, Congress
rebuffed the White House's previous attempts to direct local
education policy with No Child Left Behind waivers.
Mr. Obama nonetheless hailed the law as a civil-rights
success that ``reflects many of the priorities of this
administration.'' One notable achievement was giving local
school districts more discretion over Title I funds, which
target poor students. Federal policy dating to 1970 requires
that Title I funds must supplement, rather than supplant,
state and local spending.
This requirement isn't controversial, but school districts
still complained that the cost of completing the federal
paperwork to comply diverted resources from instruction.
Congress eased the burden by letting school districts
establish their own methodology to show compliance. The law
also prohibited the Secretary of Education from prescribing
the ``specific methodology a local educational agency uses to
allocate State and local funds'' or mandating ``equalized
spending per pupil for a State, local educational agency, or
school.''
The Administration is now rewriting the parts of the law it
doesn't like. The Education Department recently proposed
assessing the local school district's compliance with the law
by whether a Title I school ``receives at least as much in
State and local funding as the average non-Title I school.''
In other words, the Administration is trying to do exactly
what the law prohibits it from doing.
Progressives want to force local school districts to
equalize spending among schools. Regardless of the policy
merits, this is impractical since staff compensation
represents more than 80% of school spending. Younger teachers
with lower base salaries are more likely to work at low-
income schools due to seniority rules in labor agreements and
state laws.
This is why the law forbids the feds from considering
``staff salary differentials for years of employment'' when
assessing comparability between Title I and non-Title I
schools. Mandating equalized spending in Title I schools as
non-Title I schools would force states to rewrite their
education funding formulas and districts to redo their labor
agreements.
Experienced teachers earning higher salaries might have to
be forcibly transferred to low-income schools. Or teachers at
Title I schools would have to be paid more. Another
alternative--and the goal on the left--is to compel school
districts to employ more staff at low-income schools. Alas,
the quantity of employees is a poor proxy for the quality of
education.
This Administration line-item veto violates both the letter
and spirit of a law that was intended to reduce federal
control over education rather than increase it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Amendment No. 3871
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to take this time to speak on an
amendment I have authored, amendment No. 3871, which will be voted on
shortly--at 4:30 p.m. this afternoon.
I was listening to my friend Senator Alexander. I know he was not
talking about my amendment--he was talking about a different subject--
but I always listen to Senator Alexander because he always makes such
important points. I couldn't agree with him more that laws are not
worth the paper they are printed on unless they are implemented
properly. That was a comment he made. That is the reason I filed
amendment No. 3871.
I wish to point out that Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act in 1958. It was that act which requires all Federal
agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Department of the Interior and the head of the applicable State fish
and game departments on water projects.
The concern we have today is that we have many water projects that
are being initiated--it could be a dam project, a levy project being
done by the Army Corps--and they are required to work with the
recommendations of Fish and Wildlife as it relates to the impacts these
projects have on fish and wildlife. In fact, they are not doing it.
That is the reason I authored this amendment, to carry out
congressional intent--not congressional intent--what we wrote into the
law so that it is very clear that as part of the consultation, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife and the States are to determine the potential impact
to wildlife resources, describe the damages that will be caused by the
project,
[[Page S2694]]
and develop mitigating measures to prevent those damages and improve
wildlife resources. That is the current rule.
The problem is that the Federal agencies are not required to adopt
the recommendations. I understand that, but they must give the
recommendations full consideration, and they are not doing that today.
At least they are not doing it as much as we think they should be. That
is the purpose for this amendment, to make it clear that we meant what
we said when we passed the law--similar to what my good friend said in
regard to the education bill we passed last year.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act review is a longstanding and
critically important component of water resources planning. Utilization
of expert recommendations in these reviews makes sense.
Let me underscore what we are talking about. Water projects are very
important. I know that. I serve on the Environment and Public Works
Committee, which is the authorizing committee on many of these issues,
to get these water projects moving. I understand the challenges. But
one of the purposes is to make sure we preserve fish and wildlife.
Every year, hunting and fishing contribute $200 billion to our total
economic activity, to our Nation's economy. It is a huge part of the
reason we require that type of consultation and working together--in
order that when these projects move forward, the recommendations that
are made by Fish and Wildlife and our local government entities are
totally consistent with our local communities, that they are heeded and
taken into consideration so that we not only get the needed water
projects but we also preserve our fish and wildlife habitats so that we
don't endanger the species as part of the project.
