[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5229-S5240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2577,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Conference report to accompany H.R. 2577, a bill making
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other
purposes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ObamaCare
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, I spent a
lot of time traveling around my home State of Wyoming. I know the
Presiding Officer spent a lot of time traveling around his home State
of Oklahoma. I talked to a lot of people in Wyoming, as he did in
Oklahoma, about one of the top concerns of the things that are on their
minds. To me, and I know to the Presiding Officer, that has been the
Obama health care law and the disastrous problems that people are
facing. People now tell me that some of them are paying more for their
health insurance than they are for their mortgage. That is not just a
problem in Oklahoma or in Wyoming; it is a problem all across the
country. And that is now.
What they are also doing is reading stories in the papers, front-page
stories that are saying the rates next year are going to go up again--
not just a little but a lot. I know that my Senate colleagues from all
across the country--Republicans and Democrats--are hearing that because
of the disastrous problems that the Obama health care law is currently
experiencing. In Wyoming, the Obama health insurance exchange has only
one company selling insurance--only one. Wyoming is not alone. This
wasn't supposed to happen.
The Democrats in Congress who supported this health care law said
that they were going to create more competition--bring down prices by
lots of competition. I can still remember when the President gave a
speech to Congress in 2009, and what did he tell us? He said that in 34
States, 75 percent of the insurance market was controlled by five or
fewer companies--five or fewer. Now in Wyoming we are down to one.
The President said that without competition, the price of insurance
goes up, and he said that the quality goes down. That is what President
Obama said 7
[[Page S5230]]
years ago. He said that five options or fewer were such a threat to
competition and to quality of care for American families that he needed
to create his entire ObamaCare health care system.
What is the situation today? One-third of America will have only one
ObamaCare insurer in 2017. The color-coded map from the Kaiser Family
Foundation came out just last week, and it shows all these areas in
orange have only one ObamaCare insurer selling insurance in their
locations. I note that Oklahoma and Wyoming are all in orange.
Millions of Americans will have fewer choices in 2017 than they had
in 2016, with one-third of the country having only one option for
coverage next year. The Obama administration said that these were
supposed to be competitive marketplaces. That is what President Obama
said. When there is only one company selling a product in an area, that
is not competition; that is a monopoly. The President ought to
understand that, and so should every Democrat in this body.
What do the national newspapers have to say about it? The Wall Street
Journal, front page story, last week, August 29: ``Health-Plan Choices
Shrink.''
It says that in 31 percent of U.S. counties, insurance exchanges
appear likely to offer consumers only one option. It is a monopoly.
That is the Wall Street Journal. You go through the article and it will
tell you 2.3 million people currently on ObamaCare will have one option
for when they shop next year.
What are people expecting? They are expecting their insurance
premiums to go up? When will they go up? November 1, a week before the
election. When people start signing up for next year's insurance, they
will see the incredible sticker shock and how that affects them. That
is what competition looks like under President Obama. There is only one
insurance company in all of those orange areas.
I see the minority leader left to go back to his office--the same
office, behind closed doors, where the health care law was written.
He is from the State of Nevada. Let's look at the State of Nevada--
orange, orange, orange. All of those counties, other than this one
area, have just one option because these very bright people--the
architects of ObamaCare--wrote a health care law behind that closed
door that says that one in three Americans will only have one ObamaCare
insurer in 2017.
It was what we predicted on the floor of the Senate as this bill was
being debated. President Obama said: No, you are all wrong. It doesn't
matter whether it was the minority leader, who was then the majority
leader. They obviously lost the majority as a result of the poor
judgment of the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi saying that first you have to
pass it before you get to find out what is in it, or others who said
this is going to be wonderful.
This is what the American people are facing now. All the areas in
blue have only two options to choose from. It is astonishing what has
happened. When you are down to one choice, you basically have no
choice. Except for the people in Pinal County, AZ--this area in red--
they actually have no choices. No one wants to sell ObamaCare insurance
to the people who live there--none. It is an ObamaCare ghost town. The
others may be ObamaCare wastelands or no man's land, but this is an
ObamaCare ghost town.
What does President Obama say about that? It has gotten so bad in
some places that State insurance commissioners have said that some of
the ObamaCare exchanges are very near collapse. Does President Obama
hear any of these things? Do the Senate Democrats hear any of these
things? You would think they would if they go home and talk to people
who live in their home States, but the insurance commissioner in
Tennessee described the situation in her State as very near collapse.
Now, if you look at Tennessee on the map, there are actually some
places where they have more than one choice, but the companies that are
selling insurance are saying: We cannot do it; we cannot continue
because of the losses that have been incurred by trying to comply with
all of the rules and regulations of the Obama health care law.
The people in Tennessee who get ObamaCare insurance will be paying as
much as 62 percent more starting in January. When they go to sign up on
November 1, they will pay 62 percent more in January.
Our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Lamar Alexander, recently said
that for a 40-year-old person who is a nonsmoker, lives in his home
State of Tennessee, and buys the cheapest possible ObamaCare silver
plan, comparing this year's plan to next year's plan, that same person
is going to have to pay $852 more than they did this year--not $852 but
$852 more than they did this year.
I talked to Senator Kirk, our colleague from Illinois, about that,
and they will pay 45 percent more next year. Georgia will pay 33
percent more. These aren't just proposed increases. These are increases
that have been approved by the insurance commissioner of those States.
It is interesting that when the Democrats come to the floor, they
say: Well, they are only proposed increases that will never happen.
These are the increases that have been approved by the insurance
commissioners of each of those States. Premiums are going through the
roof. Americans are stuck with fewer options because the insurance
companies just can't afford to sell on the exchanges due to the rules,
regulations, and mandates of the exchanges.
It is interesting to note that if you pick up a newspaper, you have
to page all the way through to get to the stories. Here is the
Washington Post, dated Sunday, August 28. The Presiding Officer can see
it. It says: ``Health exchange sign-ups fall short.'' Well, if this is
such a great deal, as the President says it is, why are the health
exchange signups falling short? The American people know it is not a
good deal. It is not a good deal for them personally. It goes on to
say: ``Several firms opt-out citing losses.''
When you go through the whole article, it goes on to say that the
``Obama administration's promise''--promise of a menu of health care
choices--``has been replaced by a grim forecast.'' Those are their
words--``a grim forecast.'' This is the forecast right here on the map.
This is what the country has gotten because of President Obama's plan
and the demands by the Democrats that they take complete control of the
health care in this country rather than leaving it in the hands of the
men and women at home across the country who know what is best for them
and their families. People living in one-third of the country won't
have any choice next year. They will all have to deal with an ObamaCare
health insurance monopoly and heading to ObamaCare no man's land.
Companies are giving up because people don't want ObamaCare
insurance. People can't afford it, and they are not buying it. They say
that for them it is not a good deal.
The Congressional Budget Office made some predictions. They predicted
there would be about 24 million people signed up for ObamaCare by now.
They made that prediction 1 year or so ago. The actual number is just
11 million. They overestimated by more than 2 to 1. From the very
beginning, the health care law has failed to live up to the hype and to
all the promises that Democrats and President Obama have made.
Remember when President Obama said: Under this law, if you like your
insurance, you can keep your insurance. If you like your insurance, you
can keep your insurance. That is what the President told the American
people. One of the factfinders called it the lie of the year. But
President Obama said: If you like your insurance, you can keep your
insurance.
Here is USA Today of August 30, and the front page says: ``Health
care choices choked further.'' More than 2 million people could be
bumped from insurance plans in 2017. More than 2 million people
currently on ObamaCare could be bumped from their plans, and the
President looked the American people in the eye and said: If you like
what you have, you can keep it. That is what the American people are
facing today. So one in three only have one insurer to choose from.
