[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5082-S5086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Boozman,
Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Portman):
S. 3184. A bill to protect law enforcement officers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I had the privilege of attending
a memorial service for the brave Dallas police officers who lost their
lives almost a week ago. It was a fitting tribute to these courageous
men who fought evil and who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Through such a sad and tumultuous time, the brave leadership of Mayor
Mike Rawlings and Police Chief Brown has been a constant source of
inspiration.
A number of people have stopped me in the hallway and said: Have you
seen or heard this police chief in Dallas?
I said: Absolutely.
Have you seen the sort of leadership and the calming influence Mayor
Rawlings has provided in a time where people are confused, distraught,
angry? It has been very impressive. They have gone above and beyond the
call to bring as much comfort to the city as they possibly can. While
they have shown the world what poise under pressure looks like, I want
to say how proud I am of their dedication to the people of Dallas and
their steady and unwavering hand.
The events of last week serve as a terrible reminder that our law
enforcement officers face multiple threats in their line of duty every
day and that some twisted, deranged individuals will stop at nothing to
target them.
Mayor Rawlings was right yesterday when he said that the officers in
Dallas did nothing wrong. He is absolutely right. They were just doing
their job.
Here is what I would like to hear a little bit more about from our
leaders here in Washington and around the country: There is no
justification--zero, zip, nada--no justification for violence against
police officers. There is none. You can't justify what happened in
Dallas with something that happened in Ferguson, in Baltimore, or some
other place around the country.
Chief Brown said that what we need to do is not paint with a broad
brush the 99 percent of police officers who do what they should be
doing in a brave and heroic sort of way because of the actions of the 1
percent or whatever the rogue individual might be. What he said we need
to do is to hold the officers who do misbehave, who don't respect the
communities they are serving, and who cross the line--we need to hold
them accountable, and he is exactly right.
What I hope we will hear more about, as the President talked about
yesterday, is the importance of having this national discussion about
race, about law enforcement. What I hope we hear more of is some
clarity from our national leaders. Our police officers in Dallas were
doing nothing more than keeping order and protecting civilians in
peaceful protests.
The supreme irony in Dallas is that the people protesting were part
of Black Lives Matter. Who was protecting them? The very police
officers targeted by this deranged shooter.
Actually, as President Obama acknowledged yesterday, the Dallas
Police Department is a national model for how to deescalate conflict in
communities and work with communities to reduce crime. Again, it is
another irony that this terrible tragedy occurred there against that
department.
In the aftermath of this great national tragedy, we do need to come
together as a country and have some uncomfortable discussions, perhaps.
We need to get beyond the talking points in our comfort zone. But the
one thing we need to do absolutely is to come together to show our
support for those who get up every morning, put on their badge, and
walk out the door not knowing if they will come home at the end of the
day. We can do that by sending a clear message that America will not
tolerate those who seek to kill those who are duty-bound to defend us.
We will not stand for it. This should go without saying.
In the aftermath of the Dallas attack, we have another chance to
stand up for law enforcement and stand united for policies that better
support them.
Today I am introducing legislation with our colleague from North
Carolina, Senator Tillis, and our colleague from Texas, Senator Cruz,
called the Back the Blue Act, which would do just that.
Many folks have seen the hashtag ``Back the Blue'' on social media,
online. It is a small way for Americans to show their solidarity with
our law enforcement officials and their families following this
tragedy, and that is where this legislation gets its name.
[[Page S5083]]
The Back the Blue Act would create a new Federal crime for killing or
attempting to kill a Federal judge, a law enforcement officer, or
someone funded by Federal funds--a federally funded public safety
officer. Under this bill, an offender would be subject to a range of
penalties, from a minimum of a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for
murder ranging up to the death penalty.
I think it is more important than ever for us to make this kind of
clear and unequivocal statement about our support for law enforcement.
This is the very glue that holds our country together, and without the
safety and security they provide, none of our other freedoms are really
possible.
The Back the Blue Act would also create a new crime for assaulting a
law enforcement official and create a new law prohibiting the fleeing
to avoid punishment for assaulting a law enforcement official. As I
said, there is no excuse, no justification--none whatsoever--for
attacking a law enforcement officer. Most of us learned that from our
parents while growing up, but apparently some people didn't learn that
lesson, and we ought to make clear to those who did not get the memo,
who did not learn that lesson, that assaulting a law enforcement
officer is absolutely beyond the pale.
We need to show that we value the lives of our law enforcement, and
we need to make it absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry
out crimes against them accountable. The Back the Blue Act would do
that.
The Back the Blue Act would also expedite court proceedings for cases
that involve the death of a public safety officer.