I wish to emphasize that not only is this an environmental issue,
this is about State involvement. Not only does the Army Corps need to
ensure that projects meet Federal environmental requirements, it needs
to respect each State's unique situation. If State fish and wildlife
experts express concern about a project, my amendment reiterates what
the law already is. The Army Corps must listen. That is what it says.
It is as simple as that.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It has the strong
support of many of our wildlife federations. The National Wildlife
Federation supports it. Izaak Walton League of America, the Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited, and wildlife
federations from many of our States support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the letter in support of my amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
April 25, 2016.
Re: Support Cardin Amendment 3871 to the Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill.
Dear Senator: As organizations representing a broad range
of conservation, sportsmen and women, recreation, and outdoor
interests, we urge you to support Amendment 3871 to the
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. This common sense,
cost-effective amendment will protect fish and wildlife, make
federal water projects better, and give a real voice to the
nation's state and federal fish and wildlife experts.
Every year, hunting and fishing contribute $200 billion in
total economic activity to our nation's economy. Ensuring
that water resources projects are designed, built and
operated to sustain and improve fish and wildlife populations
is critical to this economy and to our sporting traditions.
Since 1958, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act has
fully integrated state and federal fish and wildlife expert
review into the Army Corps of Engineers water resources
planning process. As part of the water resources project
review process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluates
the impacts of proposed water resources projects and makes
recommendations to reduce the harm to fish and wildlife
resources. State fish and wildlife experts are also
encouraged to provide input under this process.
Despite the extensive work undertaken by the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the states in analyzing projects and
developing important recommendations, the Army Corps of
Engineers often does not follow the expert recommendations
that are developed. When this happens, federal water projects
can cause significant, and entirely avoidable, harm to the
nation's fish and wildlife. Failing to follow these expert
recommendations also leads to mitigation plans that do not
work.
Amendment 3871 would ensure that the recommendations of the
nation's fish and wildlife experts are fully accounted for
during the planning of water resources projects. This is a
common sense, cost-effective way to protect our nation's
wildlife and make water projects better for all of us. Our
organizations urge you to vote yes on amendment 3871.
Respectfully,
National Wildlife Federation, Izaak Walton League of
America, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout
Unlimited, Arkansas Wildlife Federation, Conservation
Federation of Missouri, Nebraska Wildlife Federation, North
Carolina Wildlife Federation, South Dakota Wildlife
Federation, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.
Mr. CARDIN. I encourage my colleagues to read the language of this
amendment. It carries out current law. That is simply what it does.
Current law requires this consideration by Fish and Wildlife on these
projects.
This amendment makes it clear that we want the Federal agencies to
comply with the law. That is why we wrote it that way. And this
amendment would make sure the intent of Congress in implementing the
statute is, in fact, carried out.
Mr. President, with that, 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Zika Virus
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I come to the floor again today to discuss
the Zika virus, which has been in the news quite often in my home State
of Florida and internationally.
In a moment, I want to enter into the Record a number of articles
that have appeared just in the last week in papers across the State of
Florida.
On May 7, the newspaper in Pensacola had this headline: ``Panhandle
conditions create a Zika 'powder keg.''' The argument it makes is that
part of the State--as are many of the areas in the South--is an area
where you find prevalent a species of mosquito which is the primary one
that is now transmitting the Zika virus. It goes on to say that as
temperatures rise and rainfall increases--these are the two elements
that mosquitoes need to spread. So there is going to be a massive
spread--as there is every year--in the specific species of mosquitoes
that transmit the Zika virus in the panhandle of Florida.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the Pensacola News Journal article.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From http://www.pnj.com/story/news/local/2016/05/07/panhandle-
conditions-create-zika-powder-keg/83698034/, May 7, 2016]
Panhandle Conditions Create Zika `Powder Keg'
(By Carlos Gieseken)
Nine out of 10 mosquito bites in Northwest Florida can be
attributed to the culprit known to scientists as aedes
albopictus and colloquially as the Asian Tiger.
It is black and white and measures about a quarter of an
inch in length. It is the sister to aedes aegypti, best known
as the Yellow Fever Mosquito because of its past success at
delivering that disease. It is behind the numerous outbreaks
that caused panic and killed thousands in Pensacola between
1765 and 1905.
Today the two are once again in the spotlight for all the
wrong reasons--they carry Zika, a virus suspected of causing
birth defects in Brazil and other Latin American countries as
well as the Caribbean.
Aedes aegypti was prevalent in the Florida Panhandle until
the mid 1980s, said John P. Smith, a medical entomologist
with Florida State University at Panama City who has studied
insects that affect public health for more than 30 years.
