[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14684-14704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the 
following Senators to speak about the importance of the reauthorization 
of the Export-Import Bank. I ask that Senator Coons be recognized for 5 
minutes but first that Senator King be recognized for 5 minutes and 
that I be recognized for 10 minutes, reserving the remaining time for 
others who may join us.
  I wish to initially yield time to Senator King.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.


                   Export-Import Bank Reauthorization

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, as the Senator from North Dakota just 
mentioned, we are here on the floor to talk about the importance of the 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. There are a lot of issues 
here that are contentious and controversial, and there are arguments to 
be made on both sides, but this one, frankly, puzzles me. I do not 
understand why the Congress has not moved with alacrity to reauthorize 
an agency of the Federal Government that fills a gap in the private 
market which is not filled by private enterprise, which has been in 
business for over 80 years, and which helps and assists businesses 
large and small across America and returns money to the Treasury. This 
is not a cost to the Treasury. This is not some kind of budget bill 
that increases our deficit. This actually will increase revenue because 
this agency makes a net return for the taxpayers.
  When General Electric last week announced the possible layoff of 500 
people across the country and the moving of jobs overseas--because 
virtually every other industrialized country in the world has an 
export-import bank, an export promotion authority that is comparable to 
what we have, General Electric says: We are going to have to go where 
they provide that kind of support.
  One staff member of the committee in the other body, which has voted 
to not reauthorize this, said: Well, for General Electric, this is a 
drop in the bucket.
  Well, of those 400 or 500 jobs General Electric is talking about, 80 
of them are at a General Electric plant in Bangor, ME, and 80 good jobs 
in Bangor, ME, is not a drop in the bucket.
  I would invite that staff member to come to Bangor, ME, and talk to 
the families of those people who are going to lose their jobs because 
of this ridiculous policy of not reauthorizing a governmental agency 
that is serving the public needs of this country, particularly in an 
age of expanding global trade. We are competing with the rest of the 
world, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot in the process. It 
simply makes no sense.
  I have visited with small businesses in Maine--as few as 35 jobs 
which depend upon the actions of the Export-Import Bank in order to be 
able to finance their receivables from foreign countries and then they 
can compete in the international marketplace.
  There is simply no reason to not move with some speed to reauthorize 
this agency. We are penalizing American businesses in global 
competition for no good reason that I can discern. If there are issues 
at the Bank with its management or whatever, let's fix those. Let's 
have hearings. Let's find what the problems are and fix them but not 
eliminate an agency that is doing good and returning money to the 
taxpayers, particularly at this moment in American and world history 
where international trade and world exports are so important.
  I hope my colleagues in both Houses, on both sides of the aisle will 
join with us to make a simple reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank 
so it can continue to do the good work it has done on behalf of 
businesses in Maine and North Dakota and Texas and California and New 
York and all over this country.
  This is just common sense. There are things around here that I 
understand we have controversies about and we can argue about, but I 
have not heard any argument that holds any water as to why this agency 
should not be continued and allowed to provide the benefits it has and 
does and will do for the businesses and, more importantly, the 
employees of those businesses all across the country.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I wish to address the issue of the Export-
Import Bank reauthorization, if I might, for a few moments. My 
colleague, the Senator from the State of Maine, has just spoken to it, 
and I expect my colleague from the State of North Dakota will

[[Page 14685]]

