[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 135 (Thursday, September 8, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5424-S5444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2848, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2848) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Inhofe) amendment No. 4979, in the nature of 
     a substitute.
       Inhofe amendment No. 4980 (to Amendment No. 4979), to make 
     a technical correction.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the bill we are 
debating, the Water Resources Development Act. I will begin by 
commending the chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe, and the 
ranking member, Senator Boxer, for their leadership on this 
legislation.
  Sometimes it is important to just look at what these bills are doing. 
The Water Resources Development Act--WRDA, we call it here--the title 
says:

       To provide for the conservation and development of water 
     and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army 
     to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and 
     harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

  One of the things I have come to the floor of the Senate to speak on 
a number of times is one of the most important things I think we should 
be doing in the Senate, and that is focusing on our economy. With all 
due respect to the minority leader with regard to the economy in the 
United States, things are not going well. Just over the past two 
quarters, we again had numbers that were dismal by any historical 
measure in the United States. Last quarter, I think we had 1.5 percent 
GDP growth, and the quarter before that, we had 0.8 percent GDP growth. 
As a matter of fact, President Obama will be the first President in 
U.S. history who never hit 8 percent GDP growth in 1 year--never. No 
President has had such a dismal regard in terms of growing the economy.
  What should we be doing? First of all, we need to focus on the 
economy. One of the critical things we should be doing in the 
Congress--one of the things we need to unleash to the private sector is 
better infrastructure for this country. Again, I commend the chairman 
of the EPW Committee and the ranking member because they have been 
leaders on this issue. Last year, we passed the first long-term highway 
bill in many years with the FAST Act. That is infrastructure for the 
country. Right now, hopefully, the Senate will pass the WRDA bill.
  These aren't perfect pieces of legislation. No piece of legislation 
ever is. For example, I think both of them could

[[Page S5425]]

have had provisions that streamlined the permitting process to build 
bridges, roads, and ports. Right now in this country, it often takes 
years to cut through the redtape to get permission from the Federal 
Government to build infrastructure. We need to do a better job on that. 
But the FAST Act and now the WRDA bill are important bills. They are 
important bills to help us grow our economy, and that is why I am 
supporting the WRDA bill we are debating here on the floor.
  There are many provisions in this bill that are going to benefit 
different parts of the country. It will certainly benefit the State of 
Alaska. We are a young State. We are infrastructure poor, for sure, in 
terms of roads, ports, and harbors.
  One provision I wish to highlight is section 7106, the Small and 
Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program. This is a new program that I 
had the opportunity to work on with my team, Senator Inhofe's team, 
Senator Boxer's team, and Senator Wicker. We are all focused on this 
issue. It stemmed from an important topic we were discussing.
  I know my colleague and friend, Senator Peters from Michigan, is 
going to talk about Flint, MI, and what happened there and the topic of 
our aging infrastructure. I certainly respect his advocacy for his 
constituents on this topic.
  We have been talking about our aging infrastructure, but one topic we 
didn't talk a lot about in the Senate--and I certainly tried to raise 
it a lot--is not just aging infrastructure, but how about the topic of 
no infrastructure for communities in the United States? I know a lot of 
Americans don't know this, but there are a lot of communities in our 
great Nation that have no clean water, no sewer, and no toilets that 
flush--entire communities in America. Think about that. They have no 
running water and no toilets that flush. They have what we call in 
Alaska honey buckets. Sounds sweet, of course, but it is not sweet; it 
is literally American citizens having to haul their own waste from 
their house to a lagoon and dump it there. Can you believe that in 
America we have entire communities--in my State over 30--that have that 
problem? What this causes is often very high rates of disease, such as 
skin disease, ear infections, and sometimes at third-world disease 
rates. Again, this is happening in America. I think it is unacceptable, 
and I think most of my colleagues believe it is unacceptable. It is not 
right.
  That is where the new provision, the Small and Disadvantaged 
Communities Grant Program, comes in as part of this bill. It 
prioritizes assistance to small communities throughout our country that 
don't have basic drinking water or wastewater services. This is a 5-
year program that is in the bill. It authorizes $1.4 billion to address 
what I think the vast majority of Americans would agree is an 
unacceptable condition in certain communities throughout our great 
Nation. No American community should have to rely on honey buckets. No 
American community should have Third World disease rates because they 
don't have water and sewer.

  So this WRDA bill is a serious start to address this issue. It is a 
significant challenge. It is not going to be addressed overnight, but I 
think everybody in this Senate can agree we shouldn't have communities 
of hundreds of people in our great Nation who don't have basic services 
that the vast majority of Americans take for granted and assume that 
every community in our great country has, but we don't.
  This is a good start to do what one Governor of Alaska put out as a 
vision and a goal, which is to put the honey bucket in a museum, and 
that is what we are going to try to do beginning with this program.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the WRDA bill that is being 
debated on the floor. I again wish to thank Chairman Inhofe and Senator 
Boxer for their leadership on this important piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Water Resources 
Development Act, known as WRDA as well, which we are now considering 
and we expect to vote on next week.
  This bill will significantly reduce the threat of lead exposure and 
other drinking water contamination for our communities across the 
United States, and it will invest in our aging water infrastructure. I 
am particularly pleased that language addressing the Flint water 
crisis--language I worked on with my colleagues Senator Stabenow, 
Senator Inhofe, Senator Boxer, and many others--is included in the WRDA 
bill before us. Their strong leadership has been invaluable, and I 
thank them for their efforts.
  WRDA provides resources that will improve drinking water 
infrastructure in Flint, MI, and other places where pipes, pumps, and 
treatment plants are crumbling and are woefully out of date. This bill 
also funds health care programs for communities that have been affected 
by lead contamination. Also, all of the direct spending is fully paid 
for.
  Crafting this bill has been a constructive process with input from 
many Senators. There are a number of new, smart policy changes that 
will vastly improve water quality and tackle accessibility challenges. 
For example, this bill delivers funding for programs that will reduce 
lead in drinking water, test for lead in schools and childcare 
facilities, and invest in new water technologies.
  WRDA also authorizes over $12 billion for 29 Corps of Engineers 
projects in 18 States. These projects invest in ports and inland 
waterways, flood control and hurricane protection, and the restoration 
of critical ecosystems.
  This worthy bill has earned the endorsements from a long list of 
critical stakeholders, and I appreciate the bipartisan support that has 
made crafting and considering this bill such a collaborative process.
  While floor time for this measure is certainly long overdue, what 
really matters now is that we have an agreement to move forward. This 
is a fantastic opportunity to help millions of people all across our 
great country.
  We now have a pathway to success if we can move the final vote of 
this legislation next week. I urge my fellow Senators to show the 
American people we can continue to work together to address urgent 
needs across our country, invest in critical infrastructure, and 
deliver much needed--and fully paid for--support for Flint families.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise because of three numbers--three 
simple but important numbers--100, 176, and 9. What do all of those 
have to do with the matter that I think should be before us today? 
Well, it has been 176 days since President Obama did his job under the 
Constitution and nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the DC 
Circuit Court, a consensus candidate, to our Nation's highest Court 
following the untimely passing of Justice Scalia. We have, of course, 
100 Senators whose challenge it is to find ways to work together across 
the aisle and do our job and make progress for our country. It has also 
been 100 years that the U.S. Senate has had a Judiciary Committee--a 
committee on which I have the honor of serving. In the 100 years we 
have had a Judiciary Committee in the U.S. Senate, we have never had 
this situation, where the President does his job under the Constitution 
and nominates an eminently qualified jurist and the Senate Judiciary 
Committee refuses--just refuses--to conduct a hearing, to give a vote, 
to bring it to the floor, and to offer a final vote.
  Obviously, we have disagreements. We have disagreements in this body 
over principles and ideology. That is part of our job to come here 
representing our States and their different priorities and values. But 
to steadfastly refuse for 176 days to even convene a hearing, to even 
begin the process to allow the American people to have some insight 
into the quality and caliber of the man nominated by our President 
strikes me as an unprecedented refusal. It is the first time in a 
century that we have so blatantly had one group in this body refusing 
to proceed.

[[Page S5426]]

  Our window for acting is closing because in just a few weeks, on 
October 3, the Supreme Court's new term begins. So the refusal to act 
and to fill the ninth vacant seat has now had a serious ongoing impact 
on one term of the Supreme Court and now soon on a second term of the 
Supreme Court. We have never had a Supreme Court vacancy go this long 
in modern history.
  In terms of the qualifications of the candidate, let's just take a 
quick look at the public record so far.
  A bipartisan group of former Solicitors General--the lawyers of the 
United States, the persons who represent the United States in court and 
often before the Supreme Court--including Paul Clement, Ted Olson, and 
Ken Starr, have endorsed Judge Garland as ``superbly qualified,'' 
having ``demonstrated the temperament, intellect, and experience to 
serve'' on the Supreme Court. This is not a sharply divisive nominee 
who is pursuing a particular ideological agenda. This is a well-
regarded, well-respected, seasoned senior member of the Federal 
judiciary.
  Top lawyers at 44 U.S. companies have written to the Senate calling 
Judge Garland ``exceptionally well-qualified'' and noting that a 
prolonged vacancy continues to leave important, even vital, business 
issues unresolved before the Court, giving them a lack of 
predictability and leading them to have to make decisions in the 
absence of clear guidance from the Court.
  Just yesterday my colleagues and I joined some of Judge Garland's 
former law clerks in front of the Supreme Court. Sometimes when I have 
had the opportunity to review nominees for Federal judgeships, I like 
to hear from those who previously worked for them. In a letter to the 
Senate, a group of Judge Garland's former clerks noted that ``Chief 
Judge Garland deeply believes that our system of justice works best 
when those who see things differently are able to work together, in a 
collegial manner, to arrive at a just result.''
  Yesterday we heard again firsthand accounts from Judge Garland's 
clerks of his wisdom, mentorship, decency, and commitment to justice. I 
wish we could follow the same approach in the Senate that Judge 
Garland's clerks and other former coworkers said he followed in the 
Department of Justice, as a career prosecutor, and as a judge on the DC 
Circuit--an approach that focuses on collegiality and success.
  I had the honor of meeting with Judge Garland on April 7. In addition 
to his truly impressive intellect and compelling and long judicial 
experience, our conversation revealed to me a person of real character, 
good judgment, deep sensitivity, and thoughtfulness. I wish I had the 
opportunity in front of a public hearing of the Judiciary Committee to 
ask him similar questions that would allow my constituents, the 
President's constituents, and other Members of this body to ask and 
answer important questions before the American people, before a 
committee of this body, and before our colleagues so that we could do 
our job and move forward. Yet we haven't had this hearing--the hearing 
that the American people so need and deserve.
  In May, my Democratic colleagues held a public meeting to try to 
further explore and air Judge Garland's background, where we heard from 
four esteemed, significant, and experienced individuals deeply familiar 
with Judge Garland's experience and character--a former court of 
appeals judge, a former U.S. attorney, a former Cabinet Secretary, and 
a U.S. law professor who clerked for Judge Garland. All four of them 
urged us to move forward and consider his nomination.
  Of those four, Judge Lewis' testimony has particularly stuck with me. 
He was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in September of 1992, 
which, to the best of my recollection, was an election year. He was 
then confirmed by a Democratic-led Senate in October of 1992, less than 
a month before a hotly contested Presidential election. Judge Lewis 
previously came to testify in support of then-Judge Samuel Alito of the 
Third Circuit before his elevation to the Supreme Court. Judge Lewis 
warned us earlier this year in this meeting that what we are doing is 
not only deadlocking the Supreme Court, but it is diminishing it.
  Our system of justice, our Federal courts, and our constitutional 
order are one of America's most precious assets. As a Member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, I have the honor of traveling to other 
countries to represent our country, most often on bipartisan 
delegations, where we urge them to follow our model. Sadly, in too many 
countries I have visited, they cannot depend upon their judiciary to be 
truly independent, to enforce the rule of law, to issue judgments that 
are in keeping with their laws, traditions, or, most importantly, their 
constitution. That is why I am disappointed that we are engaging in 
this unprecedented refusal to follow the rules, to follow the process 
of the Constitution and the Senate and to give this important nominee a 
hearing. That is why I am disappointed by Leader McConnell and Chairman 
Grassley in their refusal to consider Judge Garland's qualifications. 
It is my hope they will reconsider.
  In Chief Judge Garland's nomination, President Obama fulfilled one of 
his most important constitutional responsibilities. Now all 100 
Senators, on this 176th day that we are waiting to fill this 9th 
vacancy on the Supreme Court, must do our job and provide appropriate 
advice and possibly consent to the President's nominee. The Senate has 
a valuable opportunity to show our constituents, the American people, 
and the world that even in the midst of a divisive Presidential 
campaign, our democratic and constitutional system still works. We 
cannot allow yearlong Supreme Court vacancies to become routine, and I 
am deeply concerned about the manner in which the Senate is conducting 
itself and the possibility that this unprecedented inaction will set a 
precedent for future vacancies and send a signal to the world that our 
constitutional order cannot still function.
  I remain hopeful that my colleagues will give serious thought to the 
systemic consequences of what we are doing through our refusal to even 
hold a hearing on Judge Garland. It is long past time to put the good 
of our Nation and the Constitution above the politics of the day and to 
get to work on this confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Delaware for joining me yesterday on the steps of the Supreme Court. We 
had law clerks who had served Judge Garland over the years who spoke in 
glowing terms about the man's ability to serve. In fact, I have not 
heard any detractors or critics who have come forward to suggest that 
the President's nominee is not a serious candidate for this job and one 
who would fill it with great competence.
  Here is the reality of what we face. This is the Executive Calendar, 
which is passed out every single day in the Senate. You will see it on 
the desks of many of my colleagues. In this publication are nominations 
pending before the Senate. There are 27 Federal judicial nominees whose 
nominations are pending before the Senate.
  One nomination that might be of interest to those who are following 
this debate is a nomination that goes back to October of 2015 of Edward 
L. Stanton III, of Tennessee. Now, we know the way the process works is 
that Mr. Stanton's name would not be on the calendar to be considered 
by the Senate were it not for the support of both Senators from 
Tennessee--in this case, both Republican Senators of Tennessee. So we 
have a nomination to fill a vacancy on a Federal district court of 
Tennessee that has been approved by both Republican Senators and 
reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October of last 
year--almost 1 year ago.
  Obviously, a question must be raised. What is wrong with Mr. Stanton? 
What did he do? How did he get approved by both Senators and out of 
committee only to be sitting on the calendar for a year? What he did 
was he ran into a concerted, deliberate plan by Senate Republicans to 
stop filling judicial vacancies under President Barack Obama. There are 
26 like him who have been reported from the committee and sent to the 
calendar.
  Listen, here is the interesting part. Senator Grassley, the chairman 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called a special meeting of the 
committee today to take place right after

[[Page S5427]]

the first vote, right off the floor here. To do what? To add five more 
names to the calendar--five more nominees to the calendar. Why? Is 
there going to be one magic day when all 32 are going to fly out of the 
Senate by a handful of votes?
  Well, nobody said that is going to happen. Unfortunately, it means 
that for each of these nominees--starting with Mr. Stanton, 1 year 
ago--their lives are going to be on hold. They made a good-faith effort 
to step forward to serve the United States of America in the Federal 
judiciary. They submitted themselves to elaborate background checks by 
the FBI and other agencies, and then, when reported by the White House, 
they went through further background checks by the staff of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  Each of these individuals went through a hearing where, under oath, 
they were asked questions. Each of them, in many instances, was asked 
to present additional support materials for their nomination. They did 
it all. They did everything that was asked of them, and they sit on the 
calendar. What is this all about?
  Well, I would say Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans are not 
very veiled in concealing their strategy. They don't want a Democratic 
President to fill a vacancy on the Federal bench, despite the fact that 
the people of the United States chose President Barack Obama by an 
overwhelming margin, despite the fact that he continues to have the 
powers of office. They want to thwart and stop that authority of the 
President to fill Federal judicial vacancies. Their hope is that their 
favorite candidate, their beloved nominee Donald Trump, will pick the 
next set of Federal judges. Can you imagine?
  What really is behind this is not just to give Mr. Trump his moment 
to pick the nominees and make nominations to pick the future members of 
the judiciary but really to serve a specific political agenda. The 
Senate Republicans are afraid of what would happen to a Federal court 
system if independent jurists served. They want their friends instead. 
They want those who will lean in their direction when it comes to the 
important issues of corporate interests, Wall Street banks, and the 
Koch brothers. The courts mean an awful lot to companies and wealthy 
people, and they want to make sure the right people are sitting there 
making decisions when it comes to the future.
  So 27 nominees sit on the Senate calendar, and the Senate Republicans 
refuse to call them for a vote. Senator Grassley on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee wants to add five more to the list today. Why? Why 
are we doing this to these poor people, putting them through this 
charade of nomination when there is no intention to fill the vacancy? 
Incidentally, among the vacancies currently pending on the Federal 
judiciary--we are now up to 90 vacancies across the United States--a 
third of them are in emergency situations, which means that the courts 
cannot properly function because of the vacancies on the Federal bench. 
Despite this, the Senate Republicans refuse, being in control of the 
Senate, to call these names for consideration. They know they will 
pass. They are not controversial. They went through the committee, and 
they languish on the calendar because of this political decision.
  I wish that were the worst example, but it is not. The worst example 
relates to the 176 days pending since the nomination of Judge Merrick 
Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit. He has had his name before the Senate in nomination 
and has not been called for a hearing or a vote.
  Each of us, when we become a Senator, walks down this aisle and over 
to the side where the Vice President of the United States administers 
an oath of office. We don't take oaths lightly. For most of us, there 
are only a handful of moments in our lifetime where we raise our hand 
and swear that we are going to do certain things. In this case, we 
stand there in the well of the Senate and swear to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States of America. You might think it is a 
formal declaration--and it is--but it is also a meaningful 
declaration. This country was riven and also destroyed because of a 
dispute over our Constitution which led to a civil war. So we make 
certain, if you walk down this aisle and put up your hand over there, 
one hand on the Bible, one hand reaching to the heavens, taking an oath 
to uphold the Constitution, we are serious about it.