At that time, the Asian Tiger began to assert itself when
it came to the United States from Southeast Asia via the used
tire trade.
``They are both bad guys, no doubt about it,'' Smith said.
``Or should I say bad girls. Only the females bite.''
Both mosquitoes also spread yellow fever, dengue and
chikungunya.
The Asian Tiger is found in high concentrations on the Gulf
Coast, creating a potential powder keg. This is because Zika
[[Page S2695]]
spreads when mosquitoes bite multiple people after biting an
infected person.
To date, the Panhandle mosquito population has not been
infected. According to the Florida Department of Health,
there has been one case of Zika in Santa Rosa County in a
person who was infected while traveling abroad. As of Friday,
there have been 105 travel-related cases of Zika in Florida.
A great deal of media ink and broadcast time has been spent
on the disease, but how worried should the Panhandle be?
``I think it is a real concern,'' Smith said, ``and worth
doing something to prevent it.''
Year-round concern
But mosquito control technicians in Escambia and Santa Rosa
counties wage a year-round war against the tiny, slender
pests.
When temperatures regularly hit 60 or above in March or
April, the teams start spraying to knock out the adult
mosquitoes who have hatched and begun their warm weather
pursuit for food, i.e. blood.
But during the winter months, even in the coldest frost of
January or February, mosquito larvae can lie dormant,
stunting their own development to wait for warmer
temperatures before emerging.
Keith Hussey and Temika Wilkes are the mosquito control
directors at Santa Rosa and Escambia counties, respectively.
Their staffs are out inspecting those places where mosquito
larvae lie like baby vampires through the brisk weather
months.
They inspect drainage ditches, holding ponds and woodland
pools. They also do neighborhoods sweeps in search of man-
made mosquito nurseries like old tires or other containers,
foreclosed homes and abandoned swimming pools.
Larvicide and gambrusia fish, which are the size of guppies
and thrive in stagnant water where they feed on mosquito
larvae, are effective weapons.
``You can get more mosquitoes killed in a small pond of
water than you can when they fly away all over the place,''
said Matthew Mello, Escambia County mosquito control
supervisor.
FSU's Smith monitors 12 sites in Santa Rosa County. The
mosquito control personnel in that county use his data to
help strategize where and when they treat for mosquitoes. He
and his staff also test the mosquitoes for diseases they are
known to carry.
Escambia County's mosquito control budget for fiscal year
2015 to 2016 is just under $620,000. Santa Rosa County's
budget this year is $495,000, and has proposed a budget of
$594,518 for next year.
Smith said that because of the size of the area that needs
to be covered, ``The programs in Northwest Florida are some
of the poorest funded throughout the state.''
Bay County and other counties have specific taxing
districts that are used to raise millions of dollars to
combat mosquitoes. Their programs include aerial spraying
from helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, public education
programs and more staff who can cover more area.
The amount of local funding is enough to handle day-to-day
and regular mosquito season needs, officials from Escambia
and Santa Rosa counties say. But is it enough should a Zika
infection break out locally, instead of from a far flung
place?
``The county's mosquito control program has adequate funds
to fulfill its mission and has successfully protected the
residents from disease spread by mosquitoes for many years,''
said Ron Hixon, environmental manager for Santa Rosa County
in a statement. ``Every year the county reviews its funding
for mosquito control based on prior years mosquito data to
ensure adequate funds are available.''
``Please be assured that the Santa Rosa County
Environmental Department staff, specifically its Mosquito
Control division staff, are actively monitoring the Zika
situation and that the SRC Board of County Commissioners are
ready to deploy whatever resources are necessary to protect
the residents of Santa Rosa County,'' he said.
The Florida Department of Health said in a statement that
it has an incident management team in its central office in
Tallahassee. It coordinates with the state departments of
agriculture and environmental protection as well as the
Division of Emergency Management, the governor's office,
VISIT Florida and others. Escambia County's Wilkes said
``operations are currently funded at a level that supports
effective mosquito control. However, just like during a
hurricane or other natural disaster, if we were to have a
Zika outbreak and a subsequent state of emergency, we would
need additional funding for supplies and overtime costs.''
Mr. RUBIO. The second article says: ``Zika findings could be 'game
changers,' opening doors to research.'' It begins by saying:
Two groups of scientists reported Wednesday that fetal mice
infected with Zika showed brain damage, a finding that
confirms the prevailing view that the virus can disrupt the
development of fetal brains in humans and provides a clearer
avenue to study the problem.