It would make sure criminals aren't rewarded for committing a crime
by recovering money damages from injuries they sustained while
committing a felony or violent crime.
It would help strengthen our communities by allowing grant funding to
be put toward efforts to foster more trust between police and those
around them. This is something I am particularly proud of that has been
happening in Dallas under Mayor Rawlings and Chief Brown. They make it
absolutely clear that the responsibility of the law enforcement
official is not to sit in their police car and wait for something to
happen, to wait for someone to call; they believe in community
policing, making sure law enforcement mixes and intermingles with the
very people they are supposed to protect. Frequently, those same people
can be the eyes and the ears that provide essential information to law
enforcement so they can prevent criminal acts from occurring in the
first place.
The final thing I would mention that this legislation would do is it
would allow law enforcement officers to carry firearms in Federal
facilities.
These are not expansive proposals; they are tailored measures that
would better serve the men and women who serve our communities every
day.
If now is not the time to show our support for law enforcement, when
is? With the attention of the Nation riveted on events like those that
occurred in Dallas, I think it is critically important that we take
advantage of this opportunity to make this statement of solidarity.
Yesterday President Obama stressed the need to translate our words
and prayers into action. This legislation is responsive to what the
President said. It is one thing to offer people our best wishes and our
thoughts and prayers; it is another thing to actually do something
about it. This legislation does that.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation. We
can do more for our police officers and their families, and we can
start with the Back the Blue Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3184
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Back the Blue Act of 2016''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
(a) Killing of Law Enforcement Officers.--
(1) Offense.--Chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1123. Killing of law enforcement officers
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the terms `Federal law enforcement officer' and
`United States judge' have the meanings given those terms in
section 115;
``(2) the term `federally funded public safety officer'
means a public safety officer or judicial officer for a
public agency that--
``(A) receives Federal financial assistance; and
``(B) is an agency of an entity that is a State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or any
territory or possession of the United States, an Indian
tribe, or a unit of local government of that entity;
``(3) the term `firefighter' includes an individual serving
as an official recognized or designated member of a legally
organized volunteer fire department and an officially
recognized or designated public employee member of a rescue
squad or ambulance crew;
``(4) the term `judicial officer' means a judge or other
officer or employee of a court, including prosecutors, court
security, pretrial services officers, court reporters, and
corrections, probation, and parole officers;
``(5) the term `law enforcement officer' means an
individual, with arrest powers, involved in crime or juvenile
delinquency control or reduction or enforcement of the laws;
``(6) the term `public agency' includes a court system, the
National Guard of a State to the extent the personnel of that
National Guard are not in Federal service, and the defense
forces of a State authorized by section 109 of title 32; and
``(7) the term `public safety officer' means an individual
serving a public agency in an official capacity, as a law
enforcement officer, as a firefighter, as a chaplain, or as a
member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew.
``(b) Offense.--It shall be unlawful for any person to--
``(1) kill, or attempt or conspire to kill--
``(A) a United States judge;
``(B) a Federal law enforcement officer; or
``(C) a federally funded public safety officer while that
officer is engaged in official duties, or on account of the
performance of official duties; or
``(2) kill a former United States judge, Federal law
enforcement officer, or federally funded public safety
officer on account of the past performance of official
duties.
``(c) Penalty.--Any person that violates subsection (b)
shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less
than 10 years or for life, or, if death results, shall be
sentenced to not less than 30 years and not more than life,
or may be punished by death.''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``1123. Killing of law enforcement officers.''.
(b) Assault of Law Enforcement Officers.--
(1) Offense.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 120. Assaults of law enforcement officers
``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `federally
funded State or local law enforcement officer' means an
individual involved in crime and juvenile delinquency control
or reduction, or enforcement of the laws (including a police,
corrections, probation, or parole officer) who works for a
public agency (that receives Federal financial assistance) of
a State of the United States or the District of Columbia.
``(b) Offense.--It shall be unlawful to assault a federally
funded State or local law enforcement officer while engaged
in or on account of the performance of official duties, or
assaults any person who formerly served as a federally funded
State or local law enforcement officer on account of the
performance of such person's official duties during such
service, or because of the actual or perceived status of the
person as a Federally funded state or local law enforcement
officer.
``(c) Penalty.--Any person that violations subsection (b)
shall be subject to a fine under this title and--
``(1) if the assault resulted in bodily injury (as defined
in section 1365), shall be imprisoned not less than 2 years
and not more than 10 years;
``(2) if the assault resulted in substantial bodily injury
(as defined in section 113), shall be imprisoned not less
than 5 years and not more than 20 years;
``(3) if the assault resulted in serious bodily injury (as
defined in section 1365), shall be imprisoned for not less
than 10 years;
``(4) if a deadly or dangerous weapon was used during and
in relation to the assault, shall be imprisoned for not less
than 20 years; and
``(5) shall be imprisoned for not more than 1 year in any
other case.