  Yet, when it comes to filling this Supreme Court vacancy, the 
Constitution is explicit about our responsibility in the Senate. 
Article II, section 2, speaks to the President's constitutional 
responsibility--responsibility--to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. Why did the Founding Fathers make it a responsibility and a 
mandate? Because they knew what would happen if vacancies on the Court 
could be used for political purposes, if leaving slots vacant on the 
Court advantaged one political party or the other.
  So they came forward and said: It is all about a full set of Justices 
and the President's responsibility to nominate those who would fill the 
vacancies. The death of Antonin Scalia created a vacancy. The Court 
across the street now has eight Justices. They have already been 
hamstrung by the fact that one Justice is missing and they were unable 
to reach a decision in critical cases.
  So the President met his responsibility 176 days ago and sent the 
nomination of Merrick Garland to be considered by the Senate. I don't 
use this term loosely. I have looked it up. I have researched it. I 
want to say explicitly, the Senate of the United States of America has 
never, never in its history since the Judiciary Committee has been in 
business, never once refused a Presidential nominee a hearing. It has 
never happened.
  Oh, I know, some of my critics on the other side will say: Well, if 
the shoe were on the other foot, if it were a Democratic Congress and a 
Republican lameduck President, you would do the same. Wrong. In recent 
memory, in recent history, when President Ronald Reagan was in the last 
year of his term and there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, he sent 
the nomination of Anthony Kennedy to a Democratic-controlled Senate, 
and instead of refusing to do our job, the Democratic Senate approved 
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Reagan nominee, in the last year of the 
Reagan Presidency.
  But Senator Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans have said no. 
No, we are just not going to do it. We don't care if the Constitution 
requires it. We don't care if we have taken an oath to live up to the 
Constitution. We don't care if it has never been done before in the 
history of the Senate. We are going to stop this President from filling 
this Supreme Court vacancy because our friends, our special interest 
groups, corporate interests, Wall Street banks, and the Koch brothers, 
don't want to see an Obama nominee filling this vacancy.
  It is a shame. Merrick Garland is an extraordinarily gifted jurist. 
He is a son of Illinois--maybe I come to it with some prejudice--born 
in Chicago, raised in Lincolnwood, valedictorian of his high school, 
Niles West. He recently gave a graduation speech to that school.
  His father ran a small business. His mother worked as the director of 
volunteer services at Chicago's Council for Jewish Elderly. Judge 
Merrick Garland is an intelligent man. He earned his undergraduate and 
law degrees from Harvard, clerked for distinguished jurists Henry 
Friendly and William Brennan. He spent years in public service as a 
prosecutor at the Department of Justice. He led the investigation of 
the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He served as a judge on the DC Circuit 
since 1997. Incidentally, he was confirmed by the Senate with a broad 
bipartisan vote for that position.
  Throughout his career, he has won praise from across the political 
spectrum for his fairness, his brilliance, his work ethic, and his 
judgment. The American Bar Association took a look at this nominee and 
said: He is unanimously ``well qualified'' to serve on the Supreme 
Court--unanimously. This is a man who has given decades of his life to 
public service, and the Senate Republicans will not even give him a 
hearing. They will not give him a moment under oath to answer 
questions.
  The way the Senate Republican majority has handled this Supreme Court 
vacancy is shameful. Since Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely passing 
last February, the Supreme Court has had to operate with eight 
Justices. As

[[Page S5428]]

President Ronald Reagan said back in 1987, ``Every day that passes with 
the Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in 
that crucially important body.''
  During the last Supreme Court term, the Court was unable to reach a 
final decision on the merits seven times because the Justices were 
deadlocked 4 to 4. Major legal questions have been left unresolved. On 
September 26, the Court will hold its first conference of its new term, 
still with only eight Justices, though the Senate has had plenty of 
time to fill a vacancy, but the Senate Republicans have refused to do 
their job.
  Unlike any other Senate in the history of the United States, in the 
history of this country, the Senate Republicans have refused a 
Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court a fair hearing--any hearing--
and a vote. It is shameful. The Senate is now failing under the 
Constitution to do its job. The Senate Republicans, by design, are 
responsible.
  Judge Garland, the Supreme Court, and the American people deserve 
better. The Senate should give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote.


                           Zika Virus Funding

  Mr. President, when they write the history of this Republican-
controlled Senate, they will surely note that we are a little over 2 
weeks away from a deadline, when we were supposed to have a budget and 
appropriations bills, and we don't have them.
  That has happened before. It is not the first time in recent memory. 
We have been tied up in knots before, but that is a reality. Despite 
promises to the contrary, we have not passed an appropriations bill. I 
might say in fairness, in defense, of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee and the Republican chairman, Thad Cochran, as well as the 
ranking Democrat, Barbara Mikulski, we did our job.
  We held hearings on the important bills. They are ready for 
consideration on the floor. What has stopped their consideration is the 
Republican House of Representatives and Senator McConnell. The 
Republicans in the House just cannot reach an agreement. That is why 
John Boehner left. That is why Paul Ryan's hair is turning gray, trying 
to deal with a handful of tea party Republicans who would rather see 
the whole Congress grind to a halt and the government shut down.
  So when it comes to passing appropriations and spending bills, there 
is not much to brag about on the Republican side of the aisle. When it 
comes to the Zika virus in February, President Obama said: Be careful. 
We have a public health crisis looming. This mosquito we have 
discovered can cause extraordinary damage to pregnant women and to the 
babies they carry.
  So he asked us, in February of this year, 7 months ago, he asked us 
for $1.8 billion so they could stop the spread of this mosquito virus 
and start the research for a vaccine to protect everyone. He said it 
was an emergency. Obviously, the Senate Republicans did not care. In 
May, we finally reached an agreement to a reduced amount, $1.1 billion, 
passed it out of the Senate. I believe the vote was 89 to 8, a strong 
bipartisan rollcall.

  Many of us breathed a sigh of relief. It was before the mosquito 
season really got in full force in most of the country. It looked like 
we were going to respond to the President's call for emergency funding. 
Then what happened? It went over to the House of Representatives, and 
instead of taking the clean, bipartisan bill that passed the Senate, 
no, they decided they would embellish it with political poison pill 
riders. Listen to one of them. They said women who were concerned about 
family planning and their pregnancies because of this issue could not 
seek family counseling and women's health care at Planned Parenthood 
clinics. Two million American women used those clinics last year. The 
Republicans are now saying: Sorry. As important and popular as they may 
be, we are going to prohibit any money being spent for women to turn to 
these clinics for family planning advice because of the Zika virus.
  They went further. They took $500 million out of the Veterans' 
Administration that was going to be used to process claims to get rid 
of the backlog. No, they will take $500 million away from that and put 
it into the Zika virus. Then, to add insult to injury, the Republicans 
in the House insisted on a provision that would allow them to display 
the Confederate flag at U.S. military cemeteries.
  What we had was a simple, straightforward, clean bill to deal with 
the public health crisis turned into a political grab bag. They sent it 
over here knowing it would fall and it did, repeatedly.
  Now the question is, whether Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans 
will follow the lead of House Republican Members who are telling them: 
Enough. Members from Florida--Congressman Yoho, for example--a 
Republican Member says: Let's clean up this bill and do something about 
Zika. Why is he saying that? Because the Centers for Disease Control 
has done something extraordinary, something I don't think has ever been 
done before. They have warned Americans not to travel to parts of the 
United States, certain sections of Florida, where the Zika mosquito is 
showing up.
  Congressmen from Florida, including Republicans, have said: Enough of 
the political games. Pass the clean bill funding Zika. Senate 
Republicans refuse. They will not move forward on it. We are stuck, 
stuck with the situation that we can cure and should cure on a 
bipartisan basis.
  My colleagues from Louisiana come to tell us about the terrible 
devastation that has taken place in their State because of the 
flooding, national disaster, loss of life, damage to property. It is 
not the first time we have had a situation this serious--Katrina and 
others come to mind--but it is a reminder, when it comes to natural 
disasters or public health disasters, for goodness' sake, isn't that 
where politics should end and people should, on a bipartisan basis, set 
out to solve a problem instead of create a problem?
  So now it is up to Speaker Ryan and it is up to Senator McConnell to 
show real leadership in the Senate. I know they are not going to back 
off on these judges. They have dug in real hard on those, but I would 
hope, when it comes to passing spending bills in a sensible fashion and 
funding our efforts to stop the spread of this Zika virus, that we will 
do something meaningful.
  They estimate, by the end of this year, one out of four people in 
Puerto Rico will have been infected by this virus. By the end of next 
year, it will be closer to 90 percent. It is a serious public health 
crisis. It is one we need to do something about. Ultimately, we need a 
vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control announced this week that they 
brought to a halt their efforts. They have run out of money. Now it is 
up to Congress. It is up to the Senate. It is up to the Republican 
leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again on the 
topic of the vacant seat on our Supreme Court. I would also echo 
Senators Durbin's comments about the need to move immediately on the 
funding on Zika. We of course passed something here that had clear 
bipartisan support. Now we wait to get this done again and to not 
politicize this incredible public health threat.
  Today I am focusing my remarks on the damage to our system of 
governance that is being done by leaving a seat open on our Nation's 
highest Court. For years, we have seen some fraying of our democracy, 
the polarization, but the citizens of America have always believed in 
an independent Supreme Court. We have seen some political creep, as we 
know, into our judicial selection process. Nonetheless, the citizens of 
America have respected the rule of law. They continue to do that.
  When our Founding Fathers sat down to sketch out the framework of our 
Nation, they did not issue decrees. No, they set up a system of 
governance with three equal branches. The Federalist Papers outline 
this balance of paper in detail. Alexander Hamilton once wrote about 
this balance. He wrote:

       The regular distribution of power into distinct 
     departments; the introduction of legislative balances and 
     checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding 
     their offices during good behavior. . . . They are means, and 
     powerful means, by which the excellences of republican 
     government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or 
     avoided.


[[Page S5429]]


  Well, that is not going to happen if we have a Court that cannot 
fully function. We have, in the most recent term, less cases brought up 
before the Court because we don't have a full composite of Justices. We 
have had split decisions. Think back in time. What if we only had eight 
Justices and a 4-to-4 decision on Bush v. Gore or in the Miranda case 
or Brown v. Board of Education?
  Actually, an interesting fact is, the Brown decision may not have 
happened if it were not for the swift filling of a Supreme Court 
vacancy. Chief Justice Vincent died just before the reargument of the 
case. By most accounts, the eight-person Court was split on the issue. 
Had this Senate refused to give Earl Warren a hearing and a vote, we 
would not have had the decision, but the Senate allowed for a vote and 
Chief Justice Warren was confirmed, the Brown decision was handed down, 
and our Nation has seen great progress toward equality as a result of 
that decision.
  In fact, the process in the Senate for the last 100 years is that the 
Judiciary Committee holds hearings. In the few instances where they 
have not, that is because those nominees were confirmed in 11 days or 
less. Since 1916, every nominee has been handled in that fashion. 
Justice Kagan has said the current Justices on the Court are doing 
everything they can to build a consensus and avoid a 4-to-4 split. 
While I appreciate that effort, that is just not how it is supposed to 
work. We want laws to rise or fall because the Supreme Court has 
decided them, not because of a 4-to-4 split.
  Look at the nominee we have. He is someone who has had broad support 
on both sides of the aisle. Senator Hatch once came before this body 
and said he challenged everyone to come to the floor to say something 
negative about Judge Garland. Judge Garland oversaw both the Oklahoma 
City bombing case and the Unabomber case at nearly the same time. He 
earned a 76-to-23 vote in this Chamber for his last job, and he is 
someone who has routinely received positive comments from judges and 
commentators from the other side of the aisle who basically have 
acknowledged he is someone who looks for that common ground.
  I have no doubt he would excel in his hearing, but right now we are 
not going to know that.
  I just ask my colleagues: What are they afraid of? Are they afraid 
the citizens of America will be able to see this fine judge and how 
smart he is or how he answers questions? As my friend Senator Angus 
King has said, are they afraid they would like him too much?
  I do not understand why we simply cannot have a hearing. I had to put 
myself--I think, well, what would happen if we had a Republican 
President and a Democratic Senate, what would I do? I have clearly 
thought this through, as a lawyer and as someone who is a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, and know I would say we have to have a hearing 
because the Constitution says our duty is to advise and consent. It 
doesn't say advise and consent after a Presidential election or 
whenever it is convenient. It says advise and consent.
  I am hopeful my colleagues are listening to us, that they will find 
it within themselves to allow this great judge, this great jurist a 
hearing. I was there in the Rose Garden when President Obama nominated 
him. I saw him tear up, and I thought to myself, not only is this a 
monumental moment in his own life, to be nominated for the highest 
Court of the land, but perhaps he was tearing up because he knew the 
burden he was carrying, one man, on his shoulders, the burden of 
carrying forward the American tradition of an independent judiciary, 
this simple concept that politics isn't supposed to dictate our 
processes, that our Founding Fathers set out three co-equal branches of 
government. Our job in the Senate is to make sure the judiciary is 
funded so it can function, our job is to pass laws they then look at 
and apply when there are questions about those laws, and our job is to 
advise and consent on nominees to the Federal judiciary.
  So let's get our act together and do our job.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tribute to Patty Wetterling

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to take just a few minutes to 
give a brief tribute to someone I know well, Patty Wetterling, and to 
her family. They are longtime Minnesota residents. Patty and I know 
each other well. We actually ran against each other for the Senate in 
2005, and out of that experience we came to be very good friends.
  Patty Wetterling is a woman of unbelievable courage. Her son Jacob 
was kidnapped at gunpoint 27 years ago. All that time she has kept the 
hope alive that he would be found. She knew it was a small hope, but, 
as we know, there have been cases in America where missing children are 
found 10 years, 20 years later, and that is what she was hoping for.
  This past week, those dreams were dashed, as a very evil man came 
forward to law enforcement--he was already in captivity--and admitted 
to this crime and brought law enforcement to Jacob's remains.
  The story, which I will not put on the record, is a horrific one, but 
I think the most poignant moment in this horrible story were Jacob's 
last words, which were: What did I do wrong?
  This little boy did nothing wrong. He was an 11-year-old riding his 
bicycle in his town, in a very rural part of Stearns County, MN, where 
things are supposed to be safe. Well, they weren't safe that day. The 
amazing part of this story is not only the memory of this little boy, 
but it is how for years Patty Wetterling and her family have turned 
their grief into action.
  Understandably, many people try to hang tight to their family. She 
has done that. She has been a great mom, but she went beyond that. She 
served on the board of directors of the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children. She has been a nationally recognized educator on 
child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children. She and her 
husband cofounded the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center to educate 
communities about child safety issues and to prevent child exploitation 
and abduction. She served for more than 7 years as director of the 
Sexual Violence Prevention Program for the Minnesota Department of 
Health. She was named one of the ``100 Most Influential Minnesotans of 
the Century'' by one of our newspapers.
  She has kept this hope alive, but what is amazing about it is, she 
has saved other lives. A number of bills, legislation--including the 
sexual predator registration--have come out of the work, better 
collaboration between local and Federal law enforcement. She has saved 
so many lives in Jacob's memory.
  Senator Franken and I are going to be putting a resolution on the 
record today on this topic, but I just wanted to take a moment 
personally to recognize Patty for her strength, her courage, and her 
grace.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 
p.m. today the Senate proceed to executive session for the 
consideration of Calendar No. 685; that the Senate vote on the 
nomination without intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; 
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and 
the Senate then resume legislative session without any intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S5430]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Remembering Phyllis Schlafly

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to honor the first lady of the 
conservative movement. On Sunday, surrounded by her loving family, 
Phyllis Schlafly passed away. Few will ever match Phyllis's conviction 
and tenacity. She literally stood on the frontlines, fighting against 
forces that threatened to upend families and sought to undermine the 
Judeo-Christian values upon which our great Nation was founded.
  Without question, Phyllis Schlafly loved America. Her contributions 
to our country went far beyond her work exposing the illogic of 
liberalism. Phyllis led the charge to make the Republican Party pro-
life and defended the sanctity of marriage. She was a passionate 
defender of U.S. sovereignty and championed Reagan's policy of ``peace 
through strength'' during a crucial time in American history. The women 
and men of Eagle Forum, which she founded, are incredible patriots and 
grassroots activists who today, along with all of us, are mourning 
Phyllis's passing.
  Our Nation continues to face many dangers, both foreign and domestic, 
and we need more individuals, more leaders such as Mrs. Schlafly, who 
are not afraid to stand and fight for the freedoms so richly bestowed 
upon us by our Creator. May she rest in peace.


