[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5585-S5594]
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 assistant Republican leader.


                                Civility

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the Democratic leader is still on 
the floor, let me express my gratitude to him for his remarks earlier. 
It is true that for better or for worse, we both have to bear the 
burden of legal training and experience in courtrooms where we learned 
that adversaries don't necessarily have to be enemies and to 
disassociate the arguments we are making from any personal animus or 
animosity, which, I think, is a very healthy and constructive thing to 
do. I always remember the excerpt from ``The Taming of the Shrew'' 
where one of the speakers said: ``Do as adversaries in law; strive 
mightily, but eat and drink as friends.''
  So I think that kind of civility is an important admonition for all 
of us. It is one that maybe we don't always live up to but one that I 
think we should continue to strive to emulate.
  So let me just say to the Democratic leader that I appreciate his 
comments and perhaps we can all do a little bit better in that 
category.


                               ObamaCare

  As the minority leader also pointed out, we have some very big 
disagreements. It seems as though each day is likely to bring more news 
about the awful side effects of President Obama's signature health care 
legislation, ObamaCare, as it has come to be called. The truth is that 
the implementation and the reality of ObamaCare has been nothing short 
of a disaster for many of the people who I represent in Texas, but it 
is not limited to the 27 million people or so who live in Texas. The 
problem has been visited on many people, as the majority leader 
commented about earlier with some of the statements he made with regard 
to its implementation in various other States.
  Unfortunately, when Congress and Washington make a mistake, it is the 
American people who have to pay the price, and it seems as though the 
consequences of ObamaCare are only getting worse.
  I think it is worth remembering--I certainly remember--that it was on 
Christmas Eve in 2009, at 7 o'clock in the morning, when the Senate 
passed the ObamaCare legislation with 60 Democrats voting in favor of 
it and all Republicans voting against it. I think that was the 
beginning of the failure of

[[Page S5586]]

ObamaCare. What our Democratic friends, including the President, failed 
to learn is that any time signature legislation that affects one-sixth 
of the economy and every American in this country--any time we pass a 
law like that, in the absence of some political consensus where each 
side gets something and gives up something and that builds consensus, 
then that law is simply not going to be sustainable, beyond the policy 
problems the law has obviously manifested.
  I still remember as if it were yesterday, when the President said: If 
you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. He said: If you like 
your policy, you can keep your policy. He said that the average family 
of four would save $2,500 on their health care costs. None of that has 
proven to be true. In fact, just the opposite is true. That is, 
unfortunately, part of the legacy of the broken promises of ObamaCare. 
It was essentially sold under false pretenses.
  Back in my old job, before I came to the Senate, I was attorney 
general of Texas, and we had a consumer protection division that sued 
people who committed consumer fraud, who represented one thing to 
consumers and delivered another. We sued them for consumer fraud. 
Unfortunately, the American people can't sue the Federal Government for 
consumer fraud. They would have a pretty good case because of the trail 
of broken promises known as ObamaCare.
  I just want to point out a few instances of how ObamaCare has proven 
to be such a disaster for the folks I represent in Texas.
  Under the so-called Affordable Care Act--which really should be 
called the un-Affordable Care Act--many of my constituents in Texas are 
paying more for their insurance. Of course many remember the PR 
campaign the President and his administration rolled out to the 
American people. He promised better coverage, more choices, and lower 
prices. The one component we would think health care reform would 
deliver and that ObamaCare has been a complete failure on is lower 
costs for consumers. In fact, because of the mandates in ObamaCare, 
such as guaranteed issue--which is an arcane topic, but because of the 
way it was structured, it was bound to cost more money, not less--how 
in the world are we going to get more people covered by charging them 
more than they currently pay for their health care? We are not, unless 
we are going to come in the back door and use taxpayer subsidies to 
sort of cushion the blow, but even then, many people are finding 
ObamaCare simply unaffordable or maybe they can get coverage, but they 
find out they have a $5,000 deductible. So when they go to the hospital 
or when they go to the doctor, while they may think they have coverage, 
they basically are self-insured.
  Unfortunately, my constituents have learned that ObamaCare has simply 
failed to deliver. Many people in my State are suffering. Over the past 
2 months, it seems as though every week I read another headline in the 
Texas newspaper about the way it is hurting my constituents. I brought 
a few of those with me today.
  First of all, here is the headline in the San Antonio Express-News: 
``Obamacare hitting Texas hard as insurers propose steep rate 
increases.'' One might say: Why are you upset with ObamaCare when it is 
the insurance companies that are raising rates? The reason the 
insurance companies are raising rates is because people aren't signing 
up for ObamaCare if they can avoid it, unless they happen to be older 
and subject to more illnesses, which means the cost goes up for those 
who are buying those policies.
  The article talks about how insurance companies are losing hundreds 
of millions of dollars under ObamaCare. Again, why would we care about 
insurance companies losing hundreds of millions of dollars? As we found 
out, many of them simply can't sustain themselves in the States so they 
are leaving. The majority leader talked about that a moment ago. Just 
to make ObamaCare viable, many of them are raising premiums by as much 
as 60 percent next year, just to stay in business.
  Unfortunately, Texas is not unique. Other States such as New York and 
Illinois are looking at double-digit premium increases in 2017 as well. 
That is because, under the President's signature health care law, 
insurers are forced to pass along higher costs to customers. If they 
can't do it, their only other choice is to leave, leaving consumers 
with fewer choices and maybe only one choice in a State. That happens 
when the government--when the masters of the universe in Washington, 
DC,--think they know better than the market. It is basic economics.
  The bad headlines don't stop there. Here is one from the Austin 
American-Statesman: ``Thousands affected in Texas as Aetna rolls back 
Obamacare plans.'' Aetna alone has more than 80,000 customers in Texas. 
It is one of the biggest health care providers in the country. Their 
leaving means that thousands of people will have to find a new health 
care plan. So much for ``if you like what you have, you can keep it,'' 
assuming they have a plan they liked, which now is more expensive than 
what many were paying before ObamaCare was passed. Again, it is not 
just my constituents in Texas who are hurting. Starting next year, 
Aetna will offer plans in only 4 States--4 States--down from the 
current 15. So consumers will have even fewer choices starting next 
year.
  Aetna wasn't the only company to leave the State. This poster shows 
the headline from the Waco Tribune-Herald. Scott & White is one of our 
premier hospitals and health care systems in central Texas. The 
headline says: ``Scott & White Health Plan leaving Obamacare.'' 
According to the article, more than 44,000 Texans will have to find 
another insurance plan in 2017. Again, because of the extra costs 
burdening these companies, they simply can't afford to offer coverage, 
and they have no alternative but to pack up and leave.
  Finally, here is a headline from the Texas Tribune: ``Health 
Insurers' Exit Spells Trouble for Obamacare in Texas.'' In this story, 
the Tribune reports that in addition to Scott & White and Aetna, an 
insurance startup called Oscar Insurance also announced it would 
withdraw from Texas exchanges in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The 
Dallas-Fort Worth area is one of the most populous parts of the State. 
This is absolutely unacceptable. With so many insurance companies 
pulling out of Texas, Texans will have less health care options, plain 
and simple.
  I am beginning to wonder whether the conspiracy theories we heard 
early on about ObamaCare, that it was built to fail because what the 
advocates wanted is a single-payer, government-run system, and this was 
just a predicate or prelude to that because it could not work as 
structured. We can draw our own conclusions, but, the fact is, 
consumers will have less choice and their health care coverage comes at 
a higher price.
  According to one estimate, 60 counties out of 254 counties in Texas 
will have just one option in 2017 unless other insurance companies 
decide to enter the market, which is highly unlikely given the way 
ObamaCare is structured. That means prices will continue to go up. And 
you wonder why people are frustrated in America, why our politics seem 
too polarized, and why people seem so angry at what is happening in 
Washington? At a time when their wages have remained flat because of 
this administration's economic policies--and overregulation being a 
large part of it--the costs for consumers continue to go up. That means 
people's real disposable income is going down, and they are not happy 
about it--and they shouldn't be.
  Texas is a big State. We have very highly populated areas like the 
Metroplex in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston and Austin, but we are a big 
rural State as well. People who live outside of the major cities are 
the very demographic that ObamaCare was supposed to help, but they will 
be disproportionately hurt as fewer companies are able to offer 
insurance away from major population centers. Company after company is 
packing up and leaving the exchanges in Texas because ObamaCare simply 
will not work as structured. It can't deliver on its promises. At the 
end of the day, hard-working Texas families have to pay for the 
partisan policies of this administration and our Democratic colleagues 
who jammed this through Congress rather than trying to build some 
consensus, on a bipartisan basis, that would make this sustainable.
  I remember being at a program where James Baker III, who obviously 
served