The situation is going to get worse. State insurance commissioners
say things are very near collapse. What is the best thing the President
can do and says about all of this? He says to the
[[Page S5231]]
Democrats: Forcefully defend and be proud. Where are the proud
defenders? Where are they today? Why aren't they here on the floor of
the Senate defending this monstrosity that has hurt so many American
people who had insurance? If you want to help people who didn't have
insurance, you shouldn't have to hurt people who do have insurance. Yet
I don't see the Democrats who are supposed to be proud and forcefully
defending this law coming to the floor. I challenge them to come to the
floor and debate me about this law and the impact it has had on the
American people.
What does Hillary Clinton say? She is running for President. She
says: Defend and improve. Why aren't her supporters here on the Senate
floor defending it? These ideas have failed. The promises have gone up
in smoke.
Do they have any solutions? Do they have any recommendations? The
recommendations are more Washington control. That is what Zeke Emanuel
said the other day on television. He is the architect who sat behind
the closed doors over there and came up with this plan, along with the
Senate minority leader and a number of the Senate Democrats. That is
what he says--more Washington control, more taxpayer money, and bigger
taxpayer funded subsidies. That is what they said.
Hillary Clinton talks about expanding the failing Medicaid Program.
They want to hurt our seniors by cramming more people onto the Medicare
Program, which is already headed for insolvency. Americans know that
our health care system is in trouble. ObamaCare has failed. It is in
the insurance death spiral, and Democrats cannot fix it by making it
larger.
People in one-third of the counties in America won't have a choice
for where they buy their health insurance starting November 1. America
does have a choice when it comes to fixing our broken health care
system. We can choose to get rid of ObamaCare and put solutions in
place that we know actually will work for people--not for unelected and
unaccountable bureaucrats but for people who we talked to in our home
States over the August break. It means letting people get out from
under the burden of all the Washington mandates. It is the mandates
that are really the cause of these devastating price increases. We want
to create real competition, not ObamaCare monopolies. We should let
people choose the coverage and costs that are right for them and their
families, not what Washington says is right for them.
When we are from a rural State such as Wyoming or from the Presiding
Officer's State of Oklahoma, we know about rural medicine, we know
about rural health care, we know about big distances, and we know what
people need. The people there know a lot better than what people in
Washington think they know about smalltown and rural America.
The Republicans in this body and Republicans all around the country
are going to continue to fight. We will not stop fighting for the kinds
of reform that get the power out of Washington and gives the power back
to the States so people can have more control of the decisions that
affect them, their lives, their communities, and their future.
Democrats don't have any ideas other than higher subsidies, more
government control, more one-size-fits-all for the failed policies of
the past. These policies, I will tell the Presiding Officer, have
failed. From the President's first speech, where he was condemning the
fact that there were only four or five choices, to now, where you are
looking at one, two, or zero choices, this points to the failure of the
ObamaCare health care law.
It is time, as we get back here--and I hope that Democrats listened
to people at home and heard their complaints--for Democrats to work
with us and give the American people the health care they want, need,
and deserve.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a very personal interest in a vote
that is coming up on Zika, and I wish to share my thoughts on that.
Today we have the opportunity to provide the funding to help combat
the mosquito-borne Zika virus that has hit Florida and some other
southern States. As of this week, there have been 49 travel-related
cases of the Zika virus in Florida and 576 travel-related cases
altogether. Within those cases, 80 are pregnant women who have been
infected with the virus. This is extremely concerning since the Zika
virus has been linked to severe birth defects in children born from
mothers who contracted the Zika virus. Zika has created a public health
emergency that can't be ignored.
This isn't the first time we have taken up this vote. In June, Senate
Democrats blocked the passage of the conference report, claiming that
funds did not need to be offset. The $1.1 billion provided in funding
in the conference report will be used to fight the Zika virus and
prevent it from spreading. This is the same amount as the Senate-passed
bill in which every Democrat voted in favor. All the Democrats voted
for it. Republicans have put together a responsible funding package
that includes $750 million in offsets, with strong oversight and
control to ensure that funds are being used properly.
There has been a lot of discussion and a lot of things we are saying
here on the floor and to the public that the public doesn't understand.
They can't be expected to understand; they are too busy out trying to
make a living. But when they hear things like this, they shake their
heads and they say: What is wrong with that system up there?
I say this because there is a little girl who happens to be my
sister's granddaughter. Her name is Callie Hamilton. Callie Hamilton
has lived for some time in Florida, and she is pregnant. She has called
me several times. She said: I don't understand it. You have Democrats
who are saying ``We don't want to do something to save the lives of
these pregnant mothers in Florida and elsewhere unless you also fund
Planned Parenthood and some of the other programs.'' Everything gets
all mixed up, and because of the sense of urgency, it is now a vehicle
for everybody else to hitchhike on.
Let me tell my colleagues, when I was asked the question by my own
great-niece, who is pregnant and living in Florida, saying, Why is it
that people aren't too concerned about the political politics of a vote
when this is different from any other virus vote we have taken? We have
had many, and normally there is some question as to what caused it,
some question as to whether the solution is a viable solution when, in
fact, in this case, it is. There is no question about it.
There are two things that are factual about this that we have not
seen before. First of all, the virus is contracted through mosquitoes.
We all know that. Nobody refutes that. The second thing is, you can
kill mosquitoes, and everybody knows that. Now, whether the amount is
$750 million or whatever the amount is--it doesn't really matter; even
if you are out there with a very small amount and you just kill several
million mosquitoes, that could save lives, and it could be my grand-
niece, Callie Hamilton.
So this is different. I hope--and I am going to encourage my
Republican and Democratic friends alike, when this vote comes up to
consider, that this isn't something to put something else on. This is
something that--we can immediately get in there and eradicate a bunch
of mosquitoes and save lives and very likely prevent this from
happening. I hope they will make an exception on this. It doesn't make
any difference about offsets. It doesn't make any difference about the
cost when we know we can save lives. This isn't something that is up in
the air and debatable; these are facts we are aware of.
I wasn't going to talk about that, but I do think it is necessary for
us to concentrate on what we are really doing since we are now back
here. We have been gone for several weeks. I think the country has
probably benefited from that--I don't know--but we are
[[Page S5232]]
back now and we have an opportunity to do some things.
WRDA
Mr. President, I chair a committee and have chaired a committee that
is called the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is a committee
that--sometimes, somewhat jokingly, I say: Now we will hear from a
committee that actually does things. We do. We had the bill that was
the FAST Act, the highway bill, the first one we have had in 17 years.
It is one on which we all got along. We had Democrats and Republicans
and passed it almost unanimously out of our committee, and almost
unanimously we had support on this floor.
Then we came up with Frank Lautenberg's chemical safety act. That is
an interesting one because there are a lot of Democrats who are opposed
to that to begin with, yet there is no regulation over the use of
chemicals--none whatsoever. So our manufacturing base has disappeared,
many of them going to countries where they know they can define what a
chemical is. There are a lot of liberals around who say: Let's just
oppose all chemicals. Well, obviously, if we don't have chemicals, we
can't manufacture, and that affects everyone. So we have people going
overseas now. By the way, I have personally talked to them since we
have that under control. For the first time in 4 years, we are getting
people to come back to this country to manufacture. So we achieved that
chemical bill.
Working together with Senator Boxer--this is interesting because when
they talk about the most conservative Members of the U.S. Senate, I am
always in that crowd, and Barbara Boxer is in the most liberal group,
and yet we worked together on the things we are supposed to be doing.
We have that old, worn-out document that nobody reads anymore called
the Constitution, and it says that we are supposed to be defending
America and doing infrastructure. So that is what this is all about.
We have the WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act. It is
coming up. If we get on that, it is going to benefit everyone. I worry
about it because we get to something that is good for everyone--Zika is
a good example--and then all of a sudden opposition comes up, and you
don't know what the source of that opposition is, but it is there.
Briefly, I want to cover these things because of the significance of
the WRDA bill, the water resources bill. We talk about five different
areas. One is the Corps projects. We know about the Corps of Engineers
and its projects. There is one Member of the Senate who has had efforts
and dogs in that fight--dams and levees. Certainly the occupier of the
chair and I both know some of these problems that exist in our State of
Oklahoma.