                              The Internet

  Mr. President, today our country faces a threat to the Internet as we 
know it. In 22 short days, if Congress fails to act, the Obama 
administration intends to give away control of the Internet to an 
international body akin to the United Nations.
  I rise to discuss the significant, irreparable damage this proposed 
Internet giveaway could wreak not only on our Nation but on free speech 
across the world. So today I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to join me, along with Senators Lankford and Lee, along with the 
Presiding Officer and his leadership, along with Congressman Sean Duffy 
to stop the Obama administration from relinquishing U.S. control of the 
Internet.

  Many have stood with us in both Chambers, and we are very grateful 
for Senators Thune, Grassley, Burr, Cotton, Sasse, Moran, Sessions, and 
Rubio, along with a number of our colleagues in the House, including 
Congresswoman Blackburn and Congressmen Duffy, Barton, Brady, Burgess, 
Culberson, and Flores. And I urge even more of my colleagues to come 
together and stand united to stop the Obama administration's Internet 
giveaway.
  The Internet has been one of those transformational inventions that 
has changed how we communicate, how we do commerce, how we live our 
lives. For many, especially young people, it is hard to even imagine 
life before the Internet. Look at what the Internet has done. It has 
created an oasis of freedom for billions around the world.
  One of the great problems with someone trying to start a business is 
what is known as the barrier to entry. What the Internet has done is 
dramatically reduce the barriers to entry for anyone who wants to be an 
entrepreneur. If you are a man or a woman or even a boy or a girl 
somewhere across the country or around the world and you have an idea, 
a service you want to sell or a good you want to make, you can put up a 
Web site, and instantly you have international marketing capacity. You 
have a portal to communicate with people. Anyone can go online and 
order whatever your good or service is. And between that and FedEx or 
UPS, you can ship it anywhere in the world. That is an extraordinary 
and transformational ability.
  That freedom of the Internet--that you don't have to go and get 
anybody's approval; you don't have to go to a board for business 
authorization if you want to create a new business--is democratizing in 
that effect. The Internet empowers those with nothing but hope and a 
dream to be able to achieve those ambitions.
  Right now the proposal of the Obama administration to give away 
control of the Internet poses a significant threat to our freedom, and 
it is one many Americans don't know about. It is scheduled to go into 
effect on September 30, 2016--22 days away, just over 3 weeks.
  What does it mean to give away control of the Internet? From the very 
first days of the Internet, when it was developed here in America, the 
U.S. Government has maintained its core functions to ensure equal 
access to everyone, with no censorship. The government role isn't to 
monitor what we say or censor what we say; it is simply to ensure that 
it works--that when you type in a Web site, it actually goes to that 
Web site and not somewhere else. Yet that can change.
  The Obama administration is, instead, pushing through a radical 
proposal to take control of Internet domain names and give it to an 
international organization--ICANN--which includes 162 foreign 
countries. If that proposal goes through, it will empower countries 
like Russia, like China, like Iran to be able to censor speech on the 
Internet--your speech. Countries like Russia and China and Iran are not 
our friends, and their interests are not our interests.
  Imagine searching the Internet and instead of seeing your standard 
search results, you see a disclaimer that the information you were 
searching for is censored--that it is not consistent with the standards 
of this new international body and does not meet their approval. If you 
are in China, that situation could well come with the threat of arrest 
for daring to merely search for such a thing that didn't meet the 
approval of the censors. Thankfully, that doesn't happen in America. 
But giving control of the Internet to an international body with Russia 
and China and Iran having power over it could lead to precisely that 
threat. And it is going to take Congress, acting affirmatively, to stop 
this.
  If we look at the influence of foreign governments within ICANN, it 
should give us greater and greater concern. For example, ICANN's former 
CEO, Fadi Chehade, left ICANN to lead a high-level working group for 
China's World Internet Conference. Mr. Chehade's decision to use his 
insider knowledge of how ICANN operates to help the Chinese Government 
and their conference is more than a little concerning. This is the 
person who was leading ICANN--the body we are being told to trust with 
our freedoms. Yet this man has gone to work for the China Internet 
conference, which has rightly been criticized for banning members of 
the press, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.
  Even reporters we may fundamentally disagree with have a right to 
report and to say what they believe. Yet the World Internet Conference 
banned them. They said ``We do not want these reporters here,'' 
presumably because they don't like what they are saying. That led 
Reporters Without Borders to demand an international boycott of the 
conference, calling China the ``enemy of the Internet.''
  If China is the enemy of the Internet, do we want the enemy of the 
Internet having power over what we are allowed to say, what we are 
allowed to search for, what we are allowed to read online? Do we want 
China and Russia and Iran having the power to determine that if a Web 
site is unacceptable, it is taken down?
  I would note that once this transition happens, there are serious 
indications that ICANN intends to seek to flee U.S. jurisdiction and to 
flee U.S. laws. Indeed, earlier this summer ICANN held a global 
conference in Finland in which jurisdiction shopping was part of their 
agenda--trying to figure out which jurisdiction they should base 
control of the Internet out of around the globe. A representative of 
Iran is already on record stating: ``[W]e should not take it [for] 
granted that jurisdiction is already agreed to be totally based on 
U.S. law.''

  Our enemies are not hiding what they intend to do. Not only is there 
a concern of censorship and foreign jurisdiction stripping U.S. law 
from authority over the Internet, there are also real national security 
concerns. Congress has received no assurances from the Obama 
administration that the U.S. Government will continue to have exclusive 
ownership and control of the dot-gov and dot-mil top-level domains in 
perpetuity, which are vital to our national security. The Department of 
Defense, the Army, the Navy, the Air

[[Page S5431]]

Force and the Marines all use the dot-mil top-level domain. The White 
House, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security all use 
dot-gov.
  The only assurance ICANN has provided the Federal Government 
regarding dot-gov and dot-mil is that ICANN will notify the government 
in the future if it decides to give dot-gov or dot-mil to another 
entity. So if someone is going to the IRS--or what you think is the 
IRS--and your comfort is that it is on a dot-gov Web site so you know 
it must be safe, you may instead find yourself victim of a foreign 
scam, a phishing scam or some other means of fraud, with no basic 
protections.
  Congress should not sit by and let this happen. Congress must not sit 
by and let censorship happen. Some defenders of the Obama proposal say: 
This is not about censorship; it is about handing control to a 
multistakeholder unit. They would never dream of censoring content on 
the Internet.
  Well, recently, leading technology companies in the United States--
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft reached an agreement with the 
European Union to remove ``hate speech'' from their online platforms 
within 24 hours. Giant U.S. corporations are signing on with the 
government to say: We are going to help you censor speech that is 
deemed unacceptable.
  By the way, we have seen that the definition of ``hate speech'' can 
be very malleable, depending upon what norms are trying to be enforced. 
For example, the Human Rights Campaign, which is active within ICANN, 
has featured the Family Research Institute, the National Corporation 
for Marriage, the American Center for Law and Justice, and other 
conservative and religious groups in a report entitled ``The Export of 
Hate.''
  We are facing the real possibility of an international body having 
the ability to censor political speech if it is contrary to the norms 
they intend to enforce. In their view it is hate to express a view 
different from whatever prevailing orthodoxy is being enforced.
  It is one thing dealing with government organizations that try to 
stifle speech. That is profoundly inconsistent with who we are as 
Americans. But to hand over control of the Internet and to potentially 
muzzle everybody on the Internet is to ensure that what you say is only 
consistent with whatever is approved by the powers that be, and that 
ought to frighten everyone.
  There is something we can do about that. Along with Congressman Sean 
Duffy in the House, I have introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom 
Act, which, if enacted, will stop the Internet transition and it will 
also ensure the U.S. Government keeps exclusive ownership and control 
of the dot-gov and dot-mil top-level domains. Our legislation is 
supported by 17 key groups around the country--advocacy groups, 
consumer groups--and it also has the formal endorsement of the House 
Freedom Caucus.
  This should be an issue that brings us all together--Republicans, 
Democrats--all of us coming together. There are partisan issues that 
divide us. There always will be. We can have Republicans and Democrats 
argue until the cows come home about the top marginal tax rate, and 
that is a good and healthy debate to have. But when it comes to the 
Internet, when it comes to basic principles of freedom--letting people 
speak online without being censored--that ought to bring every one of 
us together.
  As Members of the legislative branch, Congress should stand united to 
rein in this President, to protect the constitutional authority 
expressly given to Congress to control disposition of property of the 
United States. To put the matter very simply: The Obama administration 
does not have the authorization of Congress, and yet they are 
endeavoring to give away this valuable, critical property--to give it 
away with no authorization of law.
  I would note that the government employees doing so are doing so in 
violation of Federal law, and they risk personal liability in going 
forward contrary to law. That ought to trouble all of us. Who in their 
right mind looks at the Internet and says: You know what we need? We 
need Russia to have more control over this. What is the thought process 
behind this, and what does it gain? What does it gain? When you look at 
the Internet, the Internet is working. The Internet works just fine. It 
lets us speak, it lets us operate, and it lets us engage in commerce. 
Why would this administration risk giving it up?
  Mr. President, when you and I were children, Jimmy Carter gave away 
the Panama Canal. He gave it away, even though Americans had built it. 
Americans had died building the Panama Canal, but he nonetheless gave 
it away. For some reason President Obama seems to want to embody the 
spirit of Jimmy Carter, and instead of giving away the Panama Canal, he 
wants to give away the Internet. We shouldn't let him.
  The U.S. Constitution prohibits transferring government property to 
anyone without the authorization of Congress. Article IV, Section 3 of 
the Constitution explicitly requires congressional authorization.

  For several years now, Congress has also prohibited the 
administration from using any funds to ``relinquish'' control of the 
Internet. Yet, in typical lawless fashion, the Department of Commerce 
has been racing to prepare to relinquish control by September 30--
directly violating Federal law and using taxpayer funding to do so. The 
administration's continued contempt for the law and the Constitution, 
while, sadly, not surprising anymore, is particularly dangerous here, 
as it is contempt in service of undermining Internet freedom for 
billions of people across the world.
  With the Federal Government maintaining supervision over ICANN and 
domain names, it means the First Amendment is protected. Other 
countries don't have First Amendment protections. Other countries don't 
protect free speech the way America does. And America does that for the 
world, protecting free speech on the Internet by preventing the 
government from engaging in censorship. We shouldn't muck it up.
  If the Obama administration jams this through, hands control of the 
Internet over to this international organization, this United Nations-
like unaccountable group, and they take it overseas, it is not like the 
next President can magically snap his or her fingers and bring it back. 
Unscrambling those eggs may well not be possible. I suspect that is why 
the Obama administration is trying to jam it through on September 30--
to get it done in a way that the next President can't undo it, that the 
Internet is lost for generations to come.
  To stop the giveaway of our Internet freedom, Congress should act by 
continuing and by strengthening the appropriations rider in the 
continuing resolution we will be considering this month and by 
preventing the Obama administration from giving away control of the 
Internet.
  Next week I will be chairing a hearing on the harms to our freedom 
that come from the Obama administration's proposal to give away the 
Internet. President Ronald Reagan stated:

       Freedom is never more than one generation away from 
     extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the 
     bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on 
     for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset 
     years telling our children and our children's children what 
     it was once like in the United States when men were free.

  I don't want us to have to tell our children and our children's 
children what it was once like when the Internet wasn't censored, 
wasn't in the control of foreign governments. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to come together, to stand together and ensure 
that we protect freedom of the Internet for generations to come. It is 
not too late to act. And I am encouraged by the leadership of Members 
of both Houses of Congress who stand up and protect the freedom of the 
Internet going forward.
  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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        ITT Tech and the GI Bill

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, here in this Chamber and in this country 
of ours, we often talk about the dream of

[[Page S5432]]

a college education. A college education opens doors, leads to a higher 
quality of life. A college education can boost our wages and our 
incomes. A college education is a first-class ticket to the middle 
class.
  We often talk about the young people in our communities who have made 
that dream a reality, and they may not have come from much. Their 
parents saved what they could. In many cases, they are the first in 
their family to go to college. They took out loans, they worked nights 
in many cases and on weekends, they hit the books. In many cases, they 
graduated with honors. They got good-paying jobs. They raised a family, 
and they planned to send their kids to college too. That is the dream 
we talk about, but for too many students across our country today, the 
dream of a college education has turned into a nightmare.
  I learned this week that 45,000 college students who were enrolled at 
a school called ITT Tech awoke and learned that their college was 
closed--not for a snow day, not for a holiday; ITT Tech closed its 
doors for good after years of questionable business practices and 
financial woes. Many of these 45,000 students are living a nightmare 
this week. They are scrambling to transfer to another school. They are 
hoping their credits will count elsewhere so they don't have to start 
over again. They are scrambling to find out if they are eligible for 
debt forgiveness on their student loans.
  I rise today, though, to talk about a particular group of students 
who have been harmed by the sudden closure of ITT Tech--our Nation's 
veterans and their families. Until this week, there were nearly 7,000 
veterans enrolled at ITT Tech, using the post-9/11 GI bill to help 
finance their education. As a veteran myself of the Vietnam war, I know 
what it is to be eligible for the GI bill, which I and my generation 
were. While it was not as generous as this one today, nonetheless, it 
was a great lifesaver for me and a lot of other folks with whom I 
served. But the post-9/11 GI bill, while generous, is a finite benefit. 
It provides up to 36 months of tuition and housing benefits for 
veterans as well as members of their family. If the veteran doesn't use 
their benefit, their spouse can. If their spouse doesn't use the 
benefit, their dependent children may. It is an incredible benefit. But 
veteran students at ITT Tech have no recourse to get those GI tuition 
benefits back to put toward their studies at another college.
  The housing allowance that our veterans' families have spent will 
come to an abrupt halt because they are no longer enrolled in classes. 
They have been robbed of their time and their hard-earned benefits, 
and, frankly, taxpayers have been robbed of their tax dollars.
  When I think about the men and women who volunteer to serve our 
country during a time of war, it is unfathomable that this is the 
position in which we could leave them--at a defunct college, without a 
plan to help them get their benefits back, and without a way to pay 
their rent or their mortgage next month. I think it is shameful. I also 
think enough is enough. Congress must act to protect our veterans in 
this instance, as we do in so many others.
  I don't believe that all for-profit schools are bad actors. They 
aren't. Some do a good job. But the poor educational employment 
outcomes for students across this sector are undeniable. The damage ITT 
Tech has inflicted upon students and taxpayers is undeniable. Let's 
take a moment and look at the facts.
  ITT Tech is facing lawsuits by the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and multiple State 
attorneys general for illegal loan schemes, deceiving shareholders, and 
for deceptive recruiting.
  ITT Tech's accreditor recently found that the school ``is not in 
compliance, and is unlikely to become in compliance'' with accrediting 
standards. ITT Tech's closure leaves taxpayers on the hook for a half 
billion dollars in closed school loan discharges--half a billion 
dollars.
  ITT Tech is one of the top recipients of post-9/11 GI bill dollars 
since 2009. ITT Tech did not use this massive taxpayer investment to 
provide a high-quality education to too many veterans. They used it for 
recruitment, they used those dollars for advertising and ultimately for 
profit.
  ITT Tech failed veterans and taxpayers for years. When they closed 
their doors this week, they left taxpayers and veterans and their 
families in the lurch. It is shameful. Again, enough is enough.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs must now work closely with the 
Department of Education to ensure that ITT Tech's student veterans have 
the resources and guidance they need to transfer and continue their 
studies at a high-quality institution of higher learning. We in 
Congress have work to do too. I believe we have a particular 
responsibility to hold bad actors accountable and increase protection 
for veterans who plan on enrolling at for-profit schools that are under 
investigation and heading for bankruptcy.
  For-profit schools, such as ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges, which 
also suddenly collapsed last year, target veterans for their generous 
benefits that we as taxpayers provide for them, and those schools 
exploit something called the 90-10 loophole that allows for-profit 
schools to be 100 percent reliant on Federal taxpayer dollars--100 
percent.
  Congress can take meaningful steps to protect veterans and their 
families, and chief among them would be closing this loophole. The 90-
10 loophole has directly led to this ongoing nightmare for the student 
veterans at Corinthian, at ITT Tech, and at countless other schools 
failing to deliver on the promise of a higher quality education.
  In conclusion, Congress must act. We must act to restore the dream of 
a high-quality college education for our Nation's veterans. It is well 
past time to address this situation. Enough is enough.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today----
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will just yield for a 
moment.
  Mr. HELLER. I will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Could the Senator give me some idea how long he will be?
  Mr. HELLER. About 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Heller-Heinrich 
amendment No. 4981.
  Mr. President, with your experience in the West, you know water is 
the lifeblood of our economy and culture. Without water, our 
communities cannot grow. Improving the rural water supply, their 
security, and economic development all goes hand in hand, which is why 
I have teamed up with my friend from New Mexico Senator Heinrich to 
offer this western water amendment that will help ensure every drop of 
western water goes as far as it can.
  Our amendment simply ensures that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
implements its western water infrastructure program as Congress 
intended. It will help advance projects like storm and sewer systems, 
water treatment plants, and delivery projects in Idaho, Montana, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
  It was first established in 1999. This program has been helpful to 
rural counties surrounded by Federal lands. Increasing the West's water 
security is essential to the long-term economic competitiveness.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan western 
initiative.
  Mr. President, I want to change topics and talk about something that 
is important to all of us; that is, Lake Tahoe. Mark Twain once said: 
``The Lake had a bewilderingly richness about it that enchanted the eye 
and held it with the stronger fascination.''
  Over the past year and a half, I have worked with my good friend from 
Oklahoma, Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe. I thank him 
for helping advance a longstanding priority of mine--the Lake Tahoe 
Restoration Act. This is a bill I championed in the House before I came 
to the Senate, and I am proud to be the lead sponsor of it in the 
Senate during the 114th Congress.
  This bipartisan legislation, which has garnered the unanimous support 
of Nevada's congressional delegation and my