[[Page S5587]]

in the Reagan administration, and Joe Califano, former Secretary of 
Health and Human Services--a Democrat who served in the Carter 
administration, a Democratic administration--made the commonsense 
observation that any time you pass legislation as big as ObamaCare, it 
is bound to fail because you can't expect people who opposed the 
legislation from the very beginning to say: Let me try to rescue you 
from a bad decision in the first place, when they were essentially 
frozen out of the process.
  For example, when Social Security became the law, consensus was 
reached, and that is the way it should be done. Unfortunately, my 
constituents in Texas and the American people are paying the price for 
a bad decision made in 2009 and 2010 to make ObamaCare a purely 
partisan piece of legislation.
  I get letters from my constituents all the time who liked their 
insurance before it was cancelled because of ObamaCare, they liked 
their doctor whom they could see under their existing health care 
policy, and they even liked the price they were paying for it--it was 
affordable before the mandates of ObamaCare, but one by one they lost 
their coverage when ObamaCare became the law of the land.
  I have had some of my constituents tell me they feel terrorized by 
ObamaCare. Strong words. Others have told me bluntly, they need relief 
from it: Please, help us. We are drowning in higher costs and fewer 
choices and we don't like what we have under ObamaCare. The bottom line 
is, for all of the purported benefits the Democratic leader talked 
about--more people on Medicaid, more people with some form of 
coverage--we know a huge majority of people feel as though they got a 
raw deal, and we knew it would be that way from the beginning. That is 
the reason many people, including myself, opposed it.
  That is also the reason why just this year Senate Republicans passed 
a bill under the budget reconciliation process to repeal ObamaCare, 
because we feel the American people deserve better. Not surprisingly, 
President Obama vetoed it. What we demonstrated is, the political 
support in the Senate, working with the House, to, hopefully under the 
next President, build a health care system the American people can 
afford, giving them the choices they want because unfortunately 
ObamaCare did not deliver on its promises.
  We have our work cut out for us in 2017. We demonstrated there are 
enough votes there to repeal ObamaCare. All we need now is a President 
who will sign it, as we work together to repeal it and give a more 
affordable alternative to ObamaCare that gives people the choices they 
want and deserve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, both the Republican majority leader and 
the Republican assistant majority leader have come to the floor to 
address one issue that is pretty important to them, and it clearly is 
the focus of their attention. The issue today is the Affordable Care 
Act, ObamaCare, which was passed by the Senate and the House 6 years 
ago. What I have missed in most of the debate--no, in fact, what I 
missed from all of the debate from the Republican side, is their 
proposal or their alternative. They don't have one. No, what they want 
to argue is: We need to go back to the good old days--the good old days 
of health insurance before the Affordable Care Act.
  You heard the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Texas talk 
about getting back to those good old days and getting rid of the 
mandates in the Affordable Care Act. What were those mandates in the 
Affordable Care Act? Here is one. It says if you or any member of your 
family had a preexisting condition, you could not be denied health 
insurance. Does any family across America have a family member with a 
preexisting condition? It turns out there are quite a few--my family 
and many others. There are 129 million Americans out of 350 million who 
have a preexisting condition in their family. What did that mean in the 
good old days before the Affordable Care Act, which the Republicans 
want to return to? It meant health insurance companies would just flat 
out say no, we are not going to cover you. You have a child who 
survived cancer, you have a wife who is a diabetic--no health insurance 
for you. Those are the good old days that Republicans would like to 
return to, but for 129 million Americans, it means no insurance or 
unaffordable insurance to go back to the Republican good old days under 
health insurance.
  There was also a provision--another mandate in the Affordable Care 
Act--which said you cannot discriminate against women when it comes to 
health insurance. Why would health insurance companies charge more 
money for women than men? Well, women are made differently, have 
different health needs. But why should they be discriminated against 
when it comes to the cost of health insurance?
  One of the mandates said that you treat men and women equally when it 
comes to the payment of premiums. In the good old days, you could 
discriminate against women. It meant that 157 million American women 
could pay a higher premium for the same health insurance as a man. So 
the good old days, which the Senate Republicans would like to return to 
in health insurance, would go back to discrimination against women.
  There was another mandate. The mandate said that if you were a family 
who had a son or a daughter and you wanted to keep them on your family 
health insurance until they reached the age of 26, the health insurance 
companies had to give you that option. It was mandated. In the good old 
days, which the Senate Republicans would like to return to, there was 
no requirement that you be allowed to continue coverage for your son or 
daughter to age 26.
  What difference does that make? I remember when my daughter was going 
to college and then graduated. I called her and said: Jennifer, do you 
have health insurance?
  Oh, Dad, I don't need that. I feel fine.
  Well, no parent wants to hear that. You never know what tomorrow's 
diagnosis or tomorrow's accident is going to bring. So one of the 
mandates, which the Republicans would like to get rid of, is the 
mandate that family health insurance cover your children up to age 26 
while they are graduating from school, looking for a job, maybe working 
part time. They want to go back to the good old days when you could 
tell a family: No, your son or daughter cannot stay under your health 
insurance plan.
  There was another provision too. There used to be a Senator who sat 
right back there; I can picture him right now--Paul Wellstone of 
Minnesota. Paul Wellstone was an extraordinary Senator who died in a 
plane crash. You probably remember. Over on that side of the aisle, 
right at that seat, was Pete Domenici of New Mexico. Pete Domenici was 
a Republican Senator from New Mexico.
  Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici were two polar opposites in 
politics, but they had one thing in common. Both of them had members of 
their family with mental illness. The two of them, Paul Wellstone and 
Pete Domenici, came together and said: Every health insurance plan in 
America should cover mental health counseling and care--mandated mental 
health counseling and care.
  Those two Senators from the opposite poles in politics knew, 
together, that mental illness is, in fact, an illness that can be 
treated. Health insurance plans did not cover it, did not want to cover 
it. But the mandate that they came up with, included in the Affordable 
Care Act, said: Yes, you will cover mental health illness and mental 
health counseling.
  Well, you have just listened to the Senator from Texas talk about 
doing away with mandates, mandates that require the coverage of mental 
health illness. There is something else they included, too, and most of 
us didn't notice. It doesn't just say mental health illness; it says 
mental health illness and substance abuse treatment.
  What I am finding in Illinois, and we are finding across the country 
because of the opioid and heroin epidemic, is that many families get 
down on their knees and thank goodness that their health insurance now 
gives their son or daughter facing the addiction of opioids or heroin 
health insurance coverage for treatment. This is another mandate in the 
Affordable Care Act that the Senators from Texas and Kentucky believe 
should be gone.
  That is not all. There is also a mandate in the Affordable Care Act 
that we