The work should put to rest lingering doubts in some
quarters that the Zika outbreak sweeping through Latin
America and the Caribbean is responsible for a surge in
babies born with microcephaly and other brain anomalies.
It goes on to quote an associate professor of pathology at the
University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, who says:
Let me put it bluntly: These are game changers. . . . We
need to move forward now.
There is an article dated May 10 in the Miami Herald: ``Two new Zika
cases in Miami-Dade raise state total to 109.''
Florida health officials confirmed two new Zika infections
in Miami-Dade on Tuesday, raising the statewide total to 109
people who have contracted the virus this year, more than any
state.
In Miami-Dade, where most of Florida's Zika cases have been
reported, 44 people have been infected with the virus, said
the state health department, but the disease has not been
transmitted locally by mosquito bites. Broward County has
reported 15 cases of Zika.
At about 5 o'clock today, I will meet with the Governor of our State,
who is here asking for Federal aid to prepare for and combat the virus
in the State of Florida.
The Governor said:
It's going to get warmer, we're going to have more
rainfall, we're probably going to see more mosquitoes in our
state. Our federal government has a variety of plans they're
talking about. . . . We've got to address the Zika issue.
Hopefully, we can get ahead of it.
But it isn't just limited to Florida. This is an article from USA
TODAY dated May 6, 2016: ``Gulf Coast could be ground zero for Zika.''
The Gulf Coast may know hurricanes, but this year the
region of 60 million people could find itself unprepared and
at ground zero for a different type of storm: a mosquito-
borne Zika epidemic.
A look at the region's urban hubs, small towns and rural
outposts shows a patchwork of preparedness. Cities such as
Houston have robust plans in place, while smaller towns, such
as Corpus Christi, Texas, struggle with fewer resources.
This is just part of painting an overall picture of this very serious
problem.
I would just say that the notion that we should only be worried about
Florida or the States on the gulf coast alone would not be wise.
Mosquitoes that infect people are found in 30 of the 50 States in this
country. There are now Zika infections and Zika cases in multiple
States across the country.
We now know that Zika isn't just transmitted from mosquitoes but can
also be sexually transmitted. In fact, the only case of transmission in
Florida was one that was sexually transmitted in Central Florida.
As we debate all these other important issues, this is a looming
public health crisis. This is the situation we are now facing in this
country. The time to act has come. The moment to act has come because
right now in this body and in Washington, DC, we are facing a debate
about this issue, about how much money we are going to spend on it.
Look, the President has proposed $1.9 billion to deal with it. About
$500 million of that is designed to pay back the Ebola funding that has
been used in the short term to fill in the gap, but the rest of it is
for real programs that go into dealing with this issue and particularly
dealing with it on the island of Puerto Rico, which has been
disproportionately impacted. When I hear people say there haven't been
any cases of Zika transmitted in the United States, they are wrong.
People of Puerto Rico are American citizens. They travel to the
mainland extensively. It is our responsibility to also fight and care
for them in this process.
But the bottom line is that it is not a question of if, it is a
question of when. There will be a mosquito transmission of Zika in the
continental United States at some point over next few days, weeks, or
months. We cannot get caught unprepared to deal with the consequences.
The consequences, by the way, are not just to pregnant women, which in
and of itself is reason to act--I don't mean to diminish it. The impact
on pregnant women and their unborn children is extraordinary and
devastating. The science on that is indisputable. We are seeing
evidence of it all across the world and especially the Western
Hemisphere being impacted by it. That alone is reason to act. But there
is now a definitive link between Zika and Guillain-Barre syndrome,
which is a debilitating, often fatal neurological condition that we
know is associated with this.
By the way, these children who are being born after being infected in
the womb with Zika, we don't know what the long-term prognosis is. Just
because they are not born with
[[Page S2696]]
microcephaly does not mean they will not suffer from other neurological
deficiencies or other neurological conditions in the years to come. We
simply don't know. It is not just a first-trimester threat anymore. We
now know Zika can be transmitted and can do serious damage in the
second trimester as well.
We know that soon the Olympic games will be played in Brazil, and
that means hundreds of thousands of people will travel from and through
the United States to the Olympics and back. We know we have constant
visitors coming in and out of this country. How else would we get 109
cases in Florida? These are people who have either traveled abroad or
have been infected by a partner in the one case I have cited.
This is an issue we should jump on with a real sense of urgency. It
is a Federal responsibility to be involved in this. It is the job of
the Federal Government to keep our people safe from external threats,
and Zika today is an external threat spreading to this country--a
country that is at the epicenter of global commerce and transit. It is
just a matter of time before someone contracts Zika through a mosquito
bite in the United States, and we have not prepared for it.