``(d) Certification Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--No prosecution of any offense described
in this section may be undertaken by the United States,
except under the certification in writing of the Attorney
General, or a designee, that--
``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
``(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government
assume jurisdiction;
``(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State
charges left demonstratively
[[Page S5084]]
unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-
motivated violence; or
``(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public
interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal
officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible
violations of this section.
``(e) Statute of Limitations.--
``(1) Offenses not resulting in death.--Except as provided
in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or
punished for any offense under this section unless the
indictment for such offense is found, or the information for
such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the
date on which the offense was committed.
``(2) Offenses resulting in death.--An indictment or
information alleging that an offense under this section
resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time
without limitation.''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 7
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``120. Killing of law enforcement officers.''.
(c) Flight to Avoid Prosecution for Killing Law Enforcement
Officials.--
(1) Offense.--Chapter 49 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1075. Flight to avoid prosecution for killing law
enforcement officials
``(a) Offense.--It shall be unlawful for any person to move
or travel in interstate or foreign commerce with intent to
avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after
conviction, under the laws of the place from which the person
flees or under section 1114 or 1123, for a crime consisting
of the killing, an attempted killing, or a conspiracy to kill
a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer (as those
terms are defined in section 115), or a federally funded
public safety officer (as that term is defined in section
1123).
``(b) Penalty.--Any person that violates subsection (a)
shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less
than 10 years, in addition to any other term of imprisonment
for any other offense relating to the conduct described in
subsection (a).''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
49 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``1075. Flight to avoid prosecution for killing law enforcement
officials.''.
SEC. 3. SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING FACTOR FOR FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY
KILLING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
(a) Aggravating Factors for Homicide.--Section 3592(c) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
paragraph (16) the following:
``(17) Killing of a law enforcement officer, prosecutor,
judge, or first responder.--The defendant killed or attempted
to kill a person who is authorized by law--
``(A) to engage in or supervise the prevention, detention,
or investigation of any criminal violation of law;
``(B) to arrest, prosecute, or adjudicate an individual for
any criminal violation of law; or
``(C) to be a firefighter or other first responder.''.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF FOR MURDERS OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
(a) Justice for Law Enforcement Officers and Their
Families.--
(1) In general.--Section 2254 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j)(1) For an application for a writ of habeas corpus on
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court for a crime that involved the killing of a public
safety officer (as that term is defined in section 1204 of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796b)) or judge, while the public safety officer or
judge was engaged in the performance of official duties, or
on account of the performance of official duties by or status
as a public safety officer or judge of the public safety
officer or judge--
``(A) the application shall be subject to the time
limitations and other requirements under sections 2263, 2264,
and 2266; and
``(B) the court shall not consider claims relating to
sentencing that were adjudicated in a State court.
``(2) Sections 2251, 2262, and 2101 are the exclusive
sources of authority for Federal courts to stay a sentence of
death entered by a State court in a case described in
paragraph (1).''.
(2) Rules.--Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``Rule 60(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall not apply to a
proceeding under these rules in a case that is described in
section 2254(j) of title 28, United States Code.''.
(3) Finality of determination.--Section 2244(b)(3)(E) of
title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the
subject of a petition'' and all that follows and inserting:
``reheard in the court of appeals or reviewed by writ of
certiorari.''.
(4) Effective date and applicability.--
(A) In general.--This paragraph and the amendments made by
this paragraph shall apply to any case pending on or after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Time limits.--In a case pending on the date of
enactment of this Act, if the amendments made by this
paragraph impose a time limit for taking certain action, the
period of which began before the date of enactment of this
Act, the period of such time limit shall begin on the date of
enactment of this Act.
(C) Exception.--The amendments made by this paragraph shall
not bar consideration under section 2266(b)(3)(B) of title
28, United States Code, of an amendment to an application for
a writ of habeas corpus that is pending on the date of
enactment of this Act, if the amendment to the petition was
adjudicated by the court prior to the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON RECOVERY OF CERTAIN DAMAGES FOR
INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN FELONIES OR CRIMES OF
VIOLENCE.