[[Page S5588]]

do something to help senior citizens pay for their prescriptions drugs. 
Under the plan devised by the Republicans, there was something called a 
doughnut hole where seniors could find themselves, after a few months 
each year, going into their savings accounts for thousands of dollars 
to pay for their pharmaceuticals and drugs.
  We put in a mandate in the Affordable Care Act to start closing that 
doughnut hole and protecting seniors. The Republicans would have us go 
back to the good old days when the Medicare prescription program--where 
seniors were depleting their savings because of the cost of lifesaving 
drugs.
  So when you go through the long list of things that are mandated in 
the Affordable Care Act, you have to ask my Republican critics: Which 
one of those mandates would you get rid of? They suggest that--at least 
the Senator from Texas suggested--we should get rid of all of these 
mandates and go back to the good old days of health insurance.
  It is true that the cost of health insurance is going open up. My 
family knows it. We are under an insurance exchange from the Affordable 
Care Act. We know it. Others know it as well. But to suggest this is 
brand new since the Affordable Care Act is to ignore reality and to 
ignore the obvious. If you take a look back in time--and not that far 
back in time--before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, you find 
some interesting headlines.
  The Senator from Texas brings headlines from Texas of the last few 
months. In 2005, 5 years before the Affordable Care Act was law, there 
was a Los Angeles Times headline that read, ``Rising Premiums Threaten 
Job-Based Health Coverage.'' It should not come as any surprise to 
those of us who have any memory of when the cost of health insurance 
premiums were going up every single year.
  In 2006, 4 years before the Affordable Care Act became law, a New 
York Times headline read, ``Health Care Costs Rise Twice as Much as 
Inflation.''
  In 2008, 2 years before we passed the law, a Washington Post headline 
read, ``Rising Health Costs Cut Into Wages.''
  It is naive--in fact, it is just plain wrong--to suggest that health 
care costs were not going up before the Affordable Care Act, and health 
insurance premiums were not going up. If you could buy a policy, you 
could expect the cost of it to go up every year. What we tried to 
achieve with the Affordable Care Act was to slow the rate of growth in 
health insurance costs. We have achieved that.
  More than 20 million Americans who did not have it before the 
Affordable Care Act now have health insurance. We are also finding that 
the cost of programs like Medicare have gone down over $400 million 
because we are finding cost savings in health care, cost savings 
brought about because of the Affordable Care Act. I said $400 million; 
sorry, I was wrong. It is $473 billion saved in Medicare since the 
Affordable Care Act because the rate of growth in health care costs has 
slowed down.
  For employer premiums, the past 5 years included four of the five 
slowest growth years on record. Health care price growth since the 
Affordable Care Act became law has been the slowest in 50 years. Have 
some premiums gone up? Yes, primarily in the individual market.
  Now, the Senator from Texas and I have something in common. The 
biggest health insurer in my State is also a major health insurer in 
Texas--Blue Cross. Blue Cross came to me and said: We are going to have 
to raise premiums. How much, I can't say ultimately. It is still going 
through the decision process. What was the reason? They said: Not 
enough people are signing up for the health insurance exchanges. What 
we are trying to do is to get more people to sign up for health 
insurance so that we literally have universal coverage across this 
country.
  We have made great progress; 20 million people more are covered. But 
to argue that we should go back to the good old days of health 
insurance, of discrimination against people with preexisting 
conditions, discrimination against women, making the decision that if 
your child has a medical condition, your family would not have health 
insurance--to say that we should go back to that--is that what the 
Republicans are proposing? I am still waiting for the Republican 
alternative to the Affordable Care Act. They have had plenty of time to 
work on it.
  They call it partisan law, but let's make the record clear. In 2009, 
when President Obama was sworn into office and started this effort to 
reform health insurance in America, Max Baucus, a Democrat from 
Montana, was the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. He reached 
out to the ranking Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, to try to devise 
a bipartisan bill.
  They took a long time deliberating and meeting. In fact, many of us 
were frustrated, saying: When is this going to result in an actual 
bill? In August of 2009, Senator Grassley announced he was no longer 
going to be engaged in that deliberation and negotiation. From that 
point forward, no Republicans participated in the drawing up of the 
bill or an alternative. It passed on a partisan rollcall despite the 
best efforts of many Democratic Senators to engage the Republicans in 
at least debating the issue and helping us to build the bill.
  They were opposed and remain opposed. They still oppose it today and 
still have no alternative, no substitute. It is their hope that we will 
somehow return to the good old days of health insurance. Well, they 
were not good old days for millions of Americans. It meant 
discrimination, exclusions, expenses, and treatment no one wants to 
return to.
  One topic is never mentioned by the Republicans when they come to the 
floor and talk about health insurance. I listened carefully yesterday 
and again today with Senator McConnell and with Senator Cornyn, and one 
thing they failed to mention: Did you hear them say anything about the 
cost of pharmaceuticals and drugs? Not a word.
  Yet when you ask health insurance companies why premiums are going 
up, some are saying: They are being driven by the cost of 
pharmaceuticals. One company says that 25 percent of our premium 
increase goes to the cost of pharmaceuticals. Well, we know what they 
are talking about, don't we. When people take over these pharmaceutical 
companies, they grab a drug that has been on the market, sometimes for 
decades, and decide to raise the price 100 percent, 200 percent, and 
550 percent in the case of EpiPens, those pens that save kids who have 
anaphylactic reactions to peanuts and other things they are allergic 
to.
  So if we are going to deal with the drivers in the cost of health 
insurance, my friends on the Republican side have to be open to the 
suggestion that we need to do more to protect American consumers from 
being fleeced by pharmaceutical companies. Why are we paying so much 
more for drugs in America that are literally cheaper in Canada and 
cheaper in Europe? It is because our laws do not give the consumers a 
fighting chance. Our laws allow pharmaceutical companies to charge what 
they wish with little or no oversight.
  Do you want to bring down the cost of health care? We have hospitals 
already engaged in that effort, doctors engaged in that effort, medical 
professionals committed to that effort. But what one hospital 
administrator said to me is: Senator, when are we going to get the 
pharmaceutical companies to join us in trying to reduce the cost to 
consumers?
  Let me just close by saying that the Senator from Texas said: There 
were those in the Senate who wanted to have a government health 
insurance plan. Guilty as charged--not as the only plan, but as a 
competitor when it came to these health insurance plans. What if we had 
Medicare for all across the United States as an alternative in every 
insurance exchange and allowed consumers across this country to decide 
whether that is an option that is valuable for them?
  I am not closing out the possibility of private insurers. Let them 
compete as well. But consumers at least deserve that option, a 
nonprofit Medicare-for-all insurance plan. It was stopped because we 
did not have the support of all of the Democrats, to be honest with 
you, and no support from the Republican side. I still think that is a 
viable alternative that we should explore.
  So I will still wait. There will be more and more speeches about the 
Affordable Care Act. I will still wait,