[[Page S5433]]

California colleagues Senators Feinstein and Boxer, is focused on 
reducing wildlife threats, improving water quality and clarity, 
improving public land management, and combating invasive species. 
Specifically, this bill invests $415 million into the Lake Tahoe Basin 
over the next 10 years. These important resources will address major 
issues that threaten the jewel of the Sierra's economic and ecological 
health. That includes: helping prevent and manage the introduction of 
the quagga mussel and other harmful invasive species; prioritizing the 
important fuel reduction projects that prevent catastrophic wildfire; 
and it advances storm water management and initiatives for 
transportation solutions that reduce congestion, minimize impact to the 
lake, and improve outdoor recreational activities.
  Collaborative efforts between Nevada and California, like the Lake 
Tahoe Restoration Act, are prime examples of what can be accomplished 
when we set our minds toward a common goal. Here in the 114th Congress, 
the first where I have been the lead sponsor, we are closer to 
enactment than ever before. The bill has advanced through committee in 
both the House and Senate for the first time in the same Congress. When 
it passed the Environment and Public Works Committee, it garnered 
unanimous support among committee members for the first time. My hope 
is, when we finish consideration of this bill, the Lake Tahoe 
Restoration Act will have passed the full Senate for the first time in 
its legislative history.
  Before I conclude, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
infrastructure and for teaming up with our delegations to preserve this 
lake. I am appreciative that the Environment and Public Works Committee 
moved our bill through the process, both as a standalone bill and part 
of the water resources bill in the past year.
  Like you, I know one of the core constitutional functions the Federal 
Government is creating is the infrastructure necessary to conduct 
commerce, trade, and allow for general transportation. Infrastructure 
development is one of my top priorities in Congress and has been a top 
priority of this Chamber's majority. It is important to note that we 
have successfully enacted important policies in this Congress to 
improve travel and infrastructure across our country but particularly 
here at Lake Tahoe.
  In July, the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act was enacted into 
law. This important legislation implemented important reforms that make 
U.S. air travel safer, more efficient, critical to Nevada's tourism 
like Lake Tahoe.
  Last year we enacted the first long-term highway bill in nearly a 
decade--the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. It is better 
known as the FAST Act. This bill is already advancing a variety of 
important transportation projects across our country. In fact, I 
secured a variety of provisions in that bill that will facilitate the 
development of new and innovative transit, highway, and bridge projects 
specifically in the Tahoe Basin, as well as a provision aimed at 
improving pedestrian and cyclist safety. These transportation solutions 
improve mobility and outdoor recreation at the lake, while reducing the 
impacts transportation has on water quality and clarity.
  Again, this week I stand with Chairman Inhofe to advance yet another 
important infrastructure bill--the Water Resources Development Act. 
This bill will strengthen our Nation's infrastructure and mitigates 
flood risks, improves the route for movement of goods, and invests in 
aging infrastructure for drinking water and wastewater.
  Initiatives such as these are important to maintaining public health, 
improving water security, and keeping our Nation competitive in the 
global market. I urge my colleagues to help preserve Lake Tahoe and 
other cherished places across our Nation so future generations can 
enjoy these natural sceneries for generations to come. Let's add 
another major infrastructure win for the 114th Congress--support for 
the Heller-Heinrich amendment, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, and the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, next month, on the first Monday in October, 
the Supreme Court will begin its new term. The question we have before 
us as Senators is whether there should be an empty seat on the dais 
when the Supreme Court convenes.
  On the first Monday in October, we have always been accustomed to 
seeing all nine Justices there. For 7 months, the Court has been 
missing a Justice, and because of that vacancy, it has been repeatedly 
unable to serve as the final arbiter of the law. There have been eight 
Justices. There has been a vacancy most of this year.
  The President fulfilled his constitutional duty in nominating 
somebody. We have failed to do our constitutional duty of advice and 
consent. The uncertainty in the law has been harmful to businesses, law 
enforcement, and to families and children across the country. It is a 
constitutional crisis. Worst of all, this constitutional crisis is 
wholly of the Senate Republicans' making, and they have the power to 
stop this constitutional crisis.
  In February, the Republican leader claimed, because it was an 
election year, the Senate would somehow be justified in not doing its 
job in denying any consideration of the next Supreme Court nominee. 
Based on my conversations with Vermonters across the political spectrum 
and in every poll taken on this issue, the American people reject this 
partisan justification.
  There is no election-year exception to Senators doing their jobs, 
there is no election-year exception to the President doing his job, and 
there is no election-year exception to the independent judiciary doing 
its job. Each branch of our government has its duty under the 
Constitution. The Republican leadership has said the Senate is going to 
reject its duty. It will damage the function of our Supreme Court. That 
needs to stop.
  Since public confirmation hearings began in the Judiciary Committee 
for Supreme Court nominees a century ago, the Senate has never denied a 
nominee a hearing and a vote. The late Justice Scalia received a 
hearing 42 days after his nomination. Justice Kennedy, who was the last 
Justice confirmed in a Presidential election year, received a hearing 
in the Judiciary Committee, which was under the control of Democrats, 
just 14 days after President Reagan nominated him in a Presidential 
election year. The Democrats held a hearing in 14 days for this 
Republican nominee.
  Contrast that to Chief Judge Garland's nomination that has been 
pending for 176 days. It is a totally unprecedented situation, and 
certainly that unprecedented delay has provided enough time for 
Senators and their staff to become familiar with his record in 
preparation for a hearing on debate.
  The press may be focused on what might happen in a lameduck session, 
but this Vermonter is focused on his job now. The time for the Senate 
to act on the Supreme Court nomination is now. We should have a hearing 
next week. The Judiciary Committee can debate and consider the 
nomination the following week, and then the full Senate can debate and 
vote on his confirmation by the end of September. We have taken far 
less time in the past to confirm Supreme Court Justices, as the Senate 
has realized the urgency of having a Court at full strength.
  Chief Judge Garland is ideally suited to serve on the Supreme Court 
on day one. He is currently the chief judge on the DC Circuit, which is 
also known as the second highest court. He has been a Federal judge for 
nearly two decades. He has more Federal judicial experience than any 
Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history. As a former Federal 
prosecutor, he has been praised for his work leading the Justice 
Department's efforts on the ground in Oklahoma City in the days after 
the worst act of homegrown terrorism in our country's history. 
Republicans and Democrats alike have recognized Chief Judge Garland as 
a brilliant, impartial judge with unwavering fidelity to the rule of 
law. Republicans serving in this body, as well as Democrats in this 
body, said so when they voted for his confirmation to the DC Circuit.
  Republicans should let this Chamber finally get to work on Chief 
Judge Garland's nomination. Bring the Supreme Court back to full 
strength in time for

[[Page S5434]]

the first oral argument of October. Of all the challenges facing our 
country, ensuring that our Supreme Court can serve as high as its 
constitutional function should not be one of them. This is a promise 
that Senate Republicans are making, but it is one they could easily 
solve this month.
  Let's do our job. We took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Let's 
show that when we raised our hand to swear to uphold the Constitution, 
we really meant it. The President fulfilled his oath; it is time for us 
to do our job and fulfill ours.
  I see my friend on the floor seeking recognition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have a couple of votes coming up that 
are very significant, and the occupier of the chair is fully aware of 
it, having served on the committee that has worked on this legislation.
  I have to say one thing about the stuff we crank out of our 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and that is that it has been 
pretty significant. We had the FAST Act, the first highway 
reauthorization bill in 17 years, which was a major one. Then we did 
the chemical bill, which was great, and now we are going to do the WRDA 
bill. One of the things that is interesting about it is the number of 
ports we are talking about. I often prided Tulsa as being the most 
inland port; however, it could conceivably be that Omaha may be giving 
us competition. Nonetheless, it gives you an idea of the significance 
of this legislation.
  Yesterday I talked about what would happen if this legislation 
doesn't become a law this year. If that happens, 29 navigation, flood 
control, and environmental restoration projects will not happen. There 
will be no new Corps reforms to let sponsors improve infrastructure at 
their own expense. There will be no FEMA assistance to States to 
rehabilitate unsafe dams. There will be no reforms to help communities 
address clean and safe drinking water infrastructures, which is a 
serious problem in my State of Oklahoma. There will be no deal on the 
coal ash, which has plagued the coal utilities for years with lawsuits. 
Finally, we have a very difficult issue that we have dealt with to most 
people's satisfaction, and so we want to get this done in fast order, 
and today is a very important day in accomplishing that.
  Here are some other reasons why the bill is so important. The bill 
gets us back to every 2 years. At one time when the first WRDA came 
out--and I was there when it happened--we were supposed to have a 
Water, Resources, and Development Act every 2 years, but then we 
started slipping. During the last 8 years, prior to our coming back as 
a majority, we really didn't address this issue. This puts us back into 
our schedule of doing it every 2 years. These reforms can't wait any 
longer.
  Secondly, we have recently been reminded several times of the need 
for Corps projects. We saw the algae wash up on the beaches in Florida 
this summer. The project that will fix Lake Okeechobee and prevent this 
problem in the future is in WRDA 2016.
  I generally don't like everglades projects. In fact, I can remember--
it wasn't that many years ago--when I was the only one voting against 
the Everglades Restoration Act. However, let's keep in mind that at 
that time there was not a chief report on it, and now that there is, we 
have something very significant that does affect that.
  This chart shows the algae blooms in St. Lucie, FL. This is a picture 
of the algae blooms, which were caused by deteriorating water 
conditions. Not only are these blooms environmentally hazardous, but 
they are also economically debilitating to the communities living along 
south Florida's working coastline. Communities along the coast depend 
on clean, fresh waterflows to draw in tourism. As these blooms spread 
along the coast, economic development is negatively impacted. If we 
don't authorize the Central Everglades Planning Project, those 
communities will cease to exist.
  We also saw historic flooding in Baton Rouge, LA. There are two 
ongoing Corps projects that could have prevented much of the damage 
that we saw last month. WRDA 2016 directs the Corps to expedite the 
completion of these projects.
  This chart shows the Baton Rouge, LA, flooding. We can no longer use 
the ``fix as it fails approach'' as America's flood protection. It is 
not about economic losses that communities face after a devastating 
flood; it is about loss of human lives. We are talking about human 
lives, and not acting is just not an option.
  Last year there were several collisions in the Houston Ship Channel 
because of the design deficiency. The channel is too narrow, and the 
Coast Guard has declared it to be a precautionary zone. This chart 
shows the Houston Ship Channel collision that happened in 2015. Without 
this bill, the navigation safety project to correct this issue will not 
move forward.
  The Corps of Engineers projects that these projects help generate 
$109 billion in annual economic development and generate $32 billion in 
revenue for the U.S. Treasury. Few understand the economic benefits 
associated with WRDA. As I noted yesterday, expansion of the Panama 
Canal is complete, now allowing the larger--I think they call them the 
post-Panamax boats--to pass through the canal. Look at the comparison 
of the two vessels. This is what they can use today, and that is what 
is happening now.
  This chart shows the pre- and post-Panamax ships. By not passing this 
bill, many of the important deepening projects for our nations will go 
unfunded, making it difficult for them to accommodate new Panamax 
shipping vessels.
  One port that I pointed out yesterday was Charleston, SC. They have a 
45-foot channel. With this bill, they will now be able to get to the 
50- to 51-foot channel range that is necessary for this ship to be able 
to come in. The alternative to that is going somewhere in the Caribbean 
so they can break down these loads and put them on smaller ships. That 
increases the costs dramatically, and we are not going to allow that to 
happen.

  The investments in drinking water and other investments are 
important, but let's not forget the fact that there are ports we can't 
use right now because they can't accommodate the big ships. The 
investments in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure will 
benefit both public health and our economy. Earlier I mentioned that 
this is really significant for my State of Oklahoma. We have States 
that are not wealthy States and are primarily rural areas, and the 
unfunded mandates that come in are just unbearable. I say this from 
experience. I used to be mayor of a major city, Tulsa, OK, for a number 
of years. At that time our biggest problem was unfunded mandates, and 
that is what we are separating from today. We can pretty much correct 
that with the changes we are making in our WRDA bill.
  A recent study by the Water Environment Federation shows, just as 
this chart shows, that for every million dollars of Federal spending on 
drinking water and clean water infrastructure, we get $2.95 million in 
economic output for the U.S. economy. Due to the ripple effect through 
the economy, these investments will result in new Federal tax revenues 
nearly equal to infrastructure investments. That is why we need to pass 
the WRDA bill now, and we have it in front of us today. It is a bill 
that will help protect America's working people and has major economic 
benefits.
  The main reason I wanted to come to the floor--this is the second 
time that we have made this. It is not a mandate. It is just that the 
managers of this bill--that is Senator Boxer from California, the 
leadership, and I--all agree that in order to finally get people to 
bring their amendments to the floor, we need to have a deadline, which 
will be noon tomorrow. We ask that you get your amendments down here 
this afternoon. We are talking about amendments to the managers' 
package. We will not be able to consider those not in our package. That 
doesn't mean we are shutting them off because next week we will have 
the opportunity to present some, but if you want to have them seriously 
considered, they need to be in our package. This should come as no 
surprise, as our committee had asked for any and all amendments in 
July, prior to the August recess, in preparation for consideration in 
September. Last week, the Inhofe-Boxer substitute to S. 2848 was 
circulated, and our office stands ready to assist in any technical 
capacity in answering questions.