(a) In General.--Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42
U.S.C. 1983) is amended by--
(1) striking ``except that in any action'' and all that
follows through ``relief was unavailable.'' and inserting the
following: ``except that--
``(1) in any action brought against a judicial officer for
an act or omission taken in the judicial capacity of that
officer, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable; and
``(2) in any action seeking redress for any deprivation
that was incurred in the course of, or as a result of, or is
related to, conduct by the injured party that, more likely
than not, constituted a felony or a crime of violence (as
that term is defined in section 16 of title 18, United States
Code) (including any deprivation in the course of arrest or
apprehension for, or the investigation, prosecution, or
adjudication of, such an offense), a court may not award
damages other than for necessary out-of-pocket expenditures
and other monetary loss.''; and
(2) indenting the last sentence as an undesignated
paragraph.
(b) Attorney's Fees.--Section 722(b) of the Revised
Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by striking ``except
that in any action'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``except that--
``(1) in any action brought against a judicial officer for
an act or omission taken in the judicial capacity of that
officer, such officer shall not be held liable for any costs,
including attorneys fees, unless such action was clearly in
excess of the jurisdiction of that officer; and
``(2) in any action seeking redress for any deprivation
that was incurred in the course of, or as a result of, or is
related to, conduct by the injured party that, more likely
than not, constituted a felony or a crime of violence (as
that term is defined in section 16 of title 18, United States
Code) (including any deprivation in the course of arrest or
apprehension for, or the investigation, prosecution, or
adjudication of, such an offense), the court may not allow
such party to recover attorney's fees.''.
SEC. 6. SELF-DEFENSE RIGHTS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 203 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 3053 the
following:
``Sec. 3054. Authority of law enforcement officers to carry
firearms
``Any sworn officer, agent, or employee of the United
States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is
authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention,
detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of
law, or to supervise or secure the safety of incarcerated
inmates, may carry firearms if authorized by law to do so.
Such authority to carry firearms, with respect to the lawful
performance of the official duties of a sworn officer, agent,
or employee of a State or a political subdivision thereof,
shall include possession incident to depositing a firearm
within a secure firearms storage area for use by all persons
who are authorized to carry a firearm within any building or
structure classified as a Federal facility or Federal court
facility, as those terms are defined under section 930, and
any grounds appurtenant to such a facility.''.
(b) Carrying of Concealed Firearms by Qualified Law
Enforcement Officers.--Section 926B(e)(2) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``any magazine and''
after ``includes''.
(c) Carrying of Concealed Firearms by Qualified Retired Law
Enforcement Officers.--Section 926C(e)(1)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``any magazine
and'' after ``includes''.
(d) School Zones.--Section 922(q)(2)(B)(vi) title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or a qualified
law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926B(c))''
before the semicolon.
(e) Regulations Required.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
promulgate regulations allowing persons described in section
3054 of title 18, United States Code, to possess firearms in
a manner described by that section. With respect to Federal
justices, judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges,
such regulations shall be prescribed after consultation with
the Judicial Conference of the United States.
(f) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter
203 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 3053 the following:
``3054. Authority of law enforcement officers to carry firearms.''.
[[Page S5085]]
SEC. 7. IMPROVING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE.
(a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2017 through
2021, the Attorney General using covered amounts shall, using
such amounts as are necessary not to exceed $20,000,000,
award grants to State, local, or tribal law enforcement
agencies and appropriate non-governmental organizations to--
(1) promote trust and ensure legitimacy among law
enforcement agencies and the communities they serve through
procedural reforms, transparency, and accountability;
(2) develop comprehensive and responsive policies on key
topics relevant to the relationship between law enforcement
agencies and the communities they serve;
(3) balance the embrace of technology and digital
communications with local needs, privacy, assessments, and
monitoring;
(4) encourage the implementation of policies that support
community-based partnerships in the reduction of crime;
(5) emphasize the importance of high quality and effective
training and education through partnerships with local and
national training facilities; and
(6) endorse practices that support officer wellness and
safety through the re-evaluation of officer shift hours,
including data collection and analysis.
(b) Covered Amounts Defined.--In this section, the term
``covered amounts'' means--
(1) any unobligated balances made available under the
heading ``GENERAL ADMINISTRATION'' under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'' in an appropriations Act in a
fiscal year;
(2) any amounts made available for an ``Edward Byrne
Memorial criminal justice innovation program'' under the
heading ``state and local law enforcement assistance'' under
the heading ``OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS'' under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'' in an appropriations Act in a
fiscal year; or
(3) any combination of amounts described in paragraphs (1)
and (2).
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Roberts, Ms.
Heitkamp, Mr. Thune, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Heinrich,
Mrs. Ernst, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Blunt, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Franken,
Mrs. Murray, and Ms. Klobuchar):
S. 3188. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the incentives for biodiesel; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have long been a champion of domestic
biofuel production, including ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels.
Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs.
Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and
creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security
by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on
foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be
produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil,
soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats.
I am proud of the success of the American biodiesel industry, and I
am glad to be introducing today the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and
Extension Act of 2016, which will ensure the continued success. I
appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership in joining this effort. I also
appreciate the support of Senators Roberts, Heitkamp, Thune,
Whitehouse, Kirk, Heinrich, Ernst, Donnelly, Blunt, Hirono, Franken and
Murray. This bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blenders credit to a
domestic production credit, and extend the credit through 2019.
Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005 when I was
Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result of this
incentive, and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing
significant benefits to the nation.
Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating since 2009 to modify the
current incentive. We have proposed making the credit available for the
domestic production of biodiesel, rather than a mixture credit
available to the blender of the fuel.
The bill we are introducing today is similar to an amendment that I
offered with Senator Cantwell during consideration of the tax extenders
package in the Senate Finance Committee in July of last year. Our
biodiesel reform amendment passed unanimously by voice vote.
Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways.
The blenders credit can be difficult to administer, because the
blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel
distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that
qualifies for the credit claims the incentive. It has been susceptible
to abuse because of this.
A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are
incentivizing the domestic industry, rather than subsidizing imported
biofuels. It is projected that imports from Argentina, Indonesia,
Singapore, the European Union, South Korea and others could exceed 1.8
billion gallons over 2016 and 2017.
We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels.
By restricting the credit to domestic production, we'll also save
taxpayer money. The amendment adopted in the Finance Committee was
estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to reduce the cost of the
extension by $90 million.
Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on
the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the
blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel
industry is currently operating at approximately 55 percent of
capacity. The domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access
to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers.
The current biodiesel credit expires at the end of this year. It is
my hope that when the Senate considers legislation to extend expiring
tax provisions, that the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension
Act of 2016, will be included. I strongly encourage the leadership of
the House and Senate to include these biodiesel reform policies that
were adopted in the Senate Finance Committee unanimously last year.
This modification will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress
intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production.
Surely we can agree that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer
subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports.
I therefore urge my colleagues to support the production of American
biodiesel and this common-sense, cost reduction reform.
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr. Tester):
S. 3192. A bill to designate a mountain peak in the State of Montana
as ``Alex Diekmann Peak''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3192
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Alex Diekmann Peak
Designation Act of 2016''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that Alex Diekmann--
(1) was a loving father of 2 and an adoring husband who
lived in Bozeman, Montana, where he was a renowned
conservationist who dedicated his career to protecting some
of the most outstanding natural and scenic resource areas of
the Northern Rockies;
(2) was responsible during his unique conservation career
for the protection of more than 50 distinct areas in the
States of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, conserving for the
public over 100,000 acres of iconic mountains and valleys,
rivers and creeks, ranches and farms, and historic sites and
open spaces;
(3) played a central role in securing the future of an
array of special landscapes, including--
(A) the spectacular Devil's Canyon in the Craig Thomas
Special Management Area in the State of Wyoming;
(B) crucial fish and wildlife habitat and recreation access
land in the Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho, along the Salmon
River, and near the Canadian border; and
(C) diverse and vitally important land all across the Crown
of the Continent in the State of Montana, from the world-
famous Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to Glacier National Park
to the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, to the recreational trails,
working forests and ranches, and critical drinking water
supply for Whitefish, and beyond;
(4) made a particularly profound mark on the preservation
of the natural wonders in and near the Madison Valley and the
Madison Range, Montana, where more than 12 miles of the
Madison River and much of the world-class scenery, fish and
wildlife, and recreation opportunities of the area have
become and shall remain conserved and available to the public
because of his efforts;
[[Page S5086]]
(5) inspired others with his skill, passion, and spirit of
partnership that brought together communities, landowners,
sportsmen, and the public at large;
(6) lost a heroic battle with cancer on February 1, 2016,
at the age of 52;
(7) is survived by his wife, Lisa, and their 2 sons, Logan
and Liam; and
(8) leaves a lasting legacy across Montana and the Northern
Rockies that will benefit all people of the United States in
our time and in the generations to follow.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF ALEX DIEKMANN PEAK, MONTANA.
(a) In General.--The unnamed 9,765-foot peak located 2.2
miles west-northwest of Finger Mountain on the western
boundary of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, Montana (UTM
coordinates Zone 12, 457966 E., 4982589 N.), shall be known
and designated as ``Alex Diekmann Peak''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the
peak described in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a
reference to ``Alex Diekmann Peak''.
____________________