The EPA water infrastructure on both drinking water and wastewater is
something that--particularly in my State, a State that is primarily
rural, we have a lot of small towns. They don't know how in the world
they are going to come up with the massive amounts of millions of
dollars to somehow do something to stop the unfunded mandates that come
from government, primarily the EPA. When I was mayor of Tulsa, that was
the biggest problem we had because we had unfunded mandates. We needed
things to be done, and we were not able to get them done.
We also deal with the restoration programs and the coal ash programs.
So let's start with the Corps of Engineers. In their part of the
bill, we authorized 29 projects recommended by the chief of engineers
that will provide benefits that significantly exceed the cost of the
projects. These include important harbor-deepening projects for
Charleston, SC; Jacksonville, FL; and Brownsville, TX, as well as
significant flood protection projects in Kansas, Missouri, California,
North Carolina, Louisiana, and elsewhere.
Chart No. 1 shows--this happens to be the Port of Charleston, and it
gives you an idea of what we have.
We also authorized the next phase of the Everglades restoration
project. Certainly the two Senators from Florida have this as a great
concern. I have been on this road going through the Everglades, and
they have problems there. It is one of the real gems we have in this
country, and we do address that in a very cost-effective way.
In addition to new projects, the bill modifies some existing projects
that need additional congressional authority before they can continue.
These include critical flood control projects in Missouri, Kansas,
Kentucky, and Arizona, as well as critical navigation safety projects
in Texas.
The bill also makes policy changes on the recommendations of
Senators, project sponsors, and the users of our water transportation
infrastructure. This photo I have in the Chamber gives you an idea, and
I have been not to the one in Ohio, but I have been to the one in
Oklahoma. A lot of people don't know--I am sure both the Chair and I
are aware of this, but a lot of people are not aware that we in the
State of Oklahoma are navigable. We have ports, including the Port of
Catoosa. It looks just like this when you go through the lock and dams,
and they are about in that condition, and when that stops, everything
stops.
We have some ideas on how to do this using local sponsors. We have
people who are users of the navigation way throughout America who want
to be able to update and make sure that they are going to be safe and
that they are going to continue to operate. But the law does not allow
us to do that, so we correct that in this bill. So we talk about how
local sponsors can make changes so levee districts are not caught in
bureaucratic nightmares when they attempt to repair levees, which means
everything stops. So drought-stricken communities can increase
reservoir storage capacity.
When the Corps rebuilds a levy after a disaster, we now allow local
levy districts to increase the level of flood protection at their own
expense. We actually did that 2 years ago in the last WRDA bill, and I
might add that I was proud of us when we came back in and we were able
to get back on a 2-year cycle. We are supposed to do a water resources
development bill every 2 years. We haven't been doing it. We didn't do
it during the years the Democrats controlled the Senate. But right now
we are doing that, and that is one of the benefits that came from the
last bill.
In WRDA 2016, we expand the current authority of the Corps to accept
funds from non-Federal interests to expedite permits for rail
transportation projects. Overall, we estimate that the Corps of
Engineers' section of the bill will cost about $6 billion over a 10-
year period.
The second group is called dams and levees. We address this in the--
just imagine. This is the Ohio River. A minute ago, we showed one of
the levees. This is just like that levee, except this one erupted.
There is a term that is used called the ``high-hazard potential.'' When
a classification of ``high hazard'' takes place--we have about 14,726
potentially high-hazard dams in the United States. The definition of
``high hazard'' is that if it breaks, people will die, and we can see
that people will die. This is serious stuff. Anyway, we now have that
in this bill so that we will be able to protect those and to do
something about the high-hazard dams and infrastructure that we have,
and the levee system.
Under our legislation the Federal Emergency Management Agency is
authorized to help rehabilitate dams in States where safety officials
have determined them to have a high hazard potential. FEMA is
authorized to come in and do the work. CBO estimates that implementing
these dam and levee safety programs will cost $401 million over 10
years.
In our substitute we have added the Bureau of Indian Affairs dam
safety program for dams in Indian Country at a cost of $129 million.
This is based on S. 2717, which Senator Barrasso moved through the
Indian Affairs Committee with unanimous support. Senator Barrasso, whom
we heard from just a few minutes ago, was one step ahead of everybody
else when he moved this legislation through the committee that I
chaired, the Indian Affairs Committee. We had unanimous support for
this program to be expanded in Indian Country.
The third issue is the drinking water and waste water infrastructure.
I spent a lot of my time going into the small communities. As I said,
years ago I had a hard job. I was mayor of a major city. At that time
the biggest problem we had was unfunded mandates--the Federal
Government coming along. We tried to stop that, but this bill goes a
long way toward making sure that the
[[Page S5233]]
smaller communities, the poorer and rural communities, have access to
resolving the problems of these mandates. It is primarily in the
drinking water and waste water infrastructure. We are working on that
now.
S. 2848 includes several million dollars to address lead emergencies
and public health consequences for those emergencies. For example, we
provide $70 million to capitalize the new Water Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act, the WIFIA Act, so that we can provide secured loans
for water and waste water. That is what we are in the process of doing.
In the fourth area, restoration programs, we have four regional
restoration programs that we reported out of committee. These include
Senator Kirk's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Lake Those
Initiative that was put forward by Senators Heller, Reid, Boxer and
Feinstein. So we are addressing these restoration programs.
The final area is coal ash. Some people don't know about coal ash.
They think of it as being something that is dangerous and that
environmentalists shouldn't like, when in fact coal ash is a critical
ingredient for making concrete for roads and bridges. It is more
durable and less expensive than the alternatives, and many States
actually require fly ash to be used in their projects. We have a whole
section on coal ash which includes consensus legislation to allow the
EPA to review and approve the State permitting program for coal ash
disposable units. This is something that is very effective. There is no
other environmental regulation solely enforcing this very issue we are
talking about. So this is our chance.
I know the next vote is going to be on the Zika virus--I assume--and
I do encourage people to keep in mind that when they vote on that they
are voting on something I don't remember ever seeing before, but it is
something where we know a government program will work. We know it
comes from mosquitoes, and we know how to eradicate mosquitoes. So
let's get with it and quit talking about who we are offending
politically. Let's just get it done.
In the meantime, let's be lining up for a major bill that we need to
be doing. Hopefully, we will be doing it during this work period. It is
the WRDA bill.
With that I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Bipartisan Accomplishments
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thought I had gotten to the point where
I wasn't surprised at some of the rhetoric we hear from our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, particularly the Democratic leader when
he claims that we haven't gotten anything done in the U.S. Congress
since Republicans have been in the majority. I guess to the extent that
he says that and there is nobody who corrects it, then people might
actually believe it.
I just want to point out from the beginning some of the important
work we have been able to do on a bipartisan basis. I see our friend
the Senator from Tennessee here. He has been the point man for so many
of these pieces of legislation, such as the education reform bill,
among others that I will mention, but the fact is that since
Republicans have been in the majority after the election in 2014, more
than 140 pieces of legislation have been signed into law, and 240-plus
bills have passed the Senate alone. We have also had, by and large, an
open amendment process where any Senator who thinks they have a better
idea on a bill can come to the floor and offer an amendment and get a
vote on it. So compare the 240 amendment votes in this Congress to the
15 when Senator Reid was majority leader in the 113th Congress. People
need to know that his representation isn't borne out by the facts. It
is not even close.
I was reminded of the quote from Abraham Lincoln. He defined a
hypocrite as a man who murdered his parents and then pleaded for mercy
because he was an orphan. It is true that we find ourselves in the
current messy posture primarily because of the obstruction of our
Democratic colleagues on the other side.