Localities and States are doing the best they can with their limited
resources, but they do not have the comprehensive resources the Federal
Government can bring to bear. They do not have the resources for
research the Federal Government can bring to bear. They do not have the
ability to deal with it at the ports of entry the way the Federal
Government can. These are important priorities I hope we will move on.
In the last few hours, I have heard encouraging reports that there
are a number of efforts going on behind the scenes in the Senate--at
least one of them in a bipartisan way--to begin to address this issue.
Over the next few hours, we will meet with the different stakeholders
and others who are engaged in this issue to see if we can come up with
a way forward.
Here is what I hope we will not do. I hope we will not politicize
this issue. Zika is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It
shouldn't be a campaign issue, although I promise it will become one if
we have a Zika outbreak in the United States and we are back home doing
our constituent work and not here voting. People are going to ask: Why
did you do nothing on this issue? You knew it was coming. It was
clearly broadcasted and predicted. All the indicators were there and
nothing happened. Inaction on this is, quite frankly, inexcusable. I
don't believe voters will excuse us for refusing to act on this.
This should not be a political issue. It should not be a partisan
issue. It shouldn't be used for one party to beat up on the other.
There are so many other issues we can fight over but not on this--not
where the real lives of real people are at stake. My hope is very
soon--and I mean in the next couple of days--we can bring before this
body a way forward on this issue that brings both parties together and
that deals with this public health crisis in a responsible way.
Let me say, look, we are running a debt in this country. So if there
is a way to pay for it--and I believe there can be a way to pay for
it--I am all for that. I have ideas about how we can come up with some
of that money. We can find $1.4 billion, $1.5 billion, $1.9 billion to
pay for this, and I think we should endeavor to do so, but even if we
cannot, we should never allow the inability to agree on how to pay for
it to stand in the way of addressing a public health crisis that
threatens to become a public health catastrophe. I prefer that we pay
for it. I am for that, but I am not going to let an objection to that
stand in the way of addressing this issue.
So through all the other issues we are debating today, from
Presidential campaigns to water projects, I still do not believe we
have given sufficient intensity, urgency or attention to this
burgeoning issue that threatens the safety and security of our people.
So it is my hope that over the next few hours and days we can come
forward in a bipartisan way with a way forward, and I will continue to
work to address and to achieve that.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TOOMEY. 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. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of vacancies
on the Federal bench in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In the 5\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate, I have sought to find
common ground with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, with
considerable success--and sometimes we continue to search for that
success--whether it is legislation to prevent pedophiles from
infiltrating our classrooms or working to fight this terrible scourge
of opioid abuse and overdoses in Pennsylvania or trying to keep guns
out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.
One of the accomplishments of which I am most proud is the work I
have done with Senator Casey to fill vacancies as they have occurred on
the Federal bench in Pennsylvania. Senator Casey and I have developed a
fairly elaborate process. We are blessed to have very talented men and
women who have volunteered their time, energy, and expertise to help us
identify and vet candidates when a vacancy occurs, to recommend those
candidates, and to begin a process by which we can get some of the best
and brightest people in Pennsylvania who are able and willing to serve
on the Federal bench to do exactly that.
Using this process, Senator Casey and I have gotten together, we have
agreed, and we have recommended to the President, the President has
then nominated, and this Senate has confirmed 16 men and women to the
Federal bench in Pennsylvania; 14 are district court judges, 2 circuit
court judges. There are only two States in the Union that have
confirmed more Federal judges in this period of time, and those are the
very large States of California and New York, which have had
considerably more vacancies. This makes a difference for the people of
Pennsylvania.
For instance, because Senator Casey and I have cooperated this way,
we have been able to fill empty courthouses--Federal courthouses which
have sat vacant where people do not have convenient access to justice.
In the cities of Reading, Williamsport, and Easton, vacant courthouses
are no longer vacant because through our work we now have Federal
judges sitting, hearing, and trying cases, and providing justice in
those communities.
Despite what has been a very successful record so far, we have more
work to be done. We have vacancies in Pennsylvania now. As a matter of
fact, there are currently four district court--district court--
nominations for Pennsylvania that are pending in the Senate. Two are
still being reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, and two have been
approved by the committee. They have had their hearing, they have had
their markup, they have voted, they have been successfully reported out
of committee, and they are on the Executive Calendar.