[[Page S5589]]

after 6 years, for the first proposal from the Republican side for the 
replacement of the Affordable Care Act. I have not seen it yet, but 
hope springs eternal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to offer remarks on the Water 
Resources Development Act today. Specifically, I would like to address 
amendment No. 4996, which has now been modified and included in the 
Inhofe-Boxer managers' package. First, to Senators Inhofe and Boxer, 
thank you for your commitment to passing the WRDA bill every 2 years.
  I appreciate their efforts to work with every Member in this Chamber 
to make certain that commitment is upheld. The bill reflects our duty 
and ability to ensure safe, reliable water infrastructure. In large 
part, it achieves this by granting greater flexibility to local 
stakeholders to manage their community's diverse water needs.
  For example, in Nebraska, our 23 natural resource districts will be 
allowed to fund feasibility studies and receive reimbursement during 
project construction instead of waiting until that project is 
completed.
  WRDA also includes real reform for State municipalities, like those 
in Omaha, struggling with unfunded combined sewer overflow mandates.
  Personally, I am relieved that WRDA 2016 eliminates the EPA's flawed 
median-household income affordability measurement which hurts fixed- 
and low-income families.
  Regarding amendment No. 4996, I thank the chair, the ranking member, 
and staff of the EPW Committee for working with me in a bipartisan 
manner to ensure that America's farmers and ranchers have greater 
certainty for their on-farm fuel and animal feed storage. This 
amendment provides a limited exemption to farmers from the EPA's spill 
prevention, containment, and control--or the SPCC--rule. Two years ago 
I worked with Senator Boxer, who was then chairman of the committee, in 
a good-faith effort to address concerns raised by my constituents about 
this rule, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to do so 
again.
  My modified amendment would wholly exempt animal feed storage tanks 
from the SPCC rule both in terms of aggregate storage and single-tank 
storage. Further, this amendment includes additional language that will 
exempt up to 2,000 gallons of capacity on remote or separate parcels of 
land as long as these tanks are not larger than 1,000 gallons each. 
Ultimately, this will give ag producers greater flexibility to access 
the necessary fuel needed to power machinery, equipment, and irrigation 
pumps.
  Some may think these are just technical tweaks, but let me assure you 
they are critically important to farmers and ranchers across our 
country. Most agricultural producers live miles away from the nearest 
refueling station; therefore, producers rely upon on-farm fuel storage 
to supply the fuel they need at the time they need it. This amendment 
will ensure that producers can maintain that on-farm fuel storage. It 
will bring some reasonable, measured exemptions to the SPCC rule for 
small- and medium-sized farms and for livestock producers.
  This compromise comes at a critical hour for our ag producers. They 
are struggling through one of the toughest farm economies since the 
1980s. Markets are weak, and margins are tight. This compromise offers 
much needed regulatory relief. For many, it is a lifeline. It lifts an 
unnecessary burden.
  I urge my colleagues to support these commonsense exemptions that 
will limit harmful Federal regulations on the men and women who feed a 
very hungry world. I wish to comment briefly on those harmful 
regulations. As I mentioned, the Senate passed a provision in the 2014 
WRDA bill requiring the EPA to do some research before determining what 
is and what is not an appropriate, safe fuel storage level for the 
average American farmer. It is my view--and it is shared by many 
producers across the country--that if there is no risk, then there is 
no reason to regulate. Don't fix problems that don't exist.
  The EPA released results of this study last year, and it is difficult 
for me to call it a study. The word ``study'' carries with it the 
implication of careful scrutiny. The EPA's report was, in reality, a 
collection of assumptions lacking in scientific evidence. It supported 
a recommendation that moved the goalposts on the exemption levels below 
the minimum that was previously agreed to by this Chamber and signed 
into law. The EPA report failed to show that on-farm fuel storage poses 
a significant risk to water quality. It cited seven examples of 
significant fuel spills and not one of them occurred on a farm or a 
ranch. Even more misleading, one referenced a spill of 3,000 gallons of 
jet fuel. I know that in the Presiding Officer's State of South Dakota 
and in my State of Nebraska, it would be very hard to find a farmer who 
employs the use of a jet engine when they are harvesting a cornfield.
  To place these costly fees and heavy regulations on farmers and 
ranchers at so difficult a time is very dangerous and it is serious. To 
do so based on a report with false, misleading information is 
irresponsible.
  I know the impact of Federal policies from first-hand experience. 
Farmers and ranchers understand that their success is the direct result 
of careful stewardship of our natural resources. We depend on a healthy 
environment for our very livelihoods. We know the value of clean 
water--you cannot raise cattle or corn without it. No one works harder 
to protect the quality of our streams and our aquifers. When it comes 
to preventing spills from on-farm fuel storage, producers already have 
every incentive in the world. We live on this land and our families 
drink the water.
  Again, I thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer for their 
willingness to come together, reach a compromise, and safeguard the 
livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers.
  The Senate's approval of WRDA will be a relief for farmers throughout 
Nebraska and all across America, who should not face these unnecessary 
regulations. The bipartisan provision regarding on-farm fuel storage 
completely exempts animal feed ingredients, and it does provide greater 
flexibility to producers to access the fuel where they need it, and 
that is reflective of the real-world realities we face in production 
agriculture.
  I appreciate my colleagues' support and cooperation on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Zika Virus Funding

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if ever there were an issue that ought to 
be bipartisan, it is tackling the Zika virus because this virus, of 
course, is taking an enormous toll on our country.
  What we are seeing is women and men getting infected, research 
stalling out, and babies being born with deformities and severe 
disabilities. My view is there shouldn't be anything partisan about 
tackling this. It ought to be common sense. The Senate ought to come 
together, and we should have done it quite some time ago. Yet 
Republican leaders seem to be putting this into slow motion because 
they want to limit access to the very health services pregnant women 
depend on for their care. When you listen to their view, it is almost 
like giving pregnant women cans of bug spray and wishing them good 
luck. In my view, that defies common sense.
  What I have always felt--and this has been true throughout my time in 
public service--is that with the big public health issues where the 
safety and well-being of so many Americans is on the line, you say: 
What we are going to do is we are going to do our job, we are going to 
come together, and we are going to do it in a bipartisan fashion based 
on what researchers and public health authorities say makes sense.
  Yet here the Senate is on an issue that is at the forefront of the 
minds of millions of American women and families, and what we are being 
told by Republicans is that the price of dealing with the Zika virus is 
limiting women's rights and reducing access to reproductive health 
care, and so much of that agenda is a preventive agenda, which is 
exactly what the public health authorities say is most important.
  My hope is that this Congress is very quickly going to say that we 
are going to set aside the anti-women, anti-family language, and, as 
part of a must-pass bill, that we are going to say we are going to come 
together as a body,