We were hoping that we would get back to what we internally call
regular order, which is a more transparent process where each of the 12
appropriations bills can be passed out of the Appropriations Committee,
come across the floor, be amended and voted on, then matched up with
what our friends and colleagues in the House do, and then sent on to
the President for his signature. Instead of that normally functioning
Congress, there are the filibusters of our Democratic colleagues led by
the Democratic leader who is claiming that the Congress has become
dysfunctional all of a sudden. It is because of their actions. They are
the ones that have blocked the appropriations process. This is why we
find ourselves in the remaining few weeks of September trying to figure
out how we pay the bills, how we keep the government up and running.
I have a list of legislation that makes up that 240 bills and 140
laws written that were signed into law. I will not waste the Senate's
time by reciting those, but I ask unanimous consent that following my
remarks it be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, we find ourselves voting again on a $1.1 billion
appropriation to combat the Zika virus. There has been a lot of
discussion about the Zika virus. As we have come to learn, this is a
virus carried by a certain species of mosquito and because of summer
weather and because the Zika virus seems to be coming our way from
Central and South America, we figured it was important for us to do
something about it.
On the high-tech end, our scientists need to come up with a vaccine
to make sure that pregnant women don't have to worry about birth
defects in their unborn children, typified by this chart that
demonstrates a condition known as microcephaly, where literally the
head is shrunken along with the brain. One can imagine the prognosis
for this child to be very poor, and nothing but heartache is in store
for this child's family. This is what our Democratic colleagues are
risking by continuing to filibuster the spending that we have provided
for in this appropriations bill--$1.1 billion.
It is also important to do what sometimes is referred to as the low-
tech part of this as well. Recently I was in Houston, TX, with some of
my friends from the Harris County Public Health district. They were
demonstrating to me how they trapped mosquitoes. The Culex mosquito can
spread other types of virus, but the Aedes aegypti mosquito carries the
Zika virus. There is fantastic work being done at the local level by
our public health districts to monitor the mosquito population and then
test it to see whether they can detect the presence of the Zika virus.
When they do, that of course directs the spraying effort by the public
health district. One of the most important things to do is control the
mosquito population. It cannot be eliminated entirely, and spraying
without any particular target is a waste of time and money. But it can
be targeted, and that is what is happening in places like Houston, TX,
and in the Harris County Public Health district.
I spent an afternoon with public health officials at what is called
the mosquito and vector control unit. Of course, Houston is a big
place. Harris County, where Houston is located, is the third largest
county in the country by population, and it covers 1,777 square miles.
It is bigger than the State of Rhode Island. The reason I mention that
is to just consider the idea of going out to spray 1,777 square miles.
That doesn't make any sense. That is why the work being done by the
mosquito and vector control unit is so important--to actually target
the spraying where it is needed most.
The most important thing we can do as citizens is to educate
ourselves and to prevent ourselves from being bitten by the mosquito in
the first place. Some of that has to do with the clothing we wear and
also wearing insect repellent, particularly for pregnant women. The
danger of this particular birth defect is real, and it is important
that women of childbearing age take care to protect themselves. Part of
the reason I visited with the public health officials in Houston was to
not only educate myself but to help raise public
[[Page S5234]]
awareness of what we can do as individual citizens to protect
ourselves. I met with one of the surveillance entomologists; it is
quite a title. A surveillance entomologist with the mosquito and vector
control unit is a fellow I met who has a wonderful name. His name is
Max Vigilant--what a great name for a surveillance entomologist in
Harris County, TX. He gave me a glimpse of what he and his colleagues
are doing every day to safeguard their communities, but they cannot do
this alone. That is why this funding that has been blocked on numerous
occasions by our Democratic colleagues over ridiculous objections makes
no sense whatsoever.
I happened to see that the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer,
sent out a tweet this afternoon urging Senate Republicans to pass Zika
funding, to which I responded: Well, you blocked it, Chuck--which is
true. And they continue to block it.
It has unfortunately fallen to local leaders such as County Judge Ed
Emmett in Harris County and people like Max Vigilant to take care of
this pending crisis because frankly the dysfunction that is occurring
in Congress is led by the Democratic leader. So I think it is important
to set the record straight. I am grateful we have leaders at the local
and State level who step up when the Federal Government seems incapable
of doing so.
But now it is time for the Federal Government to step up. Why our
Democratic colleagues would risk this horrific birth defect for
political reasons is just lost on me. It makes no sense whatsoever. I
might add that not only is it spread by mosquitoes, there is now some
demonstrated cases or proven cases of sexual transmission of the Zika
virus.
As we know, our friends in Florida in particular have had
domestically transmitted cases of Zika virus and are working hard to
combat the mosquito there and to contain the virus and to prevent this
sort of terrible result, but for the health of our country and for the
protection of all our children, let's get this compromise legislation
done.
No one should doubt the gravity of the threat or the long-term health
consequences of failing to get our work done. So I hope our Democratic
colleagues put their words into action and vote to send additional
resources to those communities across the country that are already
working hard to defeat the Zika virus.
I will conclude by saying, I implore our Democratic colleagues,
including the senior Senator from Nevada, the Democratic leader, to
quit saying things that are demonstrably not true. We have worked hard,
many times over the Democratic leader's objection. I can think of two
of them that stand out in my mind: for trade promotion authority and
for a long-term highway bill, where he did not support it and he
actively tried to block it. So we had to find other Democrats and work
with the White House to get it done. We have been able to pass a number
of important bills but very little with his help because, for some
reason, he seems intent on trying to cause this Congress to be as
dysfunctional as it was when he was the leader, but it is not going to
happen. We are working with people of good faith on both sides of the
aisle and, when we can, with the White House, to do the important work
of the American people.
So with that, I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Major Bipartisan Accomplishments
Addressing Important Issues
First significant education reform since 2002, First major
Trade Promotion Authority bill since 2002, First significant
reforms to Social Security since 1983, First major
environmental law reauthorization (TSCA) since the 1990's,
Addressed the fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico, Acted to preempt
states from imposing costly, unworkable mandates on the food
supply, Protecting the homeland: National Defense
Authorization Act, Cybersecurity, North Korea sanctions.
Ending Management by Crisis/Cliff
First multi-year Highway Bill since 2005--longest since
1998, First time enhanced small business expensing was made
permanent, First time a prohibition on Internet Access Taxes
is made permanent, First time cycle of patching Medicare
Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) since 1997, First major Energy
Bill passes Senate since the Bush Administration, First long-
term FAA Bill in almost a decade.
Helping those Who Need it Most
First major legislation confronting America's opioid crisis
(CARA), Protected Victims of Trafficking, Reauthorized Adam
Walsh.
Conservative Priorities
Bill to repeal Obamacare & defund Planned Parenthood to the
President's desk, Preventing an activist liberal majority on
the Supreme Court, NLRB ambush election CRA, Pain Capable
abortion ban, Sanctuary Cities/Kate's Law, Syrian refugee
pause, Audit the Fed, First time Senate passes measures
overturning Obama-era EPA overreach: Waters of the US
(WOTUS), Carbon rules on existing power plants, Carbon rules
on new power plants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here for another reason, but I am
listening to the distinguished majority whip, the Senator from Texas. I
congratulate him on his remarks and make an observation.
I was once the Republican Governor in a State that had a Democratic
legislature. If I had gone around the State for the first 4 years of my
term announcing that we could not get anything done because I could not
work with the Democratic legislature, I think about half the people
would have said: Well, maybe we need another Governor. Maybe we need
someone who has the capacity to work with people and get results.
So I have never understood the strategy that exists--I hope
temporarily--on the other side of the aisle of telling the American
people the Senate can't function. That does not bring any respect and
credit to this body. It does not help the Democrats to say that. It
does not help the Republicans. All it does is cause the American people
to think that those of us whom they elect are not capable of working
together to get a result, when, in fact, as the Senator from Texas
said, that is not true.
I know for a fact--he cited one example; that is, the bill we passed
last December to fix No Child Left Behind. President Obama signed it.
He said it was a Christmas miracle. It got 85 votes in the Senate. It
was difficult to do, but I have been careful every time I talk about
this to say, it would never have happened had Senator Patty Murray, the
Democratic Senator from Washington, not been willing to work with me
and other Republicans and Democrats on the committee to get a
consensus.