[[Page S5435]]

  I have to say that Senator Boxer and I have worked very closely 
together. There are a lot of amendments that have come up and have been 
discussed. Some have been accepted, and others are being considered. 
Some are popular with Democrats but not Republicans, and the reverse is 
also true. This is our opportunity to do it.
  If Members are unable to make the noon deadline tomorrow for our 
managers' package, we will still work to ensure that all amendments 
receive equal consideration as we work to clear as many amendments as 
possible and work to move amendments in regular order prior to the 
amendment-filing deadline for the underlying bill next week.
  We have the opportunity to do this. We are now operating on 
deadlines. It has been my experience in the Senate that until you have 
a deadline where you have to do it, people, generally speaking, find 
other things to do. We are going to hold their feet to the fire this 
time. Let's try to get this through.
  Let me just comment on Senator Boxer. We have worked on so many bills 
that are very meaningful to the American people. I can remember when 
they said on our side that we were not going to have a 5-year massive 
highway reauthorization bill. Yet I tried to explain to my conservative 
friends that that is the conservative approach because the only 
alternative to that is extensions. If you have extensions, that doesn't 
work at all.
  We have worked very well together on that legislation, and of course 
we also were able to work on our chemical bill and do that, and now we 
are going to get this done next week.
  I wish to yield to Senator Boxer and then retake the floor for the 
motions that will be necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I say to my colleague that I will speak 
for 30 seconds because I said a lot yesterday, and I agree with the 
Senator's analysis of how important this bill is. I certainly agree 
that we have shown this body that we can overcome our differences and 
bring important bills to the floor. This one is critical. My friend has 
gone into it in great detail. We are talking about clean drinking 
water, navigation, the economy, and how we need to move products in 
ports and so on. It just covers the gamut of issues that are so 
important. I think we have done it in a way that is fiscally 
responsible.
  I am here to again associate myself with your remarks and also to 
call on my side if anybody has amendments. I don't think our side has 
any more than the few that we have already started to work on. Look, we 
are trying to get this done quickly and trying to accommodate 
everybody. I think most people agree that if Senator Inhofe and I can 
agree on something, then it is pretty much not controversial. I am here 
to lend my aye to the voice votes we are about to take, so I turn it 
back over to the chairman.
  Mr. INHOFE. I think Senator Boxer's side has done a better job of 
getting their amendments in than our side. In talking to her and the 
leader over there, the Democratic side is down to about seven 
amendments that are being considered.
  I encourage our Republicans to do the same thing and get this thing 
done so we can make it happen.
  I take this opportunity to thank the Senator from California for the 
hard work we have done together.


       Amendment Nos. 4981 and 4991 En Bloc to Amendment No. 4979

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up en bloc: Heller No. 4981 and Merkley No. 4991.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for others, 
     proposes amendments numbered 4981 and 4991 to amendment No. 
     4979.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4981

  (Purpose: To ensure the proper implementation of the rural Western 
                             water program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. RURAL WESTERN WATER.

       Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (Public Law 106-53; 113 Stat. 383; 128 Stat. 1316) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--Assistance under this section shall be 
     made available to all eligible States and locales described 
     in subsection (b) consistent with program priorities 
     determined by the Secretary in accordance with criteria 
     developed by the Secretary to establish the program 
     priorities, with priority given to projects in any applicable 
     State that--
       ``(A) execute new or amended project cooperation 
     agreements; and
       ``(B) commence promptly after the date of enactment of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
       ``(2) Rural projects.--The Secretary shall consider a rural 
     project authorized under this section and environmental 
     infrastructure projects authorized under section 219 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-580; 
     106 Stat. 4835) for new starts on the same basis as any other 
     program funded from the construction account.''; and
       (3) in subsection (i) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``which shall--,'' and all that follows through 
     ``remain'' and inserting ``to remain''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4991

(Purpose: To provide loan forgiveness under Clean Water State Revolving 
                  Funds to local irrigation districts)

       At the end of subtitle B of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 7206. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR LOCAL IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.

       Subsection (j)(1) of section 603 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383) (as redesignated by 
     section 7202(b)(1)(A)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``to a municipality or an intermunicipal, interstate, or 
     State agency'' and inserting ``to an eligible recipient''; 
     and
       (2) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``in assistance to a municipality or 
     intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency'' before ``to 
     benefit''.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now vote on these amendment en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I know of no further debate on these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 4981 and 4991) were agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, over the last few weeks, my home State 
of Arizona has been thrust into the national spotlight. I wish I could 
say it is because of the success of our sports teams or the strength of 
our universities. Instead, it is because Arizona has become ground zero 
for the collapse of ObamaCare, leaving most of our citizens with 
limited choices and higher costs when it comes to the President's 
signature health care law, which is a law that I fought against for 
weeks on end and which the then-majority on the other side of the 
aisle, with 60 votes and without a single Republican vote and without a 
single Republican amendment, passed into law.
  In 2009 the President said: ``[I]f you've got health insurance, you 
like your doctor, you like your plan--you can keep your doctor, you can 
keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.''
  Let me repeat the words of the President of the United States after, 
on a strict party-line basis, he passed ObamaCare: ``[I]f you've got 
health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan--you can 
keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about 
taking that away from you.''
  That is a quote from the President of the United States when 
ObamaCare was passed. He also said that if you like your health 
insurance policy, you can keep your policy, period, in his own 
inimitable style.
  Ever since the passage of ObamaCare, Americans have been hit by 
broken promise after broken promise and met with higher costs, fewer 
choices, and poor quality of care.
  Let me read just a few of the most recent headlines addressing the 
collapse of ObamaCare in Arizona.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that relevant articles be 
printed in today's Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S5436]]

  


                   [From politico.com, Aug. 22, 2016]

                      The County Obamacare Forgot

                          (By Rachana Pradhan)

       An Arizona county is poised to become an Obamacare ghost 
     town because no insurer wants to sell exchange plans there.
       Aetna's recent announcement that it would exit most of the 
     states where it offers Obamacare plans leaves residents of 
     Pinal County, Arizona, without any options to get subsidized 
     health coverage next year, unless regulators scramble to find 
     a carrier to fill the void between now and early October.
       About 9,700 people in Pinal signed up for Obamacare plans 
     this year, according to administration data.
       The predicament of Pinal County is an extreme example of 
     the contraction of insurers in the Obamacare markets expected 
     in 2017. The federal health care law was supposed to offer a 
     range of affordable health care plans through competition 
     among private insurers. But that competition has dramatically 
     declined in some states, as a result of pullbacks by national 
     insurers and failed co-op plans. Decline in competition means 
     fewer choices and, often, higher prices for consumers.
       Nearly 1 in 5 potential Obamacare customers may have just 
     one insurer selling plans in their communities--up from just 
     2 percent of customers who had one option this year, 
     according to the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System 
     Reform.
       But in Pinal County, a rural community within the Phoenix 
     metropolitan area, many may lose health care coverage 
     altogether.
       ``If you have a several-hundred-dollar-a-month subsidy 
     available and you lose that, that's going to be huge,'' said 
     Thomas Schryer, director of the Pinal County Public Health 
     Services District.
       He predicted that many Pinal residents would be unable to 
     afford more costly insurance plans outside the Obamacare 
     marketplace and were likely to roll the dice and go without 
     coverage--something that will be far more risky for those 
     with chronic health problems or who are in the middle of 
     treatments.
       Arizona's Obamacare marketplace had previously offered 
     plans sold by national insurers like United-Health Group and 
     Humana, as well as by a nonprofit co-op plan seeded with 
     Obamacare loans. But the co-op collapsed, and United and 
     Humana, like Aetna, are leaving the exchange. Other 
     companies, like Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, are 
     scaling back their presence.
       ``It's a dramatic case of a more general thing: There are 
     weaker markets that are going to be less attractive for 
     carriers,'' said Katherine Hempstead of the Robert Wood 
     Johnson Foundation.
       It isn't entirely clear why insurers are fleeing this 
     particular county, which had about an 18 percent poverty rate 
     in 2014--higher than the roughly 15 percent for the country 
     as a whole but not extreme. Median household income was 
     around $50,250, according to the Census.
       Yet there are higher rates of adult obesity, physical 
     inactivity and teen births in Pinal County compared with 
     statewide figures, according to data from the Robert Wood 
     Johnson Foundation. A shortage of health providers is also 
     acute, with only one primary care doctor for every 6,700 
     people.
       ``The reason why it's empty is because nobody wants to be 
     there,'' one insurance industry source said of Pinal County. 
     ``The only thing a [regulator] can do is beg.''
       Although Pinal experienced a population boom in the 2000s, 
     it doesn't have much of an economic base, so most people work 
     and likely receive their health care in nearby Phoenix, 
     according to Arizona State University professor Tom Rex.
       ``The health care infrastructure often takes many years to 
     catch up with the population,'' said Schryer.
       Begging on behalf of Obamacare can be politically 
     problematic in a red state like Arizona, where Obamacare has 
     been a prominent feature of at least one reelection campaign 
     in the current cycle. Sen. John McCain has made it a 
     centerpiece of his bid for another term.
       Such was the case in Mississippi in 2013, when state 
     Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney had to convince an insurer 
     to offer plans in 36 counties that had no options ahead of 
     the first open enrollment period. Chaney said federal 
     regulators helped the state because it was ``very unpopular'' 
     for a Republican to help recruit someone to cover the entire 
     state. Humana eventually agreed to sell on the exchange in 
     those counties, and it's still there.
       ``What we're having to do now to keep companies in our 
     state to cover all of the counties is to grant some pretty 
     heavy rate increases,'' Chaney said in a recent interview.
       Health policy experts say that Blue Cross Blue Shield of 
     Arizona would be the most likely to sell plans in Pinal if 
     regulators can coax it back. The company had offered plans in 
     the county this year but decided to drop its offerings there, 
     as well as in neighboring Maricopa County, where Phoenix is 
     located, according to its 2017 rate filings.
       The company has said that in light of Aetna's exit, it is 
     re-evaluating where it will offer plans next year. But an 
     agreement to return would likely come at a price. BCBS of 
     Arizona had initially requested a rate increase of 65 percent 
     on average for individual plans, when Maricopa and Pinal 
     counties were part of its filing. When it dropped those 
     counties, the company revised its proposed increase to 51 
     percent.
       Aetna initially submitted an 18 percent rate increase for 
     its individual plans on the exchange. It later jacked up its 
     requested rate increase to 86 percent, before pulling out 
     entirely.
       Trish Riley, executive director of the National Academy for 
     State Health Policy, said regulators have discretion in 
     setting coverage rules but few things can be done quickly. 
     Agreeing to look at rates again would offer an incentive to 
     insurers to participate, she said.
       ``What are your options?'' she said of state regulators. 
     ``Disenfranchised consumers are going to sue you. People 
     aren't going to get coverage. Those aren't good options.''
       In the long term, Riley said the recent spate of insurance 
     company exits should spur a broader conversation about 
     strategies to stabilize the exchanges.
       ``I think this is a wake-up call,'' she said.
       But state Insurance Department spokesman Stephen Briggs 
     offered a different perspective, saying regulators ``are not 
     scrambling'' to find another company. He also dismissed the 
     notion that regulators might grant higher rate increases to 
     an insurer if it agreed to serve Pinal. He said the 
     department is still reviewing plan rates for 2017 and final 
     rates would be released in September.
       ``The decision to really offer a product is a business 
     decision that the company still has the right to make,'' he 
     said.
                                  ____


                   [From The Republic, Aug. 26, 2016]

    Arizona Consumers Fret as `Obamacare' Insurance Options Dwindle

                           (By Ken Altucker)

       For many who buy their own health insurance, next year is 
     shaping up to be a challenging and financially painful year.
       Six major health insurers that sell plans directly to 
     consumers are bowing out or scaling back on the Affordable 
     Care Act marketplace in Arizona.
       Only two marketplace insurers will remain in Arizona's 
     largest county, Maricopa County, and the exodus has left 
     Pinal County without a single insurer willing to offer a 
     marketplace option next year to the nearly 10,000 people now 
     enrolled.
       Federal and state officials caution that things could 
     change between now and Nov. 1, the scheduled start of the 
     three-month enrollment period. They cite regulatory efforts 
     to woo at least one Pinal County insurance provider.
       Arizona Department of Insurance officials do not expect to 
     finalize the list of insurers until mid- to late September, 
     said department spokesman Stephen Briggs.The state agency, 
     which regulates the insurance market in Arizona, can't say 
     for certain at this point which plans will be available 
     during enrollment.
       But six insurance companies already have announced plans or 
     disclosed in state filings their intention to drop out or 
     scale back marketplace coverage in 2017. Aetna, Health Choice 
     Insurance Co., Humana and UnitedHealth Group will discontinue 
     marketplace plans in Arizona. Health Net will offer plans 
     only in Pima County next year, according to state Department 
     of Insurance filings.
       Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Arizona's health 
     insurance mainstay, announced in June that steep financial 
     losses had prompted it to stop selling marketplace plans in 
     Maricopa and Pinal counties starting next year. The company 
     had offered plans in every county since the Affordable Care 
     Act marketplace launched in 2014.
       However, Blue Cross Blue Shield has since said it is 
     reconsidering in the wake of Aetna's exit.
       The trickle of insurers exiting--and rate-hike requests of 
     as much as 122 percent for remaining insurers--is making 
     consumers nervous. Some are taking step to prepare for what 
     they fear could be delayed care and long trips to doctors' 
     offices and hospitals.


                      `You'll never see a doctor'

       Claburn Niven Jones, who owns a home in Scottsdale and a 
     condo in the San Francisco Bay area, said the insurance 
     shakeout has prompted him to take steps to relocate to 
     California. The reason? The 63-year-old cancer patient 
     doesn't think that there will be enough insurance and health-
     provider options for Maricopa County residents next year.
       Diagnosed with prostate and thyroid cancers, Jones 
     envisions long waits for specialists with crowded appointment 
     calendars.
       He doesn't want to take that chance.
       Enrollment figures show that more than 126,000 Maricopa 
     County residents selected marketplace health plans offered by 
     eight insurance companies as of Feb. 1. Those marketplace 
     customers who seek to continue coverage will have only two 
     options left by Jan. 1, 2017--Phoenix Health Plans Inc. and 
     Cigna.
       ``If you add them all up and throw them into a network, 
     you'll never see a doctor,'' said Jones, a retired certified 
     public accountant. ``It's going to be a health care disaster 
     for the people of Phoenix.''
       Neither Phoenix Health Plans nor Cigna are willing to 
     discuss proposed provider networks until state and federal 
     insurance regulators sign off on their plans for next year.
       Briggs said the state insurance department uses formulas to 
     make sure there are enough doctors, labs and hospitals to 
     handle the projected number of customers.
       He acknowledged that the remaining insurers could face 
     heavier customer loads after so many other insurers have 
     dropped out or scaled back.

[[Page S5437]]

       ``They do have to demonstrate their ability to--or lack 
     thereof--to handle the (customers) in their network,'' Briggs 
     said.
       Jones has an insurance plan through a unit of UnitedHealth 
     Group that will expire Dec. 31. UnitedHealth won't offer an 
     individual plan next year in Maricopa County.
       Jones said he began investigating other marketplace options 
     even though he does not qualify for subsidized ACA coverage.
       He believes both Cigna and Phoenix Health Plans will be 
     inundated with marketplace customers, and he said he can't 
     wait until Nov. 1 to find detailed information on the 
     insurers' networks of doctors and hospitals.
       He will undergo proton radiation treatment this fall for 
     his prostate cancer. He also needs regular appointments with 
     an endocrinologist to monitor his thyroid cancer, which 
     requires periodic scans following an earlier surgery.
       Jones said he is preparing to establish full-time residency 
     in California, where he owns a condominium in San Mateo.
       We moved to Arizona for a quality of life and (lower) 
     expense,'' said Niven. ``I can't get insurance, so I will 
     have to leave.''
       Other Arizonans, too, are worried that Maricopa County's 
     narrowing options could pose challenges.
       North Scottsdale resident Jane Vesely, 62, has a Blue Cross 
     Blue Shield plan that will expire at the end of this year. 
     She wants a marketplace plan, but she worries that neither 
     Cigna nor Phoenix Health Plans will provide an in-network 
     hospital near her house.
       Cigna's current marketplace plans this year use its Connect 
     network, which includes Banner Health hospitals and some 
     specialty hospitals. The network does not include 
     HonorHealth's Scottsdale hospitals closest to Vesely's home.
       The other marketplace plan, Phoenix Health Plans, is owned 
     by the for-profit hospital chain Tenet Healthcare, It also 
     does not contract with Scottsdale-based HonorHealth.
       It's unclear if the Department of Insurance will ask the 
     two plans to expand their existing networks.
       Vesely long had access to hospitals, doctors and 
     specialists near her home through her husband's employer-
     provided health plan. Her husband retired in 2014 and is on 
     Medicare. She has to wait more than two years before she's 
     eligible for the federal health program for those 65 and 
     older.
       ``The exchange was healthy (in 2014) and we made the 
     decision that I don't really have to go back to work,'' said 
     Vesely. Now she may need to get a job that offers health 
     insurance due to the fraying marketplace.
       ``I have a feeling there are a lot of people like me who 
     may be in a similar position,'' she said.