[[Page S5590]]

Democrats and Republicans, and address what are clear public health 
recommendations of the leading specialists in this country and do the 
job that Americans told us to do, which is, when you have something 
that affects millions of Americans and their health and safety--I had a 
number of forums on the Zika virus this summer in Oregon. It is a great 
concern. For example, the Oregon Health Sciences Center, our premier 
health research body, is very concerned about the research agenda 
stalling out.
  I would say to my colleagues, let's set aside this question of trying 
to find ideological trophies as part of the Zika legislation. Let's 
address the clear public health recommendations we have received. Let's 
do it in a bipartisan way. Let's do it in a way that reflects common 
sense, and let's do it quickly.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor after having seen 
the minority leader and then the minority whip on the floor this 
morning talking about the President's health care law. It is a law that 
the President said people should forcefully defend and be proud. What I 
heard was a defense of a bill--now a law--that was passed solely along 
partisan lines a number of years ago. It is very hard to be proud or 
defend that law based on what the American people are experiencing.
  I come to the floor noting that the President is from the home State 
of Illinois, the minority whip is from the home State of Illinois, and 
there have been a number of stories in the press recently from that 
State about just how horrendous the impact of the law has been on the 
people of the President's home State, to the point that just yesterday 
there was a story in the Washington Examiner with the headline 
``Illinois gets ready for huge Obamacare rate hikes.''
  People say: Well, what is not to like about ObamaCare?
  According to a Crain's Chicago Business report dated August 27--the 
headline is ``What's not to like about ObamaCare? Plenty in Illinois.''
  There is plenty in Illinois not to like about ObamaCare, but it is 
not just Illinois and it is not just Nevada, where the minority leader 
is from; a Gallup poll of the entire country that recently came out 
showed that more Americans are negative than positive about the health 
care law. Have there been some people who have been helped? Absolutely. 
But overall, most Americans in this case have said the impact has been 
more negative than positive.
  It is interesting because the way the question was asked--they asked: 
Has this health care law helped you personally or has it hurt you and 
your family?
  I was astonished to see that 29 percent of Americans say ObamaCare 
has hurt them and their families personally. Three out of ten Americans 
say this law has hurt them and their families personally. Well, how 
does that happen? Maybe they lost their doctor. The President said: If 
you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Many people couldn't, 
in spite of what the President told them. The President told them their 
insurance premiums would drop by $2,500. Instead, people are noticing 
premiums going up around the country. The President said: If you like 
your plan, you can keep your plan. We know that has not been true.
  And then what I found additionally astonishing and should be 
concerning to all of us as Americans--and as a doctor most concerning 
to me--is the question, How will this health care law affect your 
family in the future? More Americans expect the health care law to make 
their family's health care situation worse in the long term.
  These are people talking about their own families, not the minority 
leader or the minority whip or the President of the United States 
coming to the floor and talking about this and that--the theoretical 
aspects. I am talking about American families--men, women, children--
all trying to live a healthy life and finding it has been impeded, hurt 
by the President's health care law.
  It is amazing that 36 percent--more than one in three Americans--
expect this health care law to make their family's health care 
situation worse. Did we hear about that during the debate on the Senate 
floor when the bill was written behind closed doors in Harry Reid's 
office or when Nancy Pelosi said: First you have to pass it before you 
find out what is in it. Did the American people understand that 6 years 
later, over one in three would say personally their health care and the 
health of their own family would be worse because of this law?
  The State of Illinois. This is the headline yesterday: ``Illinois 
gets ready for huge Obamacare rate hikes.'' The first line of the 
story: ``Half the insurers selling plans in Illinois' Obamacare 
marketplaces are hiking prices by 50 percent on average, according to 
the final rates the State published Wednesday.''
  These are rates approved by the State of Illinois. Remember, the 
President said: Oh, we will not let them go up that high. The State of 
Illinois says that is the only way they can stay in business.
  Another headline: ``Illinois Obamacare rates could soar as state 
submits insurance premium increase to the feds.'' Rates could increase 
by an average--and we know what the approval rate is--over half will be 
increasing by over 50 percent. So with that impact, it is interesting 
that for a 21-year-old nonsmoker--we are talking about somebody who is 
healthy, who doesn't smoke, and who probably goes to the gym--if they 
are buying the lowest price silver plan in Cook County, IL--we are 
talking Chicago, talking about the President's hometown--next year, 
that 21-year-old healthy individual, nonsmoker, could pay a premium of 
$221 a month, up from $152 a month. That is a $70 higher premium every 
month--$840 for the year--for a 21-year-old who is just trying to get 
health insurance because the law says they have to buy it.
  The President says: You just can't get what works for you, you have 
to buy what I say works for you. You have to listen to the President on 
this. You can't choose what makes sense for you. The President says: 
Don't worry. Taxpayers will subsidize it.
  If you are not receiving a taxpayer subsidy, you are paying the 
subsidy for that person, but a lot of people don't get the subsidies. 
According to the situation in Chicago, about 25 percent of the people 
who buy insurance on the exchange--the customers there, which is about 
84,000 people--do not receive tax credits. They don't receive the 
subsidy. So they are feeling this in their pocketbooks because the 
President says they have to buy it because he thinks he knows better, 
and it sounds like the minority leader and the minority whip have that 
same opinion.
  So the headline comes out, ``What's not to like about Obamacare?'' 
And then the answer to the question is: ``Plenty in Illinois.'' It 
talks about Illinois residents who buy health insurance through the 
ObamaCare exchange should brace themselves for steep premium increases, 
but it is not just the premiums. They also have to brace themselves for 
fewer doctors to choose from--less choice in doctors, less choice in 
hospitals to go to when they enroll, and the enrollment opens on 
November 1.
  The big national health insurance companies have pulled out of 
Illinois because of substantial losses. There is actually a co-op in 
Illinois called the Land of Lincoln co-op. It lost $91 million and they 
closed their doors.
  Is it only Illinois, is it only Nevada where they are down to just 
one choice in most of the State? The President promised a marketplace, 
but instead it is a monopoly. Companies have pulled out. People have 
very few choices, if any.
  The article says:

       While people buying insurance coverage through the Illinois 
     exchange may howl, premiums are jumping even higher in other 
     States. For instance, the insurance commissioner of 
     Tennessee, declaring the state's exchange market ``very near 
     collapse.''