For some time, Senator Casey and I have been working to get all four
of these nominees through the process and confirmed, and I strongly
believe all four should be confirmed.
Today, I want to focus in particular on two, and those are the two
who have already been successfully reported out of committee. They are
now listed on the Executive Calendar. These are vacancies that are
especially concerning to me, because in one case the Federal courthouse
in Erie, PA--the fourth biggest city in Pennsylvania--has a vacant
courthouse. It is vacant. It has been vacant for almost 3 years. For
almost 3 years, there has been no Federal judge able to hear cases, and
so the people in Erie and the surrounding counties have very long
travel distances. They have to go all the way down to Pittsburgh or
take a very long drive to get to another Federal courthouse, and that
is not right. It is not right for the people of Erie, and it is not
right for the people of Northwestern Pennsylvania generally. We
[[Page S2697]]
have another district judgeship in the Western District of Pennsylvania
that likewise has been vacant for almost 3 years.
Here is what I want to stress: The two nominees for these judgeships
who I am talking about would fill judgeships that have been vacant far
longer than any other pending on the Executive Calendar. There are
other nominees pending on the Executive Calendar. I get that. There are
people who want to confirm every one of them. I understand that, but no
vacancies have been outstanding for as long as these two vacancies for
which we have two qualified candidates who have been successfully
reported out of committee, and they are very well-qualified nominees.
In fact, I want to talk briefly about each of them.
Judge Susan Baxter has a very impressive 34 years of legal
experience, including over 20 years serving as a Federal magistrate
judge and over a decade as a practicing lawyer in both the public and
private sectors. She spent 3 years as a teacher. She completed her
education at two of Pennsylvania's very impressive schools, getting her
law degree from Temple and her undergraduate degree from Penn State.
Judge Baxter has agreed to sit in the Erie courthouse, which would
eliminate the problem of a vacant Federal courthouse in the city of
Erie.
Marilyn Horan is the other judge. Judge Horan likewise has extensive
legal experience for 37 years, 20 of those years as a judge in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Butler County, PA; 17 years as a
practicing lawyer, including 14 as a partner in a law firm. Judge Horan
likewise attended two terrific Pennsylvania schools. She got her law
degree from the Pittsburgh School of Law and her undergraduate degree
from Penn State.
There is no question in my mind, both of these women will make
outstanding additions to the Federal bench in Pennsylvania. I believe
the seats they will fill, if they are confirmed by the Senate, have
been vacant too long. Three years is just far too long.
Yesterday my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, made a
unanimous consent request for these 2 Pennsylvania judges but also 9
others, for a total of 11. I was not on the Senate floor at the time.
Had I been, I would have voiced my support for that request, and I
would have agreed to that vote. Unfortunately, Leader McConnell
disagreed and raised an objection. So we find ourselves stuck at zero:
We have nobody pending for confirmation. We have our colleagues on the
other side saying let's have 11 judges confirmed.
I am suggesting a slightly different course. How about we try a step
in the right direction? How about we vote on these 2 judges, 2 of the
11? That is not the entire slate, but it is not zero. They are the two
judges who would fill the vacancies that have been vacant the longest.
These women represent real bipartisan cooperation. One was initially
suggested to the President by Senator Casey. I suggested the other. One
is a Democrat. The other is a Republican. The other seats have had
vacancies for far shorter periods of time.
So I think this would be progress if we could simply agree to have a
vote on these two nominees, then see where we go from there. Let's get
off this all-or-nothing, 0-or-11 situation, and let's confirm the two
judges who would fill the vacancies that have lasted the longest.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos.
460 and 461 en bloc; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc
without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that 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 Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
On the Executive Calendar, there is a queue of judges who have come
out of the Judiciary Committee and are ready for floor action. By my
count, along that queue, the two Pennsylvania judges my distinguished
colleague refers to are Nos. 9 and 10; Senator Jack Reed's and my Rhode
Island judge is No. 8. We would very much like to enter into an
agreement where these judges start to be moved in regular order--as we
often say we like around here--through the queue, as is the tradition
in the Senate, so we can get them all cleared.
The senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, as the junior
Senator mentioned, came here to move a larger block. I would not object
to this request if it were amended to include all 10 of those judges on
the Executive Calendar, down to and including the two Pennsylvania
judges to whom my distinguished colleague refers. That would be
Calendar Nos. 307, 357, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, the all-important 459
from Rhode Island, and 460 and 461.
So if the Senator from Pennsylvania would amend his unanimous consent
request to accommodate that, then I would not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so modify the request?