         Feds say marketplace plans remain affordable for most

       The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a 
     report Wednesday highlighting the affordability of 
     marketplace plans for most people. Even if insurers raised 
     rates by an average of 50 percent, 72 percent of Arizonans 
     could buy health coverage next year for $100 or less each 
     month, after tax credit subsidies are calculated, the report 
     said.
       Tax credits are an Affordable Care Act tool used to offset 
     the cost of monthly premiums for individuals who earn between 
     138 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. More 
     than 124,000 Arizonans who were enrolled in a plan as of 
     March 31 had received a tax credit. But another 55,000-plus 
     residents paid the full amount for marketplace plans, and 
     they could face significant rate hikes next year.
       Phoenix Health Plans will seek to raise rates on 
     marketplace plans by an average of 122 percent, while Cigna 
     has requested a 19 percent increase. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 
     expected to be the only marketplace option in most rural 
     Arizona counties, is seeking an average rate increase of 51 
     percent.
       The Department of Insurance is reviewing the proposed rate 
     increases. However, it does not have the authority under 
     state law to reject a rate increase. The state's review can 
     only determine whether an insurer's rate change is reasonable 
     or unreasonable.
       In the past, insurers have agreed to modify rate requests 
     that state regulators determined were unreasonable. There's 
     no guarantee that insurers will do that this year, 
     particularly with a majority of Arizona counties expected to 
     have only one marketplace insurer.
       ``Even if we go back to a provider to say, `You haven't 
     demonstrated or justified the increase,' they can say, `Well, 
     we appreciate that. This is what we think we have to charge 
     in order to not go bankrupt,''' Briggs said.
       While the HHS report emphasized the affordability of plans 
     for those who qualify for health subsidies, it did not did 
     not address the narrowing of health-care options in Arizona 
     and other states.
       Ben Wakana, HHS' deputy assistant secretary for public 
     affairs, said it's important to look at how the federal 
     health law has transformed the insurance market.
       ``Four years ago, companies in the individual market relied 
     on a business model of largely denying coverage to people 
     with pre-existing conditions,'' Wakana said.
       He noted that the federal health-care law now forbids 
     marketplace insurers from denying coverage to the sick, and 
     most people can buy coverage at subsidized rates, he said.
       ``It has helped to get this country to the lowest uninsured 
     rate on record,'' he said.
                                  ____


                  [From Cronkite News, Aug. 10, 2016]

             Obamacare Consumers Face Higher Costs in Fall

                           (By Keshia Butts)

       Washington.--When it comes to Obamacare in Arizona, not 
     much is certain, but this much is: Coverage will still be 
     available, but it will cost more.
       Five insurance companies that had offered coverage in the 
     Affordable Care Act marketplace have told state regulators 
     that they will opt out or scale back coverage when the next 
     open season for Affordable Care Act coverage begins Nov. 1.
       There will still be coverage, but with fewer providers 
     experts say costs will likely go up ``much higher in 2017 
     than they had in the past couple of years.''
       A national estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation 
     predicts that premiums for one of the lower-costs plans could 
     rise as much as 9 percent next year, compared to 2 percent 
     this year. In Arizona, those higher premiums could hit more 
     than 100,000 people.
       ``The general trend is, as premiums are going up they are 
     going up faster then certainly consumers would like and even 
     supporters of the law expected or hoped,'' said Michael 
     Cannon, the director of health policy studies at the Cato 
     Institute.
       Insurance companies had until Tuesday to let state 
     regulators, and their customers, know whether they will still 
     be offering coverage at all or scaling back plans when the 
     next open enrollment period under the Affordable Care Act 
     begins on Nov. 1.
       As of last week, five companies in Arizona had announced 
     plans to pull out or pull back: Health Choice, United 
     Healthcare, Humana, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona and 
     Health Net.
       For the insurers, it's a business decision: They are losing 
     money on the policies they have offered in previous rounds of 
     the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
       Jeff Stelnik, senior vice president of Blue Cross Blue 
     Shield of Arizona, said the company lost $185 million on ACA 
     plans in two years and expects to continue to see losses.
       ``Our focus will be on our customers and finding the best 
     way for them,'' Stelnik said.
       Health Choice opted out of the Arizona marketplace for 
     similar reasons, said Laura Waugh, the director of marketing 
     and communications there.
       ``The business and regulatory uncertainties that exist at 
     this time with respect to the federal health insurance 
     marketplace significantly impacted our decision to 
     discontinue our marketplace product offerings,'' Waugh said 
     in an emailed statement.
       The shifting marketplace was not unexpected, as it is still 
     a relatively new market, said Allen Gjersvig, director of 
     navigator and enrollment services at the Arizona Alliance for 
     Community Health Centers. But he said he also expects ``as we 
     go forward for some companies to expand coverage.''
       In the meantime, people looking for coverage in the next 
     round of Obamacare, which runs from Nov. 1 to Jan. 31, should 
     still have plenty of plans to choose from, analysts said.
       ``In the key population areas of Arizona there is still 
     going to be significant competition so that people can choose 
     among a variety of plans, and that's going to be very helpful 
     to them,'' said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families 
     USA.
       But they should brace for higher costs.
       ``What we are seeing so far is that premiums are going up 
     much higher in 2017 than they had in the past couple of 
     years,'' said Cynthia Cox, associate director of health 
     reform and private insurance at Kaiser Family Foundation.
       Cato's Cannon said there are several reasons why premium 
     prices are rising.
       ``It requires people to buy more coverage than they did 
     otherwise and it prevents insurance companies from saying no 
     to people who have pre-existing conditions,'' Cannon said of 
     Obamacare. ``And then it encourages those with expensive 
     illnesses to sign up for the most comprehensive plans.''
       But Pollack said that while premium prices will increase, 
     so will the federal subsidies many consumers get to help them 
     pay for their coverage.
       ``Even if somebody's premiums are somewhat higher than they 
     were before, their subsidies will be somewhat higher than 
     they were before and the ultimate thing that a consumer cares 
     about is how much do I have to pay out of pocket,'' Pollack 
     said.

  Mr. McCAIN. Phoenix Business Journal, September 2, 2016: ``Phoenix 
Health Plan dumps Obamacare Exchange, leaves Cigna as sole carrier in 
Maricopa County.''
  The Arizona Republic, August 17, 2016: ``Pinal County left with no 
ACA options as Aetna exits Arizona.''
  Politico, August 22, 2016: ``The county Obama forgot.''
  USA TODAY, August 30, 2016: ``Health Care Choices Choked Further.''
  Havasu News, August 10, 2016: ``Obamacare consumers face higher costs 
in fall.''
  TIME, August 25, 2016: ``Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken 
Promises.''
  The Arizona Republic, August 26, 2016: ``Arizona consumers fret as 
`Obamacare' insurance options dwindle.''

[[Page S5438]]

  The Arizona Republic, June 14, 2016: ``Insurers seek rate hikes for 
ACA plans.''
  Come November 1, this will be the reality for hundreds of thousands 
of hard-working Arizonans currently enrolled in ObamaCare. Already, 
UnitedHealth, Humana, Health Choice Insurance Co., Aetna, and now 
Phoenix Health Plan have all announced they are exiting Arizona's 
marketplace.
  Up until late last night, Arizona had the dubious distinction of 
being home to the only county in America without a single health 
insurance provider offering plans in 2017. While I am pleased that Blue 
Cross Blue Shield of Arizona decided to step in to save Pinal County 
from having no choices in the Federal marketplace, there is no reason 
to believe this is an economically viable or sustainable end result. 
The fact remains that this is a far cry from what President Obama 
promised before and after signing his signature health care reform bill 
into law.
  The mass exodus of health insurers from the ObamaCare marketplace 
should come as no surprise to anyone. Over the last few years, these 
providers have reported massive financial losses as a result of their 
participation in the Federal exchanges. UnitedHealth, for example, 
recently projected to lose well over $1 billion as a result of the 
poorly constructed ObamaCare marketplace. For the insurers who continue 
to participate in the exchanges, their only option is to raise premium 
rates astronomically high in order to cover their losses. In fact, one 
of the insurers in Arizona, in Maricopa County, said they are going to 
ask for a 65-percent rate increase. Copays are going up into the 
thousands of dollars.
  What is clear is that ObamaCare is crumbling and Arizonans are being 
left to pick up the pieces.
  Let me direct the attention of my colleagues to this map. As we can 
see, as it stands today, 14 of Arizona's 15 counties will have a 
single--that is one--a single health insurer to shop for coverage when 
open enrollment begins on November 1. That includes Maricopa County, 
Arizona's most populous county, impacting more than 120,000 of my 
fellow citizens. This is down from the eight health insurance options 
Maricopa County residents had in 2016. Let me repeat that. In 2016, 
they had eight health insurers to choose from. Guess what they are 
going to have in 2017. One, along with every other county in Arizona, 
with one exception that will have two. As we can see, none have three. 
Up until yesterday, Pinal County was in the red. Worse still, of those 
14 counties, 13 Arizona counties will see their premiums increase on 
average by 51 percent. Thirteen of these counties will see their 
premiums increase on average by 51 percent. For some families, this 
could mean thousands of dollars per month out of their paychecks. I 
doubt that their standard of living and their pay has increased 
sufficiently to cover a 51-percent increase in their premiums.
  That is why Cynthia Cox, associate director of health reform and 
private insurance at the Kaiser Family Foundation, recently stated:

       In most other parts of the country, large cities like 
     Phoenix have multiple insurers participating in them. Arizona 
     is by far the most affected state when it comes to these 
     exits.

  For a law that President Obama said would bring ``[more] choice, more 
competition [and] real health care security,'' ObamaCare has delivered 
nothing more than empty promises.
  Today, thousands of my fellow citizens are asking ``What happens if 
the only plan being offered in my county doesn't cover my current 
doctor or the coverage is insufficient for my family's needs?'' or 
``Should I purchase health insurance at all, given all the upheaval in 
the market?''
  Well, when crafting this law, President Obama and congressional 
Democrats thought it would be a good idea to penalize those people who 
don't enroll by forcing them to pay a fine--to pay a fine if they 
didn't enroll. Put simply, if you don't enroll, you pay a fine. If 
there is a monopoly in a given county with no competition, you are 
penalized.
  Being forced to choose between a much more expensive plan and paying 
a fine is unconscionable. In other words, they have two choices: not 
accepting the one plan or paying a fine. That is unconscionable. That 
is why yesterday I joined Senators Cotton, Sasse, Flake, Johnson, and 
Barrasso in introducing legislation that would protect individuals 
living in a county with no competition in the Federal marketplace from 
having to pay a penalty. These Americans should not be forced to bear 
the burdens of a health care system that was fatally flawed from 
conception.
  The collapse of ObamaCare in Arizona and across the country confirms 
what Republicans have warned about all along: Government-mandated 
health care is unsustainable. Now that the law is unraveling, it is no 
surprise that Democrats are clamoring for a so-called ``public option'' 
that is nothing more than government-run health care. If anything is 
clear about this failed law, it is that more government intervention is 
the wrong solution to fixing our health care system.
  This failed law will only continue to place undue burdens on Arizona 
families unless we repeal and replace ObamaCare with real reform that 
encourages competition and empowers patients to make their own health 
care decisions.
  I will continue to push for this bill with Senator Perdue that would 
do just that--replace ObamaCare with commonsense solutions that empower 
patients and doctors, not the government, to take back control of their 
health care. Until then, hard-working Americans will continue to bear 
the consequences of a failed ObamaCare.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with 
the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I see my friend Dr. Barrasso. I would ask Dr. Barrasso, 
what happens to average citizens when, as is the case in my State, all 
but one county only have one option, one health care provider? What 
happens then?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, it is so interesting that the Senator would bring 
this up because the entire State of Wyoming has found itself in exactly 
the same situation where there is only one choice. Remember, the 
President promised a marketplace. What the American people have gotten 
is a monopoly. In one-third of all the counties in the country, they 
are down to a single--and it is not really a choice; it is a take-it-
or-leave-it situation. I call all of these places falling into what is 
called the ``ObamaCare wasteland.'' It is unfortunate to see it 
happening in county after county.
  I know you have been talking about the headlines: 31 percent, one in 
three counties, one choice. That is not what the President promised. 
One broken promise after another.
  I don't know if you saw the most recent polling today out from 
Gallup. It said a couple of things: The number of people who disapprove 
of the health care has gone up and the number who approve has dropped. 
The headlines are telling the true story about how bad this is. People 
are finally seeing the truth, in spite of all the things the Obama 
administration and the Democrats who passed these things have been 
saying for a number of years.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I could ask another question, and that is, we see--and 
it is well publicized--the increases in premiums. For example, in 
Maricopa County, the health care provider remaining is asking for 65 
percent increases in premiums, but what about the copays? In other 
words, isn't it hard for Americans to understand why they would 
literally pay thousands of dollars before they would be eligible to 
receive the care?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, that is it. The deductibles and the copays are 
one of the reasons that people are saying they are disapproving of the 
health care law. The premiums have continued to go up, but on top of 
that, even if you get a subsidy that President Obama says is helpful, 
it doesn't touch it that first time or the second or the 5,000th 
because people, before they actually get to use the so-called 
insurance, have to come up with, for families, sometimes up to $10,000 
out of their own pocket before that. So the insurance is not really 
useful.
  It is interesting when we listen to the President say they have 
coverage--but not if they can't get care. It is useless coverage. It is 
empty coverage. It is not what people want, which is affordable care.
  Mr. McCAIN. So if you are an average citizen and you see your 
deductible at a couple thousand dollars, it seems

[[Page S5439]]

to me that your only other option really is to go to the emergency 
room, the most expensive form of health care.
  Mr. BARRASSO. That is very often the case, and we are seeing more and 
more of that across the country. Emergency room doctors are saying they 
are swamped.
  The President says that when they get ObamaCare, they will find 
family doctors. That is not what is happening. What is happening is the 
emergency rooms are being more and more included and involved, and that 
is where patients are turning today, which is why the Gallup poll today 
says 29 percent of Americans say they have personally been hurt by the 
health care law, and this may also be true in Arizona, or worse. So to 
help people who didn't have insurance, the President and the Democrats 
and those who voted for this bill should never have had to hurt so many 
Americans, and today about one in three Americans says they have been 
personally hurt by this law. Those are the numbers that are out today.
  Mr. McCAIN. So at the next townhall meeting you or I have, somebody 
is going to stand up and say: OK, ObamaCare has failed, Senator 
Barrasso, or Senator McCain. What is the answer?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Senator Graham from South Carolina and I introduced a 
bill called the Health Care Choice Act to let the States have much more 
of a say in this. The State Health Care Choice Act provides freedom, 
flexibility, choice. So much of the reason prices have gone up so high 
is, the President has decided what kind of insurance people need to buy 
instead of letting the people themselves decide what they need, what is 
best for them and their families. I have gotten letters, and I know you 
have as well, where families had insurance that worked for them, but it 
wasn't good enough for President Obama because he feels he knows better 
than the people know about themselves and their families.
  We want to provide the freedom and the flexibility of choice to let 
States decide whether they want to comply with the mandates of 
ObamaCare. States have much more involvement than Washington's one-
size-fits-all that I know sure doesn't work for Wyoming and I suspect 
doesn't work in Arizona either.
  Mr. McCAIN. In a townhall meeting, someone will stand up in Cody or 
Tucson and say: Senator McCain, the cost of my prescription drugs has 
gone up 100 percent, 200 percent or whatever. How do we answer people 
who literally can no longer afford, in some cases, lifesaving 
prescription drugs?
  Mr. BARRASSO. ObamaCare has actually made that worse because if you 
take a look at the numbers in the deductibles and copays, people who 
get insurance through ObamaCare have found out in the last several 
years that they have paid twice as much out of pocket for prescription 
drugs as people who got insurance through work because at work the 
copays are lower, the deductibles are lower, and there is coverage for 
medications which are expensive because of medical breakthroughs.
  The life expectancy of human beings continues to go up because of the 
advances in medicine and technology. All of these advances have been 
very helpful for us as citizens of this country and as people living on 
this planet, but the costs are there, and with ObamaCare we are finding 
that those people who have to get prescriptions filled through 
ObamaCare are paying over twice as much as what people are paying who 
get insurance through work, which is why we need to get away from 
ObamaCare and repeal it and replace it with patient-centered care, 
which we are not getting under the ObamaCare law.
  Mr. McCAIN. It seems to me that as we debated for weeks on the floor 
of the Senate, the fundamental premise of ObamaCare was to take money 
from healthy young Americans in order to pay for the health care needs 
of older, not so well Americans. We are seeing a lot of young Americans 
who are saying: I would rather pay the fine. I would rather pay the 
fine. So the estimates of those who would be enrolled is roughly half 
of what the Congressional Budget Office predicted would be enrolled. 
Obviously, this has a huge effect on the whole ability of health care, 
ObamaCare, to care for these people.
  Mr. BARRASSO. That was the front page story in the Washington Post on 
Sunday, August 28, ``Health Exchange Sign-Ups Fall Short.''
  The Congressional Budget Office expected 24 million people to sign 
up, and less than 11 million have signed up. So less than half of the 
people they predicted would sign up have done so, and the reason is, so 
many people looked at it and didn't sign up. Why don't people sign up? 
Because they believe it is a bad deal for them personally. They looked 
at the high copays, the high deductibles, as the Senator from Arizona 
made reference to, and the high premiums. They decided it was cheaper 
to pay a fine than to buy the insurance. They find they cannot use it 
anyway because the deductibles and copays are so high.
  Mr. McCAIN. If you are a young person and you have paid the fine and 
then you get in an automobile accident on the way to the hospital, 
wouldn't you want to sign up for ObamaCare?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Interestingly enough, President Obama has made it 
pretty easy to do that. What we found in watching some of these 
testimonies from around the country, in one State, you had over 250 
people who signed up, got treatment, over $100,000 worth of treatment, 
and then dropped the insurance. They are gaming the system left and 
right because that is the way President Obama has it set up.
  Look, it was written behind closed doors in the office of the then-
majority leader, Harry Reid, but because it has become such a disaster, 
the Democrats have lost the majority and are now in the minority 
because so many people are bothered by the way the President and the 
believers in his process have said: It is all right. We have the votes. 
We are going to do it. We are not going to listen to Republicans. We 
are not going to listen to doctors who have practiced medicine their 
whole lives. We know what is better for the American people. That is 
exactly what we have happening. That is why so many people are saying: 
It is not a good deal for me. I don't want any part of it. Now we see 
this Gallup poll where 49 percent of Americans believe this health care 
law has hurt them personally. Today we are seeing that a greater number 
of Americans believe this law is going to hurt health care for them and 
their families into the future. So that is not a good projection about 
what we need as Americans in a time when we have more people who are 
living longer and older and want to lead healthier lives.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to say to Dr. Barrasso that I have 
appreciated your leadership on this issue, and your knowledge and 
background, frankly, ever since ObamaCare was passed. The Senator has 
been very helpful to people such as I as we have gone through this 
odyssey, where the President had said there would be more choice, more 
competition, and real health care security. He also said, by the way--I 
think you might recall it, in his own inimitable style, saying: If you 
like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan, period. 
Remember the ``period'' he added to the comment?
  So I thank the Senator, and I want to assure the citizens of Arizona 
that I will do everything in my power to repeal and replace ObamaCare, 
which is causing so much harm to the people of my State. It is 
unconscionable, unnecessary, and I would have it as one of my highest 
priorities.
  I thank Dr. Barrasso and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. Rubio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Rubio pertaining to the introduction of S. 3301 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                     Senior Tax Hike Prevention Act