  Very near collapse in Tennessee. Yet they approved an increase--the 
one insurance company--of 62 percent. A 62-percent increase. Is that 
what the President means when he says ``forcefully defend and be 
proud''?
  The President and Senators on the floor today talked about the 
issues, and the President pointed to this, and he said: Oh, well, 
people aren't going to have to go to the emergency room after the 
ObamaCare health care law has been passed because they will only

[[Page S5591]]

have to use it for emergencies and not for routine care. Well, what 
came out in the Chicago Tribune, the President's hometown newspaper, on 
August 30 of this year? ``Illinois emergency room visits increased 
after Obamacare.'' They increased. The article says: ``Emergency visits 
in Illinois increased . . . by more than 14,000 visits a month on 
average, in 2014 and 2015 compared'' to before the President's health 
care law was signed. This is from the Annals of Emergency Medicine. 
They follow these things.
  The article in the Chicago Tribune says one of the goals of expanding 
coverage to all was to reduce the use of pricey services such as 
emergency department services. That is what the President said. That is 
what the Democrats said when this bill was being debated. The emergency 
room was the area of last resort for people who didn't have doctors and 
who didn't see them regularly, so with the health care law, they 
wouldn't need to go to the emergency room, but the study's authors 
noted that this spike of visits in Illinois runs contrary to what the 
President promised and the President's goal.
  The co-ops have been especially troubling and certainly in Illinois 
the Land of Lincoln co-op, but it is not just Illinois. Co-op after co-
op after co-op has failed, including one yesterday in the State of New 
Jersey--gone. What does Crain's, the Chicago business newspaper, say 
about Illinois? ``Illinois Obamacare plan to fold after 3-year run.'' 
``Land of Lincoln Health, an Obamacare insurer that launched three 
years ago to bring competition''--the idea of the President, saying he 
wanted to bring competition--``to the online exchange, is liquidating 
among big financial losses.''
  In location after location, State by State, people who have relied 
upon the President's promises have been bitterly disappointed. What is 
so distressing about what happened in Illinois with the co-op is that 
because it failed during the middle of the year--done--people then need 
to find new insurance.

  We have talked before about the issues of high copays, high 
deductibles. When a co-op fails and you have to buy new insurance, you 
have to start over from scratch with paying the copays, paying the 
deductibles. So somebody who actually bought insurance through the 
President's idea of this co-op--a co-op that has now failed--finds 
themselves not only having to find a new insurance company--if they can 
find one--because the law says they have to buy it, but they also have 
to start over.
  So the Land of Lincoln--the so-called co-op health insurer on the 
State exchange--is going to shut down the end of September--in a couple 
weeks. Its 49,000 Illinois members--this is according to the Chicago 
Tribune--its 49,000 Illinois members have to get new insurance coverage 
for October, November, and December because it is done at the end of 
this month. They will likely have to start from zero again on their 
deductibles and out-of-pocket maximum payments, in some cases costing 
them thousands of additional dollars.
  Is that what President Obama means when he says forcefully defend and 
be proud? There is very little to be proud about what this President 
has brought upon the American people, which is why we see so many 
families concerned.
  The final issue I bring up is the fact that so few people are signing 
up in spite of the fines, in spite of the taxes, and in spite of the 
mandates, to the point that the Washington Post had a front-page story 
entitled ``Health-care exchange sign-ups fall far short of forecasts.'' 
At this point, they expected 24 million people signing up. They are at 
11 million. So they are 13 million short. There are still almost 30 
million people in this country uninsured, but it is not because they 
are making it hard to sign up. Oh, no, Mr. President. You may have seen 
this story that came out yesterday on CNBC news: ``Obamacare 
marketplaces remain vulnerable to fraud, new government audits find.'' 
The article says: ``Two new government audits reveal that the nation's 
Obamacare marketplaces remain `vulnerable to fraud,' after 
investigators successfully applied for coverage for multiple people who 
don't actually exist.''
  They made up people, they applied, and the ObamaCare exchange sold 
them the insurance and counted them as good. It says: ``In several 
cases this year, fake people who hadn't filed tax returns for 2014 were 
still able to get Obamacare tax credits. . . .'' They were not just 
able to get insurance but got subsidies from hard-working American 
taxpayers. They were still able to get ObamaCare tax credits to help 
pay their monthly premiums for coverage right now.
  Continuing to quote from the article: ``This year is the first year 
in which applicants for those subsidies had to have actually filed 
their federal tax returns from prior coverage years. . . .'' But they 
had not filed them. That didn't matter to the ObamaCare exchange 
people. They are so desperate to get people to sign up because so few 
people are signing up that they will sign up people who don't exist.
  They put up 10 fictitious applications, with 8 of them failing the 
initial online identity checking process, but all 10 were successfully 
approved, according to the Government Accountability Office.
  It is amazing that people all around the country know how poorly this 
law is working for them in terms of their lives and their families. I 
heard one of the Senators today say Republicans have no options. The 
Republicans have offered plenty of responses to what is happening with 
the Obama health care law. The State health care CHOICE Act allows 
States to make a lot of decisions that are now being made by unelected, 
unaccountable Washington bureaucrats. We have plans working toward 
patient-centered care to allow people to get the care they need from 
the doctor they choose at lower costs.
  These are things that have been rejected by the Democrats because the 
President has said ``forcefully defend and be proud.'' Hillary Clinton 
has said defend and build upon. She wants to do it with additional 
taxpayer subsidies--subsidies that go to people who do not exist, 
subsidies that don't deal with the cost of care, subsidies that don't 
deal with the fact that people are facing high deductibles, high 
copays, and can't keep their doctors.
  In spite of what the President and the Democrats may say, and in 
spite of what candidate Clinton may say, a huge number of American 
people have considerable fears their life will be made worse by the 
President's health care law. Almost 3 in 10 Americans today--29 percent 
of Americans today--say they and their families have been personally 
harmed by the President's health care law. That is a sign of failure, 
Mr. President. It is not a sign of success. It is not something people 
should forcefully defend and be proud of. It is a sign we need to take 
a different path--a path that is not the Obama approach, not the one-
size-fits-all, and it is not the Washington knows better than the 
people at home.
  We need to get the decisions out of Washington and being made at home 
so the American people--people who just want to get up, go to work, 
take care of their family, and get affordable care when they need it--
can get the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at a lower cost.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heller). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am here today to speak in support of 
the Water Resources Development Act, or what we call WRDA. I thank 
Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer for the way they have worked 
very well together to get this very important piece of legislation 
across the finish line, as they did with the Transportation bill. This 
piece of legislation has broad bipartisan support.
  As we know, West Virginia suffered historic flooding this summer. We 
can see this in Greenbrier County, WV, on June 25, 2016. This shows how 
swollen and filled all the waterways were. We lost 23 West Virginians 
from the storms, and tens of thousands suffered catastrophic damages to 
their homes and to their livelihoods. WRDA contains a number of 
provisions that will help prevent this kind of devastation in the 
future. We can no longer wait until it fails to fix our Nation's 
infrastructure.

[[Page S5592]]