In fact, every single Democrat on the committee worked that way. For
example, the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Franken, held back an
amendment he cared a lot about in committee and agreed to offer it on
the floor because he did not want to hurt the bill.
We passed very important legislation in the Senate. The cyber
security bill is important. It would not have passed without Democratic
support.
The Wall Street Journal said the Education bill that was passed, with
the support of not just the Governors but of the National Education
Association and the American Federation of Teachers--usually Democratic
constituents--it was the most significant devolution of power from
Washington to States in 25 years. I hear from everybody I talk to in
Tennessee--teachers, Governors. They like the bill we passed. They are
proud we did it. They thank us for it.
I have heard from physicians in Tennessee they are glad that for once
now we have fixed the doc fix. In other words, every few months we are
not leaving them in limbo about how they are paid for their Medicare
patients. That has been taken care of, not just by Senator Hatch but
also by Democratic Senator Wyden.
Right out of the box last year, with a new Republican majority, we
passed a trade bill. With whose support? With President Obama's
support. That was a Democratic and Republican effort together. The
chemical safety bill. Several Republican Senators worked hard on that
but so did the Senator from California Mrs. Boxer. Without her
leadership, it never would have passed.
Our legislature in Tennessee has not been able to agree on a long-
term highway funding bill, but in Washington we have, again, because of
cooperation between Republicans and Democrats.
My practice always has been to give people credit when they do
something good because I think often that credit reflects back on the
institution and maybe even on the person giving the credit. That is a
time-honored way of doing business in the Senate.
[[Page S5235]]
I would like to see us get back to that in the next Congress. Let's
recognize the fact that there are a number of things that have not
gotten done. I can cite all the reasons I am unhappy about the fact
that we were able to pass 12 appropriations bill in committee, but we
are blocked from bringing them to the floor by the Democrats.
I would rather talk about the things we accomplished, the things we
have gotten done, and show the American people that when they put us
here, they were making a good decision.
We have had a productive Senate these last 2 years. One newspaper
said it was the most productive we have had since the early 1990s.
Anytime you pass a bill that sends more power from Washington back to
the States that has the support of the Governors, the NEA, and the
American Federation of Teachers at the same time, I think we have done
something pretty good.
I am happy to give credit to the Democratic Senators who voted for
it, because without them and without the President's signature, it
would have not happened. So a little more of that spirit would help
this Senate function and function in the way it traditionally has.
We can finish our work this year, by the way.
We have a mental health bill that Senator Cassidy and Senator Murphy
have worked hard on. We have a 21st century cures bill that has broad
support--19 bipartisan cosponsors. We are moving, next week I think, to
a water resources development bill that Senator Boxer as well as
Senator Inhofe are working on. Why do we not give other Members of the
Senate due credit when they work together and get a result? No wonder
the American people wonder whether we are getting anything done. The
truth is, we are getting quite a bit done, and it is in their
interests, and I am proud of it.
Honoring Officer Kenneth Ray Moats
Mr. President, now, let me take 3 or 4 minutes, because I see other
Senators here, on something that is very important to me, a completely
different subject and important to the people of my hometown of
Maryville, TN.
Last Tuesday, I attended a funeral for Officer Kenny Moats, a
Maryville, Tennessee, police officer who was killed in the line of duty
responding to a domestic disturbance call.
Kenny Moats was a young man with three young children, Mackenzie,
Kamron, and Tyson. His wife, Britteni, and he are in their early
thirties.
Nothing has so touched our community that I can remember in a long,
long time. Maryville, TN, is a small town. Blount County is our county.
Things like this are not supposed to happen where we live.
An officer gets a call, he goes to deal with a domestic
disturbance, and he is ambushed from the house he was called
to by a person who is now in jail.
There was a huge outpouring of support from our community, not just
for Kenny Moats but also for the men and women in blue of the Maryville
Police Department and of the Blount County Deputies who were there as
well.
There was a procession before the funeral. The funeral was at 7
o'clock last Tuesday. The church, Sevier Heights Baptist Church, began
filling up at 4 p.m. It was nearly full with hundreds of people, and
there were more than 1,200 who listened in on a Webcast.
The next day, as I was driving to the airport, I found myself behind
a procession of maybe 200 squad cars from many different police
departments and sheriffs' offices around our State and other places.
There was a flag of honor--the United States flag of honor--that is
flown to honor first responders who are killed in the line of duty. It
was driven from Texas so it could be there to honor Kenny Moats as
well.
So today on the Senate floor, I come simply to express the feelings
of the Senate--I am sure all of us--to his family and to those who
served with him in the Maryville Police Department, to the Blount
County Sheriff's Deputies, to the entire community who have all grieved
over his loss.
After the funeral, the police chief, Tony Crisp, gave a commendation
to Officer Moats. It is called the ``Commendation of Valor.'' It is
awarded to a police officer who demonstrates gallantry and
extraordinary heroism. The act must have been so exceptional that the
rules say that ``the officer while fully aware of the imminent threat
to their own personal safety assumed a voluntary course of action above
and beyond the call of duty, at the risk of his own life.'' This
commendation is the highest decoration conferred by the department.
I was moved, as was everyone in the church last Tuesday night, by
Chief of Police Tony Crisp's reading of the ``Commendation of Valor.''
I would like to offer that ``Commendation of Valor'' to be printed in
the Record and express once again to the family of Kenny Moats and to
the Maryville Police Department and all of the law enforcement officers
in the area, our respect for his life, his bravery and for what they do
to protect us on a daily basis.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Chief Tony Jay Crisp,
Maryville Police Department,
Maryville, TN, August 30, 2016.
Re Commendation of Valor
Officer Kenneth Ray Moats.
Officer Kenneth Ray ``Kenny'' Moats of the Maryville Police
Department and the Fifth Judicial Drug Task Force voluntarily
responded to a domestic dispute call involving a handgun on
the afternoon of August 25, 2016, where the perpetrator had
made threats to kill his father. Officer Moats was assigned
to the Fifth Judicial Drug Task Force when this event
occurred. The response of Officer Moats along with Deputy
Dave Mendez of the Blount County Sheriffs Office, was
predicated by their close proximity to the call, along with a
sense of voluntary service due to their positions as law
enforcement officers.
On the scene, Officer Moats and Deputy Mendez positioned
their vehicle in the driveway of 3111 Kerrway Lane. Upon
their arrival, Officer Moats and Deputy Mendez were able to
make contact with the perpetrator's father, who had been able
to escape from his 625 Alcoa Trail residence, unbeknownst to
the perpetrator, who was still positioned in a makeshift
bunker located in the garage of the residence. Shortly after
speaking with the father, Officer Moats, Deputy Mendez and
the father came under gunfire from the perpetrator's
concealed location within the garage of the residence. At
this time Officer Moats and Deputy Mendez were able to place
the father behind the engine block and front wheel of their
service vehicle and placed themselves between him and the
perpetrator in an attempt to protect the father to the best
of their ability considering the fluidity of the evolving
situation.
The suspect fired multiple shots from his fortified
location, one shot fatally striking Officer Moats. The
suspect was successfully taken into custody, unharmed, after
an exchange of gunfire with Deputy Mendez and Deputy Craig
Flanagin, who had arrived on scene during the perpetrator's
initial assault.
While knowing full well the risk and imminent threat to his
own personal safety, Officer Moats took a voluntary course of
action to confront an armed suspect. Officer Moats ultimately
lost his life in the line of duty.
The quick actions of Officer Moats helped preserve the life
of the perpetrator's father and exemplified behavior above
and beyond the call of duty. Officer Moats' actions and
selfless sacrifice bring great honor upon himself and hold
true to the highest traditions and expectations of the
Maryville Police Department.
Officer Moats demonstrated the extraordinary act of
courage, under dangerous circumstances, gallantly and
heroically giving his life in the service of the City of
Maryville Police Department and the community of Blount
County.