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise to talk about a tax increase in 
the President's Affordable Care Act. I want to start, though, by 
commending my colleague from Florida for his remarks regarding the Zika 
virus and the impact it is having, not just on his State but on so many 
others in our country. I thank him for his diligence in trying to get 
to a solution.

[[Page S5440]]

  We are so close. We did pass something in the Senate. The House 
passed something a little different. It is time for us to figure out 
how to resolve these relatively small differences and provide the help 
that is needed. This is an emergency. It is a medical emergency. I was 
on the floor yesterday speaking about another emergency, which is the 
opioid issue and the heroin and prescription drug addiction and now 
fentanyl addiction issue that is facing Ohio and so many other States 
in this country. So these are both issues that I hope Congress will act 
on as part of the process of being sure the government is funded at the 
year's end. Again, I commend my colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio, 
for his good work on this.
  Again, Madam President, what I want to talk about is a tax increase 
that is actually in the Affordable Care Act. This is a tax increase 
that many people don't know about, but sadly it goes into effect at 
year's end, and it is going to affect a lot of middle-income seniors in 
Ohio and around the country. There are millions of seniors who are 
potentially vulnerable to this tax increase. Some of them don't even 
know about it.
  By the way, it comes at a time when middle-class families all around 
this country are feeling squeezed. It is those very middle-class 
families who are going to be hit hardest by this tax increase. Let's 
face it. Wages are flat, even declining, on average, when you take 
inflation into account; whereas, the cost of living has gone up, hasn't 
it. There are a number of factors to that. Electricity costs have gone 
up in my home State of Ohio by about 25 percent in the last several 
years, for instance.
  But with regard to health care costs, there is no question that 
everybody is experiencing an increase--families, small businesses, 
seniors. The President's health care law, the Affordable Care Act, of 
course, was advertised as helping on that. The notion was, as was 
explained at the time, that there would be about a $2,500-per-family 
decrease in the cost of health care premiums. That has not happened.
  In fact, costs have skyrocketed to the point that for many people it 
is their biggest cost increase and they simply cannot afford health 
care coverage. It was supposed to bend the cost curve and bring health 
care costs down, but it simply hasn't. The Ohio Department of Insurance 
just did an analysis. They say the average cost of health care 
insurance premiums for the individual market in Ohio has increased over 
the past 7 years by 90 percent--90 percent--almost a doubling.
  When you look at the Affordable Care Act exchanges themselves, it was 
just reported that we are expecting a 12-percent, on average, 
increase--12-percent, on average, increase--for people in the 
exchanges. Who can afford that? This is a double-digit increase. The 
result, again, is people are feeling the squeeze. Wages are flat, 
expenses up. There is a survey that was done by the Federal Reserve 
recently that said about half of all Americans say they have to borrow 
money or sell something to cover a $400 emergency expense--$400.
  If you have ever had a health emergency, you know that can catch you 
by surprise. It can happen to anyone. Trust me, it usually costs more 
than $400. Seniors are especially vulnerable to these expenses, 
particularly seniors who are on fixed incomes. One economist testified 
to the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing we had that, in part, 
because of those unexpected health care cost increases, more than 85 
percent of Americans are at risk of having insufficient income in 
retirement--more than 85 percent.
  We think this middle-class squeeze is going to get worse, not better, 
in Ohio because so many companies are pulling out of the health care 
exchanges. So, in Ohio, 6 of the 17 companies that offer health care on 
the Ohio exchanges have now decided to pull out because they are losing 
money. Aetna is the most recent one. This means, of course, less 
choice. When you have less choice, what happens? Less competition. Less 
competition, what happens? You tend to have higher costs and lower 
quality.
  So this is going to make things even worse. The Congressional Budget 
Office, the nonpartisan group in Congress, and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation projects that health insurance premiums over the next decade 
will continue to grow at about 5 percent per year, on average. So that 
steady increase is just impossible for people to be able to afford.
  For seniors, the Medicare trustees project Medicare's monthly Part B 
premium and deductible will increase even faster than that, by about 
5.5 percent per year. Again, for a lot of people in that situation, 
they are on a fixed income. Their income is not going up 5.5 percent 
per year. One way seniors have found relief from the squeeze, of 
course, is take advantage of what is called the medical expense tax 
deduction. It is very simple. It says that if your medical expenses 
exceed 7.5 percent of your income, then you can deduct all of those 
medical expenses.
  A lot of seniors take advantage of that. Again, what a lot of seniors 
may not know is that as of the end of this year, under the Affordable 
Care Act, it increases--that threshold increases from 7.5 percent up to 
10 percent. What does that mean? It means a lot of middle-income 
seniors are not going to be able to deduct their medical expenses 
because they exceed 7.5 percent, but they don't exceed 10 percent of 
their income.
  By the way, there are about 10 million Americans who use this 
deduction every year. Most of them are seniors. A lot of them make less 
than the national average household income. In fact, most make less 
than that. Of course, a lot are on a fixed income. I have met with some 
of these people back home who are directly affected by this. One would 
be Susan Culbertson. She is from Zanesville, OH. I was with her in 
Columbus last week.

  Susan said she started working when she was 14 years old. She 
contributed to Social Security. She thought she had a decent plan for 
health care with Medicare and being able to take this deduction. Now, 
as a senior citizen, she has a chronic illness. She is losing sleep 
over how she is going to pay for all of her medical bills if this 
threshold goes up to 10 percent.
  Her husband Michael McVicker worked as a substance abuse counselor in 
a school. He is now living off of Social Security and, boy, that is 
hard to do, as seniors will tell you. When he had a heart attack a few 
years ago, the medical expense deduction helped him and his wife Susan 
be able to stay afloat financially. The difference between the 7.5 
percent and the 10 percent may not seem like much to some people, but 
it matters a lot to Susan, to her husband Michael, and to many other 
seniors in Ohio.
  I met with Lanny Hawkins. He is from Ontario, OH. He volunteers to 
help seniors do their taxes. God bless him. That is a hard job because 
the Tax Code has gotten so doggone complicated that people need help 
from these advisers. He tries to help them walk through the Tax Code. 
He told me that in his experience, the medical expense deduction is 
especially helpful to seniors who have just lost their spouse. He says 
then only one income is there, and often they still have to pay their 
spouse's medical bills after they are deceased.
  So in his practice, he has found people who fall between that 7.5 and 
that 10 percent number who are in that situation.
  By the way, I was supposed to meet with somebody named Regina 
George--Regina is from Hamilton, OH--to talk about this very tax 
increase. I was looking forward to it, but she couldn't make it. Do you 
know why she couldn't make it? Because of the very health care problems 
we are talking about here. Regina just had triple bypass surgery and 
she has a broken hip. She has some out-of-pocket expenses. She has to 
depend on her son who lives with her. Her out-of-pocket health costs 
each month are increasing. She is very worried it is going to exceed 
7.5 percent but not exceed 10 percent, and she is going to find herself 
in a situation where she cannot deduct these health care expenses.
  The Ohio AARP has done a good job of providing specific information 
on this to me and to other members of the Ohio delegation. That is 
really helpful because this is just not about numbers; this is about 
people. When you talk to these people and see what they are going 
through, I think it is something Republicans and Democrats alike should 
be able to come together on to solve before we leave during this 
session of Congress.

[[Page S5441]]

  By the way, the data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that 
seniors who use this deduction end to be the oldest, the least healthy, 
and, by the way, disproportionately women. Think about it. To have 
medical expenses above the threshold means you either have to have low 
income, high out-of-pocket medical expenses, or both. These are not 
folks we should be raising taxes on, especially not now when they are 
feeling squeezed.
  Even with Medicare, as I said earlier, seniors still spend a large 
percentage of their income on health care. The average Medicare 
beneficiary spent more than $6,000 a year in out-of-pocket health care 
expenses in the last year we have information for.
  The result is that some 8.3 million seniors rely on Medicaid in 
addition to Medicare. While this billion-dollar tax increase we are 
talking about today is intended to pay for part of the President's 
health care law, it could actually, in the long run, cause more strain 
on an already struggling Medicaid system. I think that is sort of the 
definition of pennywise and pound foolish, another reason for us to 
pass this legislation.
  Again, it is not about numbers. It is about people, some of the most 
vulnerable in our communities. That is why Senator Brown and I have 
introduced this legislation--it is called the Senior Tax Hike 
Prevention Act--to block this tax increase from going into effect at 
the end of the year and to extend the current 7.5-percent threshold so 
many seniors are counting on.
  The bill is bipartisan. It is common sense. It is a chance for this 
body to show it does work for the most vulnerable in our society, that 
we stand with middle-class families who are feeling squeezed right now, 
and that we stand with our seniors.
  I thank Senator Brown for being an indispensable partner with me in 
this effort. I also thank the many supporters of our legislation, like 
the AARP, the American Senior Housing Alliance, and the Ohio Alliance 
of Area Agencies on Aging.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Brown, join others, join all 
these organizations that represent millions of seniors, and join me in 
blocking this billion-dollar tax increase by supporting this 
commonsense legislation for the sake of those seniors who are caught in 
the squeeze, those seniors whom we represent.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2952

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, shortly I will ask unanimous consent that 
the Senate pass S. 2952, the Stopping Mass Hacking Act.
  Colleagues, the bill is just one sentence long. What it does is 
simple, but in my view it is extraordinarily important. If the Senate 
does nothing, if the Senate fails to act, what is ahead for Americans 
is a massive expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers, 
and it will take place automatically on December 1 of this year. The 
legislation that I seek to pass, which has been bipartisan in the 
Senate, would stop this automatic expansion of government hacking and 
surveillance powers.
  I have said it before and I want to say it again this afternoon: 
There is no question that it is a dangerous world out there, and I take 
a backseat to none when it comes to making sure our law enforcement and 
intelligence officers have the tools they need to keep America safe. In 
fact, I was actually able to add the specific provision expanding 
emergency powers for our government to act when there is a threat so 
that the government could move to protect the American people and come 
back and get the warrant later. But that is not what we are talking 
about here. What we are talking about here is a staggering expansion of 
government hacking and surveillance authority. These are major changes 
to Federal policy that are going to come about through amendments to 
rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  This is the kind of major issue that traditionally comes before the 
Judiciary Committee. I see that two of my colleagues with whom I enjoy 
working very much are here. Chairman Grassley is here and also Senator 
Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a distinguished member 
of the Finance Committee. We have big policy issues that come before 
the Finance Committee and that come before the Judiciary Committee. We 
work on them. We work on them in a bipartisan fashion. Chairman Hatch 
and I meet every Wednesday afternoon to work on these kinds of matters. 
That is not what is going to happen with this massive expansion of 
government hacking and surveillance authority.
  Colleagues, these rules are going into effect on December 1 if 
Congress doss nothing. If Congress just says, ``Oh, gee, we have other 
things to do,'' these rules will go into effect. I guarantee you there 
are going to be many Americans who are going to be very unhappy, and 
they are going to ask their Members of Congress what they did to stop 
this ill-advised approach.
  By the way, in the other body, some of the most senior Republicans--
Congressman Sensenbrenner, the distinguished Congressman from 
Wisconsin, is very concerned about this issue.
  The American people want security and liberty, but these amendments 
don't give them much of either. This major policy change is going to 
make it easier for the government to hack into the personal devices of 
Americans and collect more information about them. They are going to do 
it by using computer programs called malware. The ``mal,'' in my view, 
is like ``malevolent.'' It is going to make us less safe, not more.
  Allowing the government to use secret, untested malware could end up 
damaging not only our personal devices but the power grid or hospitals 
and nearly any other system connected to the Internet. Get your arms 
around that--hospitals in Iowa, Texas, and Oregon being damaged not 
because the Congress made a policy decision but because something was 
done automatically as a result of a change in the rules of criminal 
procedure. I just want to say to my colleagues that I think there will 
be a lot of unhappy Americans if that is the case.
  The rule change says that the government can potentially search 
millions of computers with one single warrant issued by one single 
judge. There is no difference, in terms of law enforcement access, 
between the victims of a hack and the perpetrator himself. These 
changes will make people the victims twice over--once by a hacker and 
once again by their government. You wouldn't punish the victims of a 
tax scam or a Ponzi scheme with a painful audit. It just doesn't add 
up.
  I understand that passing legislation by unanimous consent is a 
difficult task. These days, you can hardly get unanimous consent to 
drink a soda at lunchtime. But this isn't an issue where the Senate can 
do some kind of ostrich act and ignore the problem. By sitting here and 
doing nothing, the Senate will be giving consent to a substantial 
expansion of government hacking and surveillance authority. By not 
acting, the Senate would give a stamp of approval on a major policy 
change that has received no hearing, no oversight, and no discussion in 
spite of the fact that some of the most important companies in America 
are speaking in opposition to this.
  In my view, the limits of search and seizure are unquestionably an 
issue for this Congress to debate. The Justice Department should not 
have the power to change the practical meaning of the Fourth Amendment 
without the people's elected leaders weighing in. Instead, the Senate 
ought to be doubly concerned by the fact that the administration wants 
to conduct proactive cyber security policy through some kind of obscure 
bureaucratic process like rule 41.
  There aren't folks in Oregon, Texas, Iowa, or anywhere else who are 
following the details of something called rule 41, but I am telling 
everybody that they are going to be very concerned about the expansion 
of the government's hacking authority. So I hope my colleagues will 
join me in supporting this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. If this 
bill does not pass today