  In addition to a major loss of life, communities across West Virginia 
are dealing with significant economic losses that will take years to 
recover. Our friends in Louisiana are going through the same, very 
difficult building back.
  Let me touch on some of the highlights of the WRDA bill.
  I sponsored a provision in WRDA with my fellow Senator from West 
Virginia, Mr. Manchin, to study the feasibility of implementing 
projects for flood risk management within West Virginia's Kanawha River 
Basin--something such as this--to prevent this. This bill also 
addresses dam safety and includes a provision I have been working on 
with Senator Jack Reed. I thank him for his hard work in this area.
  According to the Army Corps of Engineers' ``National Inventory of 
Dams,'' there are more than 14,000 high-hazard potential dams in the 
United States. As we know, the State of West Virginia has a lot of 
mountains, a lot of valleys, a lot of water, and a lot of dams. Some 
422 of those dams are located in my small State of West Virginia. Put 
simply, when a dam has high-hazard potential, it means that if the dam 
fails, people will lose their lives and their property.
  This provision allows for $530 million over 10 years for a FEMA 
program to fix those dams. I know that States across the Nation would 
welcome this provision.
  Flood prevention and mitigation is only one of the important parts of 
this WRDA bill. WRDA also has drinking water infrastructure--an issue, 
again, that is very important to all of us. In my State of West 
Virginia, we dealt with this firsthand, in 2014, following the Freedom 
Industries spill into the Elk River. As we may recall, that caused 
600,000 people to lose their water for a large period of time--several 
weeks in some cases.
  WRDA provides assistance to small, disadvantaged, and underserved 
communities. It will replace lead service lines in these communities 
and address sewer overflows. We have so much aging infrastructure in 
this country. It includes $170 million to address lead emergencies--
like those in Flint, MI--and other public health consequences. It 
provides $70 million to capitalize the new Water Infrastructure Finance 
and Innovation Act, better known as WIFIA. That program provides loans 
for water and wastewater infrastructure anywhere in the country. This 
program is modeled after a similar and highly successful program that 
supports our highways.
  Maximizing the use of our waterways is another important part of 
WRDA. In my State, our rivers not only provide commercial transport but 
also vital recreational opportunities. I have submitted a bipartisan 
amendment, which I hope will be accepted into the final bill, that 
emphasizes the increasing use of locks along the Monongahela River for 
recreational use.
  Finally, WRDA includes consensus legislation to allow EPA to review 
and approve State permitting programs for coal ash disposal. The EPA's 
coal ash rule went into effect last October, but EPA does not currently 
have the authority to approve our State permitting programs. This bill 
fills that gap, benefiting utilities, States, and the environment by 
authorizing State oversight of coal ash disposal. There is no other 
environmental regulation solely enforced simply through private 
lawsuits, which is what we are seeing. So this bill fixes that by 
giving States the authority, and it empowers local entities to help 
keep their infrastructure strong and functioning.
  Lastly, the bill gets us back to a regular schedule of passing WRDA 
every 2 years. Doing so will allow us to continue to modernize our 
water transportation infrastructure and keep up with flood protection 
and environmental restoration needs across the country.
  So let's seize this opportunity. This is a significant bill with a 
number of benefits for a lot of States all across the country. This 
legislation proactively addresses a number of concerns. It will bring 
short-term and long-term gains to our economy, and it will show the 
American people that Congress can come together in a bipartisan way to 
fix problems, to support needed improvements to our infrastructure, and 
to make the right investments in our communities.
  Lastly, I wish to add that the devastating floods we had in West 
Virginia took 23 lives, but what it showed us as West Virginians is 
what a great Nation we live in. I want to take the time to thank people 
from across this country who drove to West Virginia, who sent money to 
West Virginia, who raised money for West Virginians, who sent supplies, 
and who said prayers for all the many families who were devastated and 
still suffer the devastation from a flood such as this throughout our 
State.
  I think we do sometimes focus a little bit too much on what is going 
wrong in this country. For me, one of the things that is going right is 
the volunteerism, the benevolence, the loving embrace that we felt in 
West Virginia from the rest of the country when we went through such a 
devastating flood but that other areas of the country feel when they 
suffer like consequences.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is really propitious that the 
Senator from Nevada is in the Chair today because I am going to speak 
about our legislation, which is part of the WRDA bill. Let me begin by 
thanking the Presiding Officer for his leadership. We put this 
legislation together in 2015. This has to do with Lake Tahoe, and the 
Presiding Officer was the main author of the bill. Senator Reid, 
Senator Boxer, and I were supporters, and here it is in this WRDA bill. 
I want the Presiding Officer to know how I feel. This is how the Senate 
should work. We worked together for something that has benefited both 
of our States, and we are able to say we are getting the job done.
  I wish to congratulate the Presiding Officer, Senator Heller. This is 
so special for me. I am delighted that Senator Heller is in the Chair, 
and maybe I can briefly go over the last 20 years of work on Lake Tahoe 
to bring us to this moment. I know Senator Heller couldn't be at the 
summit this year, but I want him to know that he was really missed, and 
I want him to know that Senator Reid put together one amazing summit. 
As a matter of fact, I called him and said: Harry, you can't have a 
rock group at this summit. This is a serious thing. We meet every year, 
and we go over all of the science, planning, and problems at the lake. 
He said: Let me tell you something. I am retiring. It is my turn to do 
this, and I am going to do it my way. And it turned out to be great.
  I want the Presiding Officer to know that 7,000 people attended the 
summit. Our Governor spoke, but your Governor could not be there 
because he was committed to an event in your State. Senator Boxer 
spoke, Senator Reid, of course, spoke, and the President was there and 
also spoke. I was worried that it would be difficult if all of us spoke 
because there were 7,000 people expecting to hear this Las Vegas rock 
band called the Killers after the program.
  Well, I must tell you that they were the utmost in terms of an 
audience. After the program was finished, and before the rock group 
performed, I became hopeful that we now have a whole new constituency 
of people working for the preservation of this lake.
  As I mentioned, I have worked on Lake Tahoe with my colleagues for 20 
years, and I believe we are at a critical moment. To understand the 
longstanding commitment to Lake Tahoe, one must start with the first 
Lake Tahoe Summit in 1997. Senator Harry Reid invited President 
Clinton, and President Clinton's trip put a spotlight on the declining 
health of the lake. The 1997 summit also launched a public-private 
partnership, or a Team Tahoe, made up of Federal, State, local, tribal, 
and private sector participants, which has invested $1.9 billion in 
restoration of Lake Tahoe. I want to just quickly report to the 
Presiding Officer some of the numbers, if I may. As I stated, we have 
invested $1.9 billion in the lake over 20 years--$635 million is 
Federal dollars, $759 million is California dollars, and $124 million 
is Nevada dollars.

[[Page S5593]]