It is my honor and privilege that I posthumously bestow the
highest honor conferred by the Maryville Police Department to
Kenneth Ray ``Kenny'' Moats.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I want to express once again to the family of Kenny
Moats, the Marysville Police Department, and all of the law enforcement
officers in the area, our respect for his life, his bravery, and for
what they do to protect us on a daily basis.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Ending the Threat of Unexploded Ordnance in Laos
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suspect there are not many Americans who
have either visited or know much about Laos. It is a poor country,
geographically about the size of Utah, with less than 7 million people.
It is wedged between Vietnam and Cambodia.
I am sure that back in the 1960s and 1970s, even fewer Americans had
heard of Laos, and virtually no one was aware that the United States
was involved in a war in Laos.
For nearly a decade, from 1964 to 1973, the United States military
unleashed more than 2 million tons of ordnance on Laos during some
580,000 bombing missions. That amounts to a planeload of bombs every 8
minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 years. Laos became,
[[Page S5236]]
and still is, the most heavily bombed country per capita in history.
It was part of a U.S. war in Laos that was never declared or
publicized. It was kept secret. It was done to support the Royal Lao
government against the Pathet Lao and to interdict the Viet Cong along
the Ho Chi Minh Trail, but the bombs destroyed many villages and
displaced hundreds of thousands of Lao civilians.
As is so often the case with landmines, cluster bombs, and other
types of munitions, wars end but the suffering continues. The Vietnam
War ended in 1975. In April of 1975, the Senate Armed Services
Committee, by a one-vote margin, voted to finally end the authorization
for that war. I remember it very well because that was the first vote I
cast as a member of the Armed Services Committee.
The war ended, but the casualties continue from the bombs that failed
to explode. All this ordnance is scattered on or beneath the surface of
the ground. A child is walking to school, a farmer is working in the
field, a woman is collecting water or firewood, and they step on one of
those and they are killed or maimed.
Of the 270 million U.S. cluster bombs that were dropped on Laos
during that period, it is estimated that as many as 80 million did not
detonate, but they remain ready to explode if they are disturbed by an
unsuspecting farmer or child.
Nearly 40 years later, only a small fraction of these munitions have
been destroyed. But progress has been made. Today there are just under
50 new UXO casualties in Laos each year. That is down from more than
300 a decade ago. The majority of the accidents result in death, and
nearly half of the casualties are children.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to show a photograph to my
colleagues on the Senate floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. This photograph of a Laotian girl was taken a number of
years ago. She was actually one of the lucky ones because she survived,
but as you can see her left leg is gone and she uses a homemade crutch.
This is what cluster munitions do to civilians. This happened after the
war ended, and she stepped in the wrong place.
I first became concerned with this problem in the late 1980s, and in
1990 the first assistance from the Leahy War Victims Fund was provided
to help victims of U.S. cluster bombs in Laos. Since then, the Leahy
War Victims Fund, administered by USAID, has provided medical and
related assistance for thousands of Laotians.
Also, as either chairman or ranking member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, I have included funding each
year above the amounts requested by successive administrations,
Democratic and Republican, to support programs to locate and destroy
unexploded ordnance in Laos. Since fiscal year 1995, the United States
has contributed more than $100 million for UXO programs in Laos. There
is $19.5 million for UXO clearance in fiscal year 2016, which has
bipartisan support, including the current chair of our subcommittee,
Senator Graham, and of the House subcommittee, Representative Granger,
and the House ranking member, Representative Lowey. I appreciate their
support for this.
But I have long felt that the United States should do more, and so I
am very pleased that President Obama--the first American President to
visit Laos--announced earlier today that the United States will
increase its support for UXO programs in Laos.
The President pledged $90 million over the next 3 years to continue
clearance, victims' assistance, and risk education programs at the
fiscal year 2015 level of $15 million annually. The balance of $45
million is going to be used to support a national UXO survey. The
survey is extremely important. As I said, Laos is about the size of
Utah. The survey will establish a baseline for contaminated land that
remains to be cleared so the Lao Government and international donors
can plan their future clearance activities and accurately forecast how
much time and money it will take to make Laos UXO impact-free.
Earlier this year, in anticipation of President Obama's trip to Laos,
Tim Rieser from my office met twice with White House staff. They
discussed ways to increase funding for UXO programs in Laos. I applaud
President Obama for publicly recognizing that we have a responsibility
to do more to end this tragic legacy by accelerating our efforts.
I will do all I can to ensure that Congress does its part to
appropriate the funds, so that in the not too distant future all
Laotians can walk in safety.
I think what President Obama is doing is similar to what President
George H. W. Bush did, the first President Bush. Even though we had
fought a war with Vietnam, even though it divided this country, after
the war he decided we needed to do something to begin to reengage with
Vietnam and to show our appreciation for those who had helped us with
MIAs in Vietnam. He worked with Bobby Muller, Tim Rieser, me, and the
Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and used the Leahy War Victims
Fund there.
I visited it at the time and could see what a difference it can make.
I look forward to going to Laos and seeing what a difference the Leahy
Fund and our country's efforts will make there.
Judicial Nominations
Mr. President, as most of us do in August, I traveled around my
State. Vermont--the land area is only the second largest State in New
England, which makes it not that large. I can travel all over it. I
heard from Vermonters all around my home State about the issues that
are important to them.
One thing I heard at almost every stop I made--whether it was for a
Republican group, a Democratic group, or an Independent group, whatever
their age, whatever they did for work, they said: What about the
Supreme Court? Why has the Senate failed to act on the nomination of
Chief Judge Merrick Garland?
I told them that the Senate is returning from the longest recess in
nearly 50 years, and perhaps the Republican leadership was hoping that
Americans had forgotten about the unprecedented obstruction of a
Supreme Court nominee. But I can assure you that Americans--and
certainly Vermonters--have not forgotten. They have not forgotten the
fact that Senate Republicans have refused to hold a hearing for Chief
Judge Garland, and they have not forgotten this unprecedented step in
not allowing a hearing. They have not forgotten that some Senators
still have not even afforded Chief Judge Garland the courtesy of a
meeting. This means the Supreme Court continues to be hindered by the
lack of a full bench of Justices.
Chief Judge Garland's nomination has been blocked by Republicans in
the Senate for 174 days. Nearly half a year has passed since President
Obama nominated Chief Judge Garland to the Supreme Court after Justice
Scalia's untimely death--and Senate Republicans have done nothing about
it. At no time in the history of our country has something like this
been done.
I think the Senate should get to work and fulfill its constitutional
duty of providing advice and consent on the nomination and then have
the guts to vote either yes or no to ensure that we have a fully
functioning Supreme Court. Instead of doing our job, we are voting
``maybe.'' Over the recess, the Majority Leader bragged that one of his
``proudest moments'' was when he unilaterally declared that he would
not allow the Supreme Court vacancy to be filled by President Obama.
Such cynical rhetoric is beyond disappointing. The partisan decision to
refuse any sort of consideration of a highly qualified nominee such as
Chief Judge Garland is an embarrassment. It is not an accomplishment of
which the Senate can be proud.
We must all be reminded that this stubborn refusal to consider Chief
Judge Garland has real world consequences that go beyond politics. The
Republican obstruction of Chief Judge Garland has diminished the
Supreme Court. It has impacted millions of families across the country.
This summer when the Supreme Court completed its most recent term, the
damage became clear. In seven separate cases, the eight remaining
Justices could not serve as the final arbiter of law when they were
unable to issue a final decision on the merits. In another case
involving a death penalty appeal--a matter of life and death--the Court
also deadlocked. Just last week, the Court deadlocked on consideration
of an election law
[[Page S5237]]
case that will impact the constitutional rights of millions of voters
ahead of this year's election.
Notwithstanding that, Senate Republicans, who are in the majority,
have taken this unprecedented step--the only time in the history of the
country. For months, in poll after poll, two-thirds of the American
people want a public hearing for Chief Judge Garland. They continue
their blockade in the hope that their party's Presidential nominee wins
in November. It is disappointing that they continue to hold our highest
Court hostage in support of an intemperate political candidate who has
demonstrated contempt for the rule of law and who has said that some
judges aren't qualified because their forebears were Mexican.