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, parliamentary question.
I am not sure whether the majority leader's objection was to Senator
Toomey's unanimous consent request or to my attempt to modify it. If it
was to the former, we are moot, and this conversation has concluded. If
not, then I will object if I cannot get the regular order for the
judges ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard on the modification.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my understanding--what I intended to do
was to object to the modification offered by the distinguished Senator
from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, with that clarification, I must
regrettably object to the unanimous consent request propounded by the
junior Senator from Pennsylvania. But I do hope very much that we can
find a way to work toward getting these judges confirmed. These are
judges who came out of the Judiciary Committee, which is a fairly
contentious committee, unanimously. They are district judges. If we
can't move them, then I suggest the Senate is really not working the
way it ought to, and I very much hope we can get to a place where we
can move them all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think it bears repeating again what I
have said the last few days. If you look at the Barack Obama years--he
will ultimately have 8 years in the White House--and the George W. Bush
8 years in the White House, and you draw a line at this point in their
Presidencies, Barack Obama has gotten 21 more lifetime appointments,
Federal judges, than George W. Bush did during the same period. By any
objective standard, President Obama has been treated more than fairly
during the course of his Presidency--much more fairly than George W.
Bush was treated during the same period of his Presidency.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I did not
have an objection to the modification of the unanimous consent request
that was made by the Senator from Rhode Island.
I think Senator McConnell makes a valid point about judicial
vacancies that have occurred under President Obama. But where we
disagree is that I think right before us we have excellent candidates
who have been vetted by both sides. They have been chosen by both
sides. They have come through the process. They have had their
hearings. They have been reported out by the committee. It does not
serve the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to have to
continue to wait.
I am not finished in this effort. I am stymied today. I must say that
I am disappointed that my friends on the other side can't agree to make
some progress. It is not as though I am, for instance, asking that only
Republican judges be confirmed or only judges who are chosen by
Republicans. I am not
[[Page S2698]]
asking that. We have a Democrat and a Republican, chosen by my
Democratic colleague and myself, and I understand they are not in the
sequence that is traditionally dealt with. But we are at an impasse
here. They are the two judges who would fill the vacancies that have
lasted the longest, through no fault of their own. I am trying to find
a way to get somewhere between 0 and 11, neither of which is accepted.
This is a very frustrating and disappointing moment, but I am not going
to give up trying.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me add to what the distinguished
Senator from Pennsylvania has said by noting first that the impasse to
which he refers is created by his own leadership, which refused to
bring up judges that have come out of the Judiciary Committee
unanimously.
There is a problem here. It is one that can be solved within the
Republican caucus. We can't very much help with that, but we hope that
a solution comes.
The second point is that the question here should not be viewed only
as to whether the President is being treated fairly but that there are
vacancies on Federal courts, and it is our responsibility to provide
advice and consent. We have a duty of fairness to the constituents who
have empty seats in courtrooms, and we have a duty of fairness to the
candidates--the nominees--who have put their lives on hold with the
expectation that they would be treated fairly by the Senate. That is
our job--to treat nominees fairly and to see to our constituents'
needs. It is not just a question of numbers and who is President.
I yield the floor.
I appreciate the persistence of both colleagues from Pennsylvania,
and I am sure we will continue to do this until we make some headway.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today is an excellent day for students
across the country who are taking out college student loans. For the
upcoming school year, the Treasury auction just took place on 10-year
notes. Some folks might ask: What is the connection with student loans
and Treasury notes?
Three years ago, Senator Alexander, myself, Senator Manchin, Senator
King, and others said something very simple: We are going to get
politicians out of the business of setting student loan rates, and we
are going to let the marketplace do it. That was a wise decision, as
was the law we passed--the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act. Since
2013 it has saved students and their parents $36 billion in taking out
student loans. We will save another $10 billion again this year. That
means that 200,000 North Carolinians--students and their parents--are
saving even more on student loans. Those 200,000 North Carolinians take
out about $500 million in student loans to attend universities and
colleges. Because of this law, they have been saving. Because of
today's Treasury auction, they are going to save even more. They are
going to save about $1.1 billion across my State alone because of the
reduction in the Treasury note from a little over 4 percent on the 10-
year to 3.76 today.
Congressional Research Service tells us that about $4,500 less will
be paid out for a 4-year degree. I hold this up because I think this is
indicative of where we are this year--the lowest student loan rate
since the year 2004. I know this is a debate not only within the body
of the Senate and the House but also on the campaign trail for our
Presidential candidates.