As you know, southern Nevada land sales have gone into this, thanks to 
your Governor and also Senator Reid. Local governments contributed $99 
million, and I want you to pay attention to this number: $339 million 
has been raised by businesses and the private sector over the 20-year 
period. What we have is a very real, bi-State combined effort to 
preserve and restore Lake Tahoe. It is a special partnership.
  I also want the Presiding Officer to know that during the 
stakeholders' luncheon, which preceded the summit, Dr. Geoff Schladow, 
a professor and scientist at University of California, Davis, said that 
his greatest concern was the fact that this lake is now warming quicker 
than any large lake in the world. Also, the Tahoe Environmental 
Research Center at UC-Davis recently released their annual ``State of 
the Lake'' report for 2016 which we discussed. We learned this year 
that the average daily minimum air temperature rose 4.3 degrees. And 
the average annual lake clarity depth decreased by 4.8 feet. In 
addition, we learned that prolonged drought and dead trees are 
increasing the risk for catastrophic wildfire. Sedimentation and 
pollution continue to decrease water quality and the lake's treasured 
clarity. And invasive species, like the quagga mussel, milfoil, and 
Asian clam, continue to threaten the lake and the economy of the 
region. We are going to have a continuing problem with the challenges 
we face, and that is why it is so important and timely to pass the 
Tahoe bill.
  I am so proud of the accomplishments that we have made together. I 
want to again thank the Presiding Officer for this because it is really 
important. Lake Tahoe is one of two big, clear lakes in the world. The 
other is Lake Baikal in Russia. It is the jewel of the Sierras and 
known throughout the world for its beauty. It is a national treasure we 
must protect.
  Let me cite what we have done and the progress we have made to date. 
We have completed nearly 500 projects, and 120 more are in the works. 
Our completed projects include erosion control on 729 miles of roads 
and 65,000 acres of hazardous fuels treatment. More than 16,000 acres 
of wildlife habitat and 1,500 acres of stream environment zones have 
been restored, and 2,770 linear feet of shoreline has been added to the 
lake.
  I think what we have overall now is a bi-State Team Tahoe, and I 
think it took us 20 years to get there. I remember when Senator Reid 
got President Clinton to come in 1997, as I mentioned earlier, and had 
a big meeting at Tahoe Commons, which many of us attended. At that 
time, everybody was fighting. Planning agencies were fighting with 
homeowners, and environmentalists were fighting with others, but that 
doesn't exist today. Today we have effected a team, and I am so pleased 
that the Senator from Nevada is in the Chair, which was completely 
unplanned, so I can say thank you and how very proud I am that we have 
achieved this and that it is part of the WRDA bill.
  This Tahoe bill builds off of these 20 years of collaborative work 
and includes $415 million over 10 years in Federal funding 
authorizations for wildfire fuel reduction, forest restoration 
projects, funding for the invasive species management program and the 
successful boat inspection program, funding for projects to prevent 
water pollution and manage stormwater, and funds for the Environmental 
Improvement Program, which prioritizes the most effective projects for 
restoration.
  I wish to particularly thank our colleagues, Senator Inhofe and 
Senator Boxer. The only way you get this done is by working together, 
and I think the fact that they have worked together has ensured that we 
now have this opportunity to deal with this new challenge, which is 
unprecedented warming. Along those lines, just a word: As I understand 
what is happening, the projection is for less snow and more rain, which 
means more warm water. This impacts the cold-water fish in the Lake, 
and the Truckee River, which is fueled by Tahoe, and all of the streams 
that play into Lake Tahoe really depend on that snowpack. So the next 
few years, I think, are going to be crucial.
  The time to act is now, and the Federal Government must take a 
leading role. Close to 80 percent of the land surrounding Lake Tahoe is 
public land, including more than 150,000 acres of national forest. 
Federal lands include beaches, hiking and biking trails, campgrounds, 
and riding stables. So the Federal Government has a major 
responsibility to see that these public lands remain in prime 
condition. And that is what this bill would help do.
  I want the Presiding Officer to know that I look forward to working 
with him. We must continue the tradition that was set by Senator Inhofe 
and Senator Boxer, which Senator Reid helped to start. We have to carry 
on. I am delighted that the Senate is working again and that this bill 
is part of the WRDA bill.
  I want to end by once again thanking the Presiding Officer for his 
leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Continuing Resolution

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I am pleased to report that we had some 
encouraging news yesterday with the announcement of the Senate majority 
leader that additional money to fight the Zika virus would be included 
in the continuing resolution, which is the budget document that will 
help to move us forward at least through December and that hopefully 
will be moving through the Senate very soon.
  Throughout my time in the Senate, I have regularly opposed these 
short-term spending bills because I don't think funding government on a 
month-to-month basis is the smart way to run the government of the most 
powerful and important Nation on Earth. But with Zika becoming a public 
health emergency the way it has, this is a necessary exception for me 
to make. All of us, obviously, will reserve to see all the other 
details of this budget document, but assuming it is as reported--as I 
am aware in the conversations that are ongoing--I will be supporting 
this continuing resolution. It is worth making an exception for 
something like this when the Zika funding is in it. At this point, I 
just really believe we need to get Zika funding approved and moving. We 
need to make sure that the fight for Zika doesn't run out of money by 
the end of this month. For me, that is the most urgent priority.
  We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The perfect, I 
believe, is still the full funding that was originally requested--the 
$1.9 billion, which I supported. The good is what, hopefully, will be 
finalized soon and, hopefully, will pass quickly. But the unacceptable 
would be to do nothing and to let the money run out on the ongoing 
efforts to fight Zika.
  Even the $1.9 billion the administration requested months ago will 
not ultimately be enough. We do not know for sure how much more will be 
needed to win this fight, but the $1.1 billion for Zika that is being 
negotiated would be a step in the right direction and would mean more 
resources for my home State of Florida, which is in the continental 
United States and has been disproportionately impacted. Just yesterday, 
there were another six cases of confirmed transmissions in the State 
and not travel-related, and of course there is the suffering that is 
ongoing on the island of Puerto Rico, where a significant percentage of 
the population has now been affected and/or infected by Zika.
  I have been talking about this issue since January, and it has been 
frustrating to see it tied up in Washington's political games. As I 
said repeatedly, I believe both parties are to blame for our getting to 
this moment. On the one hand, I believe Members of my own party have 
been slow to respond to this, and there were efforts, I believe, to try 
to cut corners on funding, which will cost us money in the long term. 
But on the other hand, you have Democrats here inventing excuses--just 
making it up--in order to oppose it, and they do so for purely 
political reasons. You have an administration playing chicken with this 
issue

[[Page S5594]]

by claiming that money would run out in August, only to discover that 
they had more money that could be redirected from other accounts. Now, 
thanks to the lack of action by Congress and by the administration, we 
have nearly 19,000 Americans who have been infected, including 800 in 
Florida and 16,000 on the island of Puerto Rico. We have 86 pregnant 
women in the State of Florida who have tested positive for the virus, 
which we know carries the risk for heartbreaking birth defects. As I 
said, the Florida Department of Health announced that it wasn't 6; it 
was 8 new non-travel-related cases, bringing that total to 64. That 
means there are 8 new cases of people who got Zika somewhere in 
America, probably in Florida.
  Zika has also had a devastating economic impact on Florida. The Miami 
Herald reported that Miami hotel bookings are down, airfare to South 
Florida is falling, and business owners in affected areas are reporting 
steep losses. Polls show many visitors would rather stay away. As 
tourism takes a hit, so will the entire economy in the State of 
Florida, since tourism is one of our cornerstone industries. That is 
why we see all of us from Florida working together across the aisle to 
get this done. For example, I have worked with my colleague Bill 
Nelson, the senior Senator from Florida, from the very beginning. I 
will be meeting with our Governor Rick Scott later today about the same 
issue.
  The bottom line is that at the national level, like at the State 
level in Florida, there is no excuse for this issue to be tied up in 
politics any longer. My colleagues, Zika is not a game, and we need to 
pass this funding as soon as possible so that our health officials and 
experts have the resources they need to conduct the vital medical 
research that will lead us to a vaccine and ultimately help eradicate 
Zika in Florida, across the United States, on the island of Puerto 
Rico, and beyond.
  So yesterday's announcement is encouraging. We are closer than we 
have ever been to getting something done, and now I hope will be the 
time for action. Hopefully, we will have something soon that is public 
and that we can get passed right away. I sincerely hope that Senate 
Democrats won't once again make up or find some excuse to oppose it, 
and I hope that Members from our party will work cooperatively as well. 
I hope, ultimately, that the House will also do the right thing so that 
we can get this done and we can move forward on the research necessary 
for the vaccine, on the money needed to eradicate these mosquitoes, 
and, ultimately, on the treatments that people will desperately need to 
deal with Zika once and for all.

                          ____________________