The Republican nominee for president is a man who opposes the bedrock
principle of freedom of the press. He is a man who attacked a Federal
judge based on his race and heritage. He is a man who repeatedly
attacked the gold star parents of a brave, selfless Army captain who
was killed in Iraq while protecting his fellow soldiers. Despite these
and several additional episodes demonstrating that the Republican
nominee represents an unacceptable risk to our country, Senate
Republicans continue to block Chief Judge Garland in the hope that
their nominee is elected and can appoint judges.
The Republican obstruction and disregard for a coequal branch of
government also extends to the lower Federal courts. Since taking over
the majority last year, Senate Republican inaction has allowed judicial
vacancies to more than double and to reach 90 vacancies. This amounts
to more than 10% of the Federal bench. Vacancies have reached what the
Congressional Research Service calls ``historically high'' levels. The
American people are left waiting for justice as the number of vacant
seats pile up. Yet the Republican leadership refuses to allow a vote on
any of the 27 judicial nominees who are already pending on the
Executive Calendar. These nominees are the result of the President
working with home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats, to make a
nomination. Each of these nominees was voted out of the Judiciary
Committee with bipartisan support.
For example, the next Federal district court nominee ready for a vote
is Edward Stanton from Tennessee. Mr. Stanton is the U.S. Attorney for
the Western District of Tennessee. He has the support of both of his
Republican home state senators and was voice voted out of the Judiciary
Committee. Yet this excellent nominee, who has been serving the people
of Tennessee as one of the state's top Federal prosecutors, has been
languishing on the floor since last October. I think both Senators from
Tennessee will agree with me that there is no good reason why Mr.
Stanton should have waited this long for an up-or-down vote.
In 2008, George W. Bush was President. He was in the last year of his
term. Democrats controlled the Senate. I was chairman of the Judiciary
Committee. All Senators, whether Republican or Democratic, actually
worked together to fill these lower court vacancies. In September 2008,
we confirmed 10 judicial nominees in 1 day. We actually did it in
September. And not a single nominee was left on the Executive Calendar.
Of those 10 nominees, nine had support from home state Republican
Senators. I was proud to work with Senators Arlen Specter, Pat Roberts,
Sam Brownback, John Warner, Mel Martinez, Wayne Allard, Bob Bennett,
and Orrin Hatch to confirm nominees to fill vacancies in their states,
and help ensure that the people of those states had access to justice
in our Federal courts.
Today, 13 judicial nominees from States represented by 16 Republican
Senators are ready for confirmation votes. These nominees have been
waiting two, three, even 10 months for a simple vote. I hope that these
16 Republican Senators are able to impress upon their leadership just
how important it is to allow the Senate to do its job and vote on these
nominees who would serve their States. I despair somewhat because even
though they are nominees from their States and are here with their
approval, they are not getting their leadership to move forward, just
as not a single Republican Senator has been able to get their
Republican leadership to allow a hearing and a vote on Judge Garland.
I hope the Republican leadership will reconsider their outright
refusal to allow a hearing and vote for Chief Judge Garland's
nomination on the Supreme Court. This unprecedented, unwarranted stance
has already undermined one term of the High Court, but there is still
time to avoid harming another term.
It is good that we actually show up now and then in Washington to do
our work. There is plenty of time to have a hearing and vote on Chief
Judge Garland's nomination. It is time for the Senate to get back to
work.
I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will realize what
they have done to the Supreme Court and will reverse this. It is able
to be blocked only because all Republicans stood with their leader and
blocked the Supreme Court nominee. I think that is wrong. It has never
been done before. In fact, the last time there was a vacancy--I mention
this for the young pages who are here. They will get a little history
lesson, and it is something the Senators should know. The last time
there was a vacancy in a Presidential election year, there was a
Republican President and Democrats were in control of the Senate. We
confirmed that nominee in the Presidential election year, and the vote
was unanimous.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that
the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, we have a vote coming up at 5:30 on the
Zika crisis. Unfortunately, it is not the vote we voted on in the
bipartisan bill which there were 69 votes in favor of out of 100
Senators and which we then sent to the House. The House then added a
number of political messages that don't have anything to do with Zika,
such as the display of the Confederate flag. There are some people who
want that displayed in certain areas. What does that have to do with
Zika? There are others who definitely don't want that.
Here is another one: Defund Planned Parenthood. Well, there are
clearly people in the House of Representatives who want to defund
Planned Parenthood, but what does that have to do with Zika, save for a
lot of women who are pregnant and who suspect they might have the Zika
virus and might go to a Planned Parenthood clinic? That would suggest
we shouldn't defund Planned Parenthood.
What about cutting back on Medicaid funding for Puerto Rico? Now,
that has something to do with Zika because Puerto Rico and Brazil are
the two places that are the most infected. The CDC estimates that 25
percent of the population of Puerto Rico is infected with the Zika
virus. So why would we want to cut Medicaid funding for Puerto Rico?
Well, that is not only ridiculous, it is silly.
So once again--now multiple times--at 5:30, we will have that vote,
and those who desperately want the funding to meet the emergency crisis
of Zika are being asked to do so by having to take these political
riders that people who are in the extreme spectrum of politics in the
House of Representatives want and think they can force us to take.
Well, it is not going to happen.
Is there a crisis? Well, let me tell you what the latest is in my
State of Florida. There are 67 non-travel-related cases of Zika that
have been established. There are 577 in the State of Florida that are
travel-related. What does that mean? That means that 577 people have
contracted Zika someplace else and they have come to Florida. But they
are there. There are 67--maybe over 70--who have contracted Zika in the
State of Florida.
You can contract it one of two ways. You can contract it from a
mosquito that is infected. The Aedes aegypti strain of mosquito is not
a normal mosquito. He lurks in the back, dark corners of the house. She
can lay her eggs in stagnant water in something as little as a bottle
cap. That is one way
[[Page S5238]]
to get Zika transmitted in Florida, and there have been upwards of 70
of those cases. The other way is by sexual transmission. If one of the
partners has Zika, they can transmit it to the other.
The Zika virus lives in the male for about 2 months. The Zika virus
itself manifests itself like a mild flu. That is not really the
problem; the problem is the over 80 females in Florida who are pregnant
and who also have the Zika virus. Madam President, you have seen the
photos of these terribly deformed children. That is because as the
fetus develops, the virus attacks the brain stem and lessens the
ability of the fetus to develop a normal head and a normal size brain.
As a result, we see these pictures of these terribly deformed babies.
It is such a tragedy not only for the family, but it is a considerable
expense. We have heard some authorities estimate that for the expected
life of a child who is born with microcephaly, it may cost as much as
$10 million. Where is that money going to come from? And in our State
of Florida, there are over 80 females who are pregnant and who are
infected with the Zika virus.
I gave just the statistics of our State. We happen to be ground zero
for the Zika virus. There are 12 flights a day into the Miami
International Airport from Brazil and Puerto Rico. So you see the
opportunity to keep bringing it in just into the State of Florida. It
is elsewhere in the country as well.
Some of our brethren and sistren around here--but especially in the
other body, since we passed the bill here--still have their heads in
the sand and are refusing to recognize that this is an emergency. If
they continue, here is what is going to happen: An infected person
doesn't necessarily stay in one place. They can get on an airplane or
they can get on a train or in a car and go elsewhere in the country.
Elsewhere in the country, if that infected person is bitten by an
aegypti mosquito, now that mosquito is infected, and that mosquito
feeds on an average of four people at one sitting for dinner. So now
the infected mosquito has now infected four more people in another
State because that person traveled to another State.
It ought to be common sense. And how many times have folks like me
and the Senator from Maryland come and pled with our colleagues to stop
this monkey business? Let's stop these political games. Let's stop
these political riders. Let's do what the Senate did 3 months ago when
it passed--bipartisan--by 69 votes $1.1 billion in emergency funding
and sent it to the House and asked the House to stop playing these
games.