[[Page S5442]]

by unanimous consent, I look forward to having a hearing on this issue. 
I know there has been bipartisan interest in the Judiciary Committee. 
Leaders of the Judiciary Committee have talked about it, and I hope 
that hearing will take place shortly so that Americans can have a 
chance to understand exactly how devastating this proposal would be for 
them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of S. 2952; that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third 
time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
start by saying to my friend from Oregon that I admire his passion and 
I admire his creativity at branding legislation. But for reasons I will 
explain, this is a commonsense procedure that doesn't relate to the 
Fourth Amendment--the constitutional right to be protected from 
unreasonable searches and seizures. This is a venue provision. This has 
to do with what court to go to in order to get a court order and to get 
permission of a court, after establishing probable cause, to conduct 
that search.
  Senator Wyden is seeking consent to block proposed changes in the 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that have already been the product 
of thoughtful and lengthy consideration, including public hearing and 
deliberation. These rules, as all rules that are plied in the courts 
are, have been approved by the rules advisory committee. This is a 
group of judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys. Then they 
were approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Then, 
most significantly perhaps, they were endorsed by the U.S. Supreme 
Court. So if there were constitutional or other legal issues and 
concerns about this, one would think the highest Court in the land 
would have flagged those and declined to endorse them, but they didn't.
  These changes have been approved because they are commonsense 
measures, as I said a moment ago, that relate solely to the appropriate 
venue for a search warrant. They simply make clear which Federal 
district court the government should go to in order to apply to a judge 
for a search warrant in cases involving sophisticated cyber criminals 
and people like child pornographers and even terrorists. Ultimately, 
that makes our government more efficient--by making it clear which 
courts can consider these requests for search warrants--and better 
equipped to stop these heinous crimes.
  As I said earlier, these aren't substantive changes. This doesn't 
change the balance between privacy and security in the Fourth Amendment 
to the Constitution. Rather, the government must still go before a 
judge and make the requisite showing in order to get a search warrant.
  I can't understand who but the most radical of privacy advocates 
would say that--even after meeting the requirements of the Fourth 
Amendment before a judge establishing probable cause to get a search 
warrant, would say: No, we don't want that to happen. I can't imagine 
circumstances where we would say the Fourth Amendment is trumped by 
concerns about privacy, especially when the targets that must be proven 
up in court are cyber criminals, child pornographers, and even 
terrorists. We can't let that happen, and that is why these rule 
changes are so important.
  Our colleague claims the rule changes will allow for mass hacking and 
forum shopping. That is the creative branding I told him I admired in 
the beginning. But these are the same claims that have been considered 
and rejected through a thoughtful, thorough process that I have already 
described. These changes are modernizing our laws and updating the 
tools government has to investigate so they can better protect us from 
the very real and increasing threat of cyber criminals and terrorists. 
The truth is, there are more things we need to do in addition to this 
to update and modernize our laws.
  I would close by saying that I know public concerns have been raised. 
Indeed, I believe there have been some briefings--even today--by 
Federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community with 
regard to Russian activities in cyber space, even focused on our very 
system of electing our officials in the November 8 election. This is 
not a time to retreat and to allow cyber space to be run amuck by cyber 
criminals or people who would steal intellectual property or child 
pornographers or terrorists. This is a very sensible tool of venue. It 
just says where the search warrant can be sought, not the substantive 
requirements for what needs to be proven. That is preserved under the 
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that protects all of us, as it 
should, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
  So for all those reasons, Mr. President, I object to the unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to yield in just a moment to 
Senator Daines, but just so we are clear in terms of my response to the 
distinguished Senator from Texas, he has--as some have tried to do--
sought to characterize this as kind of a routine kind of matter; that 
this was a rule of criminal procedure of no great import and without 
any far-reaching consideration. I can tell you that cyber security 
experts around the country have spoken out virtually unanimously about 
the consequences of the government accidentally breaking their 
computers without telling them.
  I don't know of anything that is routine about this at all. Under 
this change, the government can search potentially millions of 
computers with one single warrant issued by one single judge. And, 
tragically, there is no difference, in terms of law enforcement access, 
between the victims of a hack and the perpetrators themselves. So we 
are talking about clobbering victims twice. First they get clobbered by 
a hacker and then they could get hurt by the government.
  The distinguished Senator from Texas seeks to portray this as some 
kind of far-out kind of matter. Virtually all of the major technology 
companies in this country have written in opposition to this. Scores of 
cyber security experts have written in opposition. One of the key 
points they make is that you don't punish victims twice in America. You 
wouldn't punish the victims of a tax scam or a Ponzi scheme with a 
painful audit. That is what can happen here.
  The idea that a change of this magnitude would be made without any 
debate, consideration--there has been no hearing on this matter. I know 
of no meetings. I would like to hear any Member of the Senate tell me 
about some meeting they went to. I know of no sessions where the public 
voice could be heard.
  I am very hopeful, and I intend to come back to this floor again in 
an effort to make sure the public is at least brought into this. I can 
tell you that Senator Daines and I represent a lot of rural hospitals, 
for example. Well, certainly if you heard some of what we have been 
told could happen in terms of what it could mean to computer systems at 
hospitals and other kinds of facilities, they are going to ask their 
Senators: What did you do about that? Why did you just let that rule go 
through that would damage those systems that are a lifeline for 
Americans?
  So we are going to be back. As I mentioned before, my colleague in 
the other body was starting to make a fair amount of progress. Jim 
Sensenbrenner, who is a very influential Member of the other body, has 
taken a great interest in this, as have a number of colleagues on both 
sides. So we will be back.
  I am going to yield now. I know my colleague from Montana has been a 
wonderful partner in this effort, and he has some comments to make that 
will highlight once again the bipartisan concern about the magnitude of 
this change that would take place without any involvement, none, here 
in the Senate--no hearings, no debates, no discussions. This is a big 
change, and I hope we will discuss it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

[[Page S5443]]

  

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from Oregon 
commented about how technology companies are concerned about what is 
going on. I spent over a decade in the private sector--in fact, 12 
years with a cloud computing company. We had 17 offices around the 
world and a product in 33 different languages. I saw firsthand what it 
means to be engaged in the high-tech business and the challenges 
related to hacking. I also know firsthand the challenge our country 
does face when it comes to cyber criminals. We were attacked routinely 
in our company and had to defend those attacks off and build rock-
solid, hardened firewalls to protect our customers.
  Technology has made it easier for bad actors to steal our identities, 
to distribute malware, and to commit a whole host of other crimes, all 
from behind a computer screen anywhere in the world. Our law 
enforcement faces tremendous challenges in tracking and stopping these 
criminals. The fact is, our law enforcement policies need to be updated 
to reflect the 21st-century realities, but these policy changes need to 
be made through a process that is transparent and that is effective 
and, importantly, protects our civil liberties.
  The changes to rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
would allow the government to hack an unlimited number of Americans' 
computers, including innocent victims, with a single warrant. This rule 
change was approved behind the closed doors of a little-known judicial 
conference.
  Fundamental changes to the way we allow law enforcement to execute 
searches need to be made, there is no doubt about that. We are in 
agreement that changes need to be made; however, it must be through a 
process that is fully transparent to the American people. We cannot 
give the Federal Government a blank check to infringe upon our civil 
liberties.
  If Congress does not act, this rule change will automatically go into 
effect on December 1. S. 2952, the Stopping Mass Hacking Act, stops the 
rule change and will allow Congress to consider new law enforcement 
tools through--and this is very important--the full, open, transparent 
process they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support this not only bipartisan but also 
bicameral piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the 
work of the Judiciary Committee and to make a short speech on the issue 
of the Affordable Care Act.
  Earlier this week, the minority leader came to the floor to speak 
about the Supreme Court vacancy. He made personal insults and threats, 
as he tends to do. But political stunts and childish tantrums aside, 
the minority leader knows the American people deserve to have their 
voices heard on the future of the Supreme Court. We have made the 
decision that the next President will select the next Justice of the 
Supreme Court. We have done that because the next Justice will have a 
profound impact on issues that matter to all of us for decades to come, 
and we think the people should have a voice in that matter.
  I spent the past several weeks meeting with Iowans across my State 
and discussing issues that concern them and what is on their minds 
looking forward to the election this fall. The vacancy on the Supreme 
Court created by the death of Justice Scalia came up time and again. At 
meeting after meeting during this summer, Iowans told me they 
appreciate the Senate's decision that the next President should 
nominate Justice Scalia's replacement. They understood that this 
nomination will affect the Court for years to come. For that reason, 
they want to have a voice in the matter, and we will give them that 
voice. That is the position the Judiciary Committee took after Justice 
Scalia's death. We wrote to Leader McConnell on February 23 to advise 
him that the next President should select the next Justice. We 
explained it this way:

       The Presidential election is well underway. . . . The 
     American people are presented with an exceedingly rare 
     opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the 
     direction the Court will take over the next generation. We 
     believe The People should have this opportunity.

  Our explanation is all the more true as we find ourselves just 2 
months away from the Presidential election this fall. I remain 
convinced that we owe the people a chance to speak their minds on the 
Supreme Court during this election.
  I have not been surprised to hear from my fellow Iowans that they 
want their voices heard on the issue, and the Senate's decision to give 
the people this opportunity is no surprise either. We are acting in the 
Senate's long tradition as a check on the President's power to 
nominate.
  I would like to take as one example, because I have given several 
examples in other speeches--but go back to 1968. On June 26 of that 
Presidential election year, President Johnson announced his nomination 
of Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when 
Chief Justice Warren declared his intentions to retire. Abe Fortas, of 
course, was already an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and had 
been unanimously confirmed by the Senate just a few years earlier. But 
that confirmation didn't take place in an election year like 1968.
  Within 24 hours of Justice Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice, 
19 Republican Senators issued the following statement: ``[T]he next 
Chief Justice should be selected . . . after the people have expressed 
themselves in the November elections.''
  At the time, Democrats held the Senate, so these 19 Republican 
Members did not control the Judiciary Committee's proceedings on the 
floor. But those 19 Senators promised that if the issue was forced to a 
vote, they would ``vote against confirming any Supreme Court nominees 
by the incumbent President.''
  These 19 Senators made this commitment immediately following the 
President's announcement of his intended nomination for the same 
reasons the Judiciary Committee has elected not to move forward the 
President's nomination of a successor to Justice Scalia.
  Here is what Senator Howard Baker said, as one among those 19 
Senators:

       I have no questions concerning the legal capability of 
     Justice Fortas . . . [but] there are, in my opinion, more 
     important considerations at this time.

  Then, to continue to quote Senator Baker:

       The appointment of the Chief Justice really ought to be the 
     prerogative of the new administration. . . . In my opinion, 
     the judicial branch is not an isolated branch of Government. 
     . . . It is and must be responsive to the sentiment of the 
     people of the Nation.

  Those are my thoughts exactly, and they are not just shared by 
Republicans. Recall of course that then-Chairman Biden said in 1992 
that processing a Supreme Court nomination in an election year harms 
the nominee, the country, and the Senate. And he only spoke of coming 
together on a nominee in the next Congress with a new President.
  I would finally like to address one more argument I have heard 
recently from those who support the President's nomination this 
election year. As we have drawn closer and closer to this Presidential 
election, they have tried to use the length of this vacancy as reason 
to move forward with this President's nomination. I have even heard 
some say that this is the longest Supreme Court vacancy ever. That is 
just plain false. I will list just a few examples.
  Two vacancies to fill the seats of Justices Baldwin and Daniel lasted 
longer than 2 years in the 1800s. Six Supreme Court vacancies have 
lasted longer than a year, and two more have lasted nearly that long.
  As this election draws closer by the day, the Judiciary Committee's 
position remains consistent. The next President will choose Justice 
Scalia's replacement.
  Senators have made this choice before--like the 19 who declared 
during the 1968 election year that the next President should choose 
Justice Warren's replacement. They did so, just as then-Chairman Biden 
said, because that course was best for the country during a politically 
charged election year. The same thing is true this election year. The 
next President will select the next Supreme Court Justice.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. President, I would like to say just a few words on the Affordable 
Care

[[Page S5444]]

Act. I would like to give a direct quote from President Obama about 
ObamaCare: ``Too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician 
visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles or pay their monthly 
insurance bill.''
  I am glad that the President has finally heard that message. When I 
was having meetings in some of the 99 counties in Iowa this year, I 
heard plenty from families who felt duped by the promises of ObamaCare. 
Two families told me that their ObamaCare insurance premium was more 
than their house payment. Many said they did not know how they would 
continue to pay the premiums.
  But President Obama says, in effect, ``Pay no attention to rising 
premiums,'' and then promises to give people subsidies. But 97 percent 
of Americans do not receive ObamaCare subsidies.
  ObamaCare seems to be collapsing. Insurers are leaving the exchanges. 
There has been a lot of news on that lately. Premiums are increasing by 
double digits. In Iowa, some of those premiums increased as much as 28 
percent, and I have heard a lot of States are much higher. Americans 
have fewer health care choices every day, despite the many promises 
that ObamaCare would improve just about every aspect of our health care 
system. Twenty percent of ObamaCare customers will be forced to find a 
new insurance company this fall. So much for the promise that was made 
in 2008 that ``if you like your [insurance], you can keep it.''
  And it is official: You can no longer keep your doctor. So much for 
the promise of 2008 that ``if you like your doctor, you can keep your 
doctor.'' The Obama administration has now even erased all references 
on its Web site to the words ``keeping your doctor.'' The link to the 
web page that used to say ``how to keep your doctor'' now says ``how to 
pick a health plan.''
  So ObamaCare seems to be collapsing. This comes as no surprise. 
ObamaCare has worked as well as piling 2 tons of fertilizer on a 1-ton 
truck, and of course any farmer can tell you, that just doesn't work 
very well for a long haul.
  We could enact alternative reforms aimed at solving America's biggest 
health care problems. Good places to start would be cracking down on 
frivolous lawsuits, letting people purchase insurance across State 
lines, improving transparency in the health care pricing, giving States 
more freedom to improve Medicaid, using consumer choice to drive 
competition, which in turn drives down costs, and changing the Tax Code 
so that small businesses can provide affordable health insurance to 
their employees. That financial help is something that ObamaCare took 
away, and this is exactly what my legislation, S. 1697, the Small 
Business Healthcare Relief Act, will do to give those employers an 
opportunity to provide that help to their employees.
  I have given only a partial list of policy changes so the American 
people can know that the failing ObamaCare program is not the only 
answer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, last March this body passed CARA, the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. Unfortunately, at the same 
time, we didn't fund it. We didn't provide any additional funds to 
support the treatment and recovery of people throughout the country. 
Since we passed that bill and failed to fund it, 15,000 people--78 a 
day, 3 an hour--have died because we haven't acted on funding.
  A group of us got together on March 2 and brought forth an amendment 
to provide $600 million of emergency funding to give some substance to 
this bill, which had so much promise, and to provide support for 
recovery and treatment. That amendment was defeated.
  Passing that bill without funding is like sending the fire department 
to a five-alarm fire with no water. We don't have the means to do what 
has to be done to defeat this scourge, which has taken the life of a 
constituent or more in every State in the Union. Every one of us has 
lost lives in our State because of this.
  Treatment works. Recovery is possible. It is hard, but the greatest 
tragedy--the greatest tragedy--is when someone struggles with this 
awful disease, is ready to seek help, seeks help, and is told: Sorry, 
there is a 3-month waiting list. That is unconscionable.
  This is something that is taking lives right now. This isn't an 
abstract, ``maybe this will happen in the future.'' This is right now, 
today, in Maine, in Florida, in California, in Arizona, in Washington, 
in Nebraska, in Texas--all across this country. It is the greatest 
public health crisis of my lifetime. Seventy-eight people a day are 
dying, and it is preventable.
  There are three legs to the stool of dealing with this: One is law 
enforcement, one is prevention, and one is treatment. And without all 
three of those legs, the stool collapses and people die. These are real 
people.
  I have had roundtables in Maine. I sat next to a deputy sheriff who 
lost his daughter and one woman who said she hoped her son would be 
arrested so maybe then he could get into treatment. These are regular, 
ordinary Americans that are being affected by this, not only young 
people. These are older people, middle class, middle-aged people. This 
is a major crisis. There are lots of aspects to it, and I can talk 
about the fact that opioid prescription drugs lead to heroin and other 
drugs, but the real subject today is funding.
  I was told back in the spring: Don't worry, we are going to take up 
CARA in appropriations. We are going to have appropriations bills, and 
it will all be dealt with. Well, now we are talking about a continuing 
resolution that would not have any additional funding unless we find a 
way to do it, and that is my plea today.
  I have written to the President; I have written to the chair of the 
Appropriations Committee saying: Let's find a way to at least fund the 
$181 million that is authorized in CARA. At least do that, even if we 
are doing a continuing resolution.
  By the way, I don't understand why we are doing continuing 
resolutions when the agreement has been reached on the amount of the 
budget, the amount of the appropriations. The Appropriations Committee 
has done their work. Why aren't we doing appropriations? That is 
another subject.
  But however we do the funding this fall, let's deal with this 
terrible problem that is taking lives, tearing families apart, and 
deeply wounding the heart of America.
  I ask the consideration of this whole body for this urgent problem 
and that we take real steps to deliver help to those people who are 
asking for it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________