Prior to 2013, interest rates had been written into law by
politicians and were essentially set at 6.8 percent. Many of us looked
at it and said: This is insane. For the protection of American
taxpayers, it ought to be tied to some financial instrument. So we tied
it to the 10-year bond. Since that point, taxpayers--specifically,
students and their parents--have saved $36 billion because we decoupled
it from the political process here.
In fact, those interest rates have dropped significantly since last
year--4.29 percent to 3.76 percent today. That means about $40 more per
month in the average graduate's pocket. It means $4,500 more overall in
saved costs.
What would have happened if we hadn't come together to pass this law?
Students would have shelled out another $46 billion in student loan
interest payments. This is one thing that Congress can hold up, and we
can highlight the fact that we did something responsible. For those who
claim we haven't done anything about the high cost of student loans,
let me suggest to you that we have done a lot. We have saved parents
and students $46 billion. We probably could save them more than that
if, in fact, we didn't divert some of the proceeds that the Government
gets off of student loans to the Affordable Care Act by about $2
billion a year.
We ran into significant pushback from several Members of this body.
In fact, 18 Members of this body, mostly from the other party, opposed
this law. The junior Senator from Vermont called it a disaster for
young people in our country looking to go to college. This law was also
vocally opposed by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. But today, it
demonstrates the shortsightedness that was displayed then. Today,
because of what we did in a bipartisan fashion passed by this body,
parents and students have saved $46 billion, and in North Carolina this
next year, it is projected that they will save another $1.1 billion in
interest payments on their student loans. This is a day that Congress
can be proud of because we have done something good for the American
people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senator from
North Carolina. He was the leader in 2013, along with Senator Manchin
and Senator Coburn, who was here at the time--I was a little bit
involved at the time--and Senator Angus King from Maine. We worked with
the President and with the House. The Senator is exactly right. The
decision that Senator Burr and others made, persuading this Congress
and working with the President in 2013 to take the student loan
interest rate out of politics and tie it to a certain rate, today
reduces the rate by 0.5 percent for nearly 6.4 million students and
saves millions and millions of dollars on student loans.
There is a lot of talk about student loans and the cost of them. Some
people don't look at all aspects of them. In Tennessee, the independent
colleges and universities have pointed out to me that the new overtime
rule proposed by the Department of Labor would add as much as $850 per
student to the cost of tuition at all of the independent colleges in
Tennessee, which is an outrageous thing to be doing.
Here is an example of real leadership, real action, and real results
by the Senator from North Carolina, the Senator from Maine, and the
Senator from West Virginia, who by their action in 2013, working with
the President, have reduced the cost of going to college for 6.4
million American students. A lot of people can talk; some people can
get a result.
The Senator from North Carolina, the Senator from Maine, and the
Senator from West Virginia got a result. I thank them for it. Let's
give credit where the credit is due. President Obama was instrumental
in that decision. He worked with Senator Harkin and with others in
helping us come to an agreement.
For those who think that things can't get done, things do get done
here, and sometimes they help people who would like to have the help.
Congratulations to Senator Burr for saving millions of dollars for
students who are taking out student loans.
Mr. President, in just a moment, we will have two votes on the Energy
and Water appropriations act. The first is on the amendment by the
Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin. The second vote is on the amendment
by the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer. Other than a voice vote on
Senator Flake's amendment, those are the last votes on amendments that
we have for the Energy and Water appropriations bill.
As soon as the majority leader and the Democratic leader agree that
we can schedule the vote on final passage--either later today or
tomorrow--
[[Page S2699]]
for the first time since 2009, we will have completed an Energy and
Water bill in regular order across the floor of the Senate, which every
single Member of this body has a chance to participate in, rather than
just having the 30 members of the Appropriations Committee and then
everybody else being presented with a great big omnibus bill at the end
of the year, which they really don't have a chance to change.
Everybody had a chance to weigh in on this. About 80 Senators did
before it came to the floor. We will have considered about 21 more
amendments. It has been a very good process. There were a couple of
bumps, but this is the Senate. We deal with the bumps. I thank Senator
Cardin for his contributions and Senator Fischer for hers. When we are
through with that, we hope to finish the bill.
Vote on Amendment No. 3871
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 3871, offered by the Senator from Tennessee,
Mr. Alexander, for the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]
YEAS--39
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--60
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
King
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
Vote on Amendment No. 3888
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Under the previous order, the
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3888, offered by the Senator
from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs.
Fischer.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--47
Alexander
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Kirk
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The majority leader.
____________________