So it seems to me we are going to go through another exercise, now
having done so multiple times. We are going to vote this down at 5:30.
What is going to happen next? I hope reasonable heads will prevail.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, I want to thank my colleague from
Florida, Senator Nelson, for his comments in regard to the Zika
funding. As the Senator from Florida, he knows firsthand of the locally
acquired Zika virus in his own State. This is not just a matter of
individuals traveling to other countries and obtaining the Zika virus
and coming back to the United States; we have a locally acquired Zika
virus here in the United States, and Senator Nelson has been an
outspoken leader in the Senate and in the Congress for doing the right
thing.
He was absolutely right when he said that 3 months ago we passed a
compromise bill that would have funded the NIH, USAID, and the other
agencies and what they need for the remainder of the year. It would
have done it in a way that was not all the money I thought or he
thought should be provided, but it was a fair compromise. Instead, of
course, we got a conference report that contained less funds, poison
pills, and issues that are not related to the Zika funding to try to
move forward a pretty extreme agenda. That is not what we should be
doing with the health of the people of this country.
So I take this time to support what Senator Nelson has said, and I
rise to talk about the urgent need for us to provide full funding--full
funding--for our response to the Zika virus.
More than 6 months ago, President Obama submitted a request to
Congress for $1.9 billion in emergency supplemental funding to address
the virus. The request included $1.5 billion for the Department of
Health and Human Services, $335 million for the U.S. Agency for
International Development, $41 million for the Department of State, and
support for several other Federal agencies.
The administration's plan, which had the full weight of the
scientific community behind it, represents a coordinated, well-funded,
whole-of-government approach to combating the virus, with a focus on
prevention, treatment, and research. But instead of listening to the
experts, Republicans offered a Zika conference report that underfunded
critical Federal, State, and global response efforts by more than $800
million and included poisonous policy riders and pay-fors. The Senate
rightly rejected the Zika conference report. We will have another
opportunity, and I just urge my colleagues: Let's stop playing politics
with this and let's bring forward clean funding for the Zika virus.
Many Senators, including myself, were extremely disappointed that we
adjourned for the summer recess before dealing with this public health
emergency.
One thing is clear. Zika will not simply disappear on its own. When
we left town in July, there were approximately 1,100 travel-associated
Zika cases reported in the continental United States, including 31 in
my home State of Maryland and 2,474 locally acquired cases across U.S.
territories. As has been pointed out, people travel and they bring the
virus back here to the United States. It can be transmitted via
mosquitoes here, and it can be locally acquired here. Just 6 weeks
later, the number of travel-associated Zika infections has more than
doubled to 2,500 cases, including 77 cases in Maryland. The number of
locally acquired cases across the U.S. territories has jumped fourfold
in the last 6 weeks to more than 9,000 cases, and, perhaps most
alarmingly, as Senator Nelson pointed out, it is documented here in the
United States. Florida has documented approximately 30 locally acquired
Zika cases.
Zika isn't just a threat to us at home. It also threatens American
service men and women and their families and other personnel who are
serving abroad. Earlier this month, the Department of Defense
officially confirmed that 33 U.S. servicemembers have contracted the
virus abroad. Just last week, officials in Singapore--a country we
haven't even considered in the context of Zika--announced that it had
82 confirmed cases of the virus and had detected local transmission.
We cannot play partisan politics with this virus. Because of Zika,
babies are being born in the United States and throughout Central and
South America with horrible birth defects. A recent study found that
microcephaly is not the only birth defect resulting from this virus. To
date, more than 1,300 pregnant women in the continental United States
and territories are being monitored following laboratory evidence of
possible Zika virus infection. This is according to the Zika Pregnancy
Registry.
Without congressional action to fund our response to the Zika
epidemic adequately, the efforts to better understand and combat this
terrible disease are in danger of being derailed. Let me quote from Dr.
Tony Fauci, the Nation's leading infectious disease expert and the
Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
He is well known by all of us on both sides of the aisle, and he is
frequently used by Democrats and Republicans here as the expert. This
is what he said: ``The vaccine effort will be blunted if not aborted if
we don't have the funding.''
Dr. Fauci also emphasized that other vital HHS and National
Institutes of Health programs will suffer if the agency is forced to
focus funding primarily on vaccine development. Already, the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has diverted funds from
tuberculosis and malaria research to fund Zika efforts. These funds
have not been paid back. Those programs are now suffering.
While Congress has been away, the administration has been forced to
rob vital research programs focusing on Ebola, kidney disease, and
cancer. Earlier this month, Secretary Burwell announced that HHS will
transfer another $81 million from other research
[[Page S5239]]
programs to NIH and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority to continue Zika vaccine development. It is unconscionable
that we are forcing our public health officials to make these kinds of
decisions. Funding of NIH has always been a bipartisan priority, yet
here we are not making the money available, requiring money to be
diverted from other important NIH projects and inadequately funding a
response to the public health emergency of Zika.
Even with those additional funds that were made available, Dr. Fauci
will still need $196 million to fully fund NIH's research of Zika. If
Congress doesn't approve emergency funding for Zika research, NIH's
Zika vaccine trials will once again be interrupted and treatments will
be further delayed. How do we explain this to the millions of Americans
at risk for contracting Zika here at home?
Let me just point out that on August 30, just a couple of days ago,
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control announced that the
agency will run out of funding to fight Zika. We don't have the money
there. It is up to Congress to provide those funds. As we know, from
mosquitoes is how this virus is contracted. The peak mosquito season in
the United States typically lasts through October. If local
transmission spreads in other areas, the CDC is unlikely to have the
resources to respond and send teams to support local and State health
departments. That is what is at risk. Millions of Americans are at
risk.
State and local health departments also bear the brunt of the
consequences of not fully funding Zika response efforts. Our Nation's
health departments are on the front line, fighting the disease while
working on grassroots levels to expand and enhance prevention efforts,
including mosquito surveillance and control, promoting culturally
conscious education programs to raise public awareness, and equipping
our public health care workforce with the most medically accurate
guidelines to help patients make informed decisions about their health
care.
The first order of business for this Congress should be to pass an
adequate and clean Zika funding bill. Neglecting to pass an appropriate
Zika response bill is a failure to expectant mothers who are growing
concerned about the lasting impact that mosquito bites this summer
could have on the health of their unborn children, and it is a failure
to the millions of Americans who trust us to do everything in our power
to safeguard their health and well-being. If we expect to make adequate
progress on combating this virus this year, if we want to protect the
health and welfare of all Americans, Congress must pass a clean, well-
resourced funding bill without delay.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. AYOTTE. 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.
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 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 the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2577, an act making appropriations
for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, John Thune, Orrin G. Hatch,
Jerry Moran, Shelley Moore Capito, Johnny Isakson, Mike
Crapo, Thom Tillis, John Hoeven, Joni Ernst, Steve
Daines, Chuck Grassley, James E. Risch, John Boozman,
Cory Gardner, John Barrasso.
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 the
conference report to accompany H.R. 2577, an act making appropriations
for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2016, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Hoeven) would have voted ``yea''.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Kaine) would vote nay. --
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:--
[Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.] --
YEAS--52 --
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker --
NAYS--46 --
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden --
NOT VOTING--2 -
Hoeven
Kaine
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are
46.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
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 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 the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 524, H.R. 5293, an act making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, James Lankford, John Thune, Orrin G.
Hatch, Jerry Moran, Shelley Moore Capito, Johnny
Isakson, Mike Crapo, John Boozman, Thom Tillis, John
Hoeven, Joni Ernst, David Perdue, Dan Sullivan, Steve
Daines, Chuck Grassley, James E. Risch
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). By unanimous consent, the
mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 5293, an act making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017,
and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Kaine) would vote ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
[[Page S5240]]
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--43
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Hoeven
Kaine
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are
43.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
____________________