also follow along the same lines. I wish to join with my colleagues 
here today in standing up for American manufacturing and in standing up 
for American businesses that rely on the Export-Import Bank for the 
critical financing they need to export their products to the markets of 
the world. Many of us have said the same thing on this floor over the 
weeks or months since its authorization expired.
  It is striking to me that because of the views of a few Members of 
the House and Senate, this valuable tool which has helped American 
companies sell their goods around the world for more than 80 years has 
been allowed to expire. As we just heard from the Senator from Maine, 
the Export-Import Bank actually operates at no cost to the taxpayer, 
and it is something that has helped American businesses sell almost $30 
billion in goods and supported more than 150,000 American jobs last 
year alone. So I really think the opposition to the reauthorization of 
the Export-Import Bank is badly misguided. It is my hope that we will 
find some bipartisan path toward the restoration of this critical tool.
  In my first 4 years in the Senate, I was the chair of the Africa 
subcommittee on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I took advantage 
of that opportunity to learn a great deal more about this vast 
continent with 54 countries and the opportunities it provides for 
American companies to sell their exported products to their growing 
markets.
  Most folks think of the Export-Import Bank as principally providing 
financing for a few very large companies--companies such as General 
Electric and Boeing--and it does provide essential financing for their 
export sales, but those big companies also have enormous supplier 
chains that employ folks all over the country. I could focus today on 
the important sales that Boeing and GE have made to Africa and its 
growing market, but I wish to focus on a very small company with an 
important story that I think helps illuminate why Ex-Im financing 
matters.
  This little company is called Acrow Bridge. Although it is 
headquartered in New Jersey, it has a manufacturing plant right near 
Lewisburg, PA. That plant rolls out steel bridges. It is in Milton, PA. 
It has been making bridges from the same model Patton's troops used as 
they rolled across France and Germany during the Second World War, 
modular bridges that are easy to install in remote places without a 
whole lot of infrastructure support.
  Why does that matter? Because they recently successfully competed for 
big contracts to sell hundreds of bridges to areas in Africa, including 
countries like Cameroon or Zambia that badly need infrastructure.
  Who are their competitors? Comparable companies from China and from 
Europe that are also seeking to sell into these growing markets.
  Why do I care? I am from Delaware. I care about manufacturing all 
over this country, but this Acrow Bridge company ships their bridges 
from Pennsylvania to Delaware, where, in New Castle, the Voigt & 
Schweitzer hot dip galvanizing company takes each bridge and dips it in 
zinc and galvanizes it before it is put on a ship and sent off to 
places all over the world. Voigt & Schweitzer doesn't employ thousands 
of people, but it employs dozens of people. Acrow Bridge in Milton, PA, 
doesn't employ thousands of people, but it employs dozens of people. 
Manufacturing across our country critically depends on access to export 
markets.
  I recently had a chance to meet up with the Acrow Bridge export sales 
specialist at a conference in Gabon in Africa. He was alarmed that in 
the absence of Ex-Im financing, his key competitors are much more 
likely to succeed in the next contract and the next contract and the 
next contract.
  We folks are just unilaterally disarming here in the fight to access 
the growing markets of the world, and I can't for the life of me fathom 
why we have done this. As my colleague from Maine said, if there are 
issues with the Ex-Im Bank, put them on the floor, put them on the 
table, and let's address them.
  In my experience, when the Bank makes a loan to American businesses, 
it is not replacing private capital that would otherwise have been 
making that loan. Most often, it supplements private capital or makes a 
private bank more inclined to put up its own. And more often than not, 
Ex-Im serves as the lender of last resort, especially when you are 
financing sales into risky, growing markets in countries like Cameroon, 
Zambia, or elsewhere in Africa.
  I don't think the Export-Import Bank is doing something best left to 
the private sector; I think it picks up where the private sector leaves 
off and it provides key financing to level the global playing field and 
make it possible for our manufacturers, for our small businesses to 
compete around the world.
  Frankly, most of our competitors have much more robust financing 
available for their export sales than the Export-Import Bank provides. 
I just can't fathom why we would allow American businesses to be put at 
such a key competitive disadvantage. It is my real hope that before it 
is too late, we will take up and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  There were disappointing and concerning announcements just in recent 
weeks by General Electric and by Boeing that they are already moving 
employment overseas or they are seriously considering it. GE just 
announced they are moving a turboprop engine development center to 
Europe because they can't remain competitive in the absence of Ex-Im 
financing. That is going to cause the loss of 500 jobs in a community 
here in America. And Boeing has made even more concerning 
announcements.
  I think it is critical that we in Congress come together and show 
that we care about American jobs and that we care about fighting for 
American manufacturers because we recognize that 95 percent of the 
opportunity in the world is in the growing sectors that are represented 
by the export markets of the world.
  It is my hope that we can find a way through this, that the 
unwillingness to reopen the Bank, which is sending the wrong message to 
the world markets, is something we can come together and address. At a 
time when our economy is gaining steam and Americans are going back to 
work, we need to continue to help American companies to compete around 
the world, not make it harder. So I think we should stop playing 
politics with American jobs, stop pursuing an ideological agenda, and 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank immediately.
  Thank you.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, we have just heard what I think is 
almost a horror story from two great Senators, one representing 80 
jobs, one representing maybe just dozens of jobs, but every one of 
those jobs matters in America. We come here every week and we say we 
are here fighting for the middle class. We are here fighting to build 
the American economy. We are here fighting to make sure our 
manufacturing and our businesses are competitive in a highly charged 
and highly competitive world. And we have an institution that is 
critical to making sure we have access to these export markets, doesn't 
cost the Treasury a dime, is used by large corporations and small 
corporations alike, and it is supported by Democrats and Republicans. 
But why do we shut down the Ex-Im Bank?
  I serve on the banking committee, and we had a hearing. The bill we 
have been considering these many months is the Kirk-Heitkamp bill. I 
have taken responsibility for addressing some of the concerns about the 
Ex-Im Bank and looking at how we can reform some of the things that are 
legitimate concerns about how the Bank operates. But I will tell my 
colleagues from that hearing that what we saw is the National 
Association of Manufacturers, we saw the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And 
we might imagine that those two witnesses were the Republican 
witnesses. They were not the Republican witnesses; they were the 
Democratic

[[Page 14686]]

witnesses. The Republican witnesses came from intellectual think tanks. 
They came from institutions of higher learning with conservative think 
tanks. They all had a theory about the Ex-Im Bank. I asked them a 
simple question when it came time for me to ask them a question. I 
asked every one of those persons who represented a think tank or 
represented an academic institution how many jobs they have created, 
what their output is, what their contribution to the gross domestic 
product was. They didn't have much of an answer. I said: Why should I 
believe what you are telling me in terms of this being the slippery 
slope toward the demise of democracy as we know it, which is really how 
the Ex-Im Bank has been categorized against the word of the National 
Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
  This has become an irrational ideological fight. And, unfortunately, 
we have irrational ideological fights almost daily in the Congress, to 
no good end for the American people. But this Senator will say this: 
This fight has devastating consequences. We now have shut down the 
Bank. No new credit is coming in for 2\1/2\ months--2\1/2\ months where 
a small manufacturer in Delaware may say: Well, how have we done this 
in the past? How have we taken on currency risk? How have we taken on 
debt risk? How have we guaranteed this in the past? Call your local 
bank. Do you know what the banker is going to tell you? Call the Ex-Im 
Bank because in spite of what they tell you, somehow magically in this 
market will emerge a private institution that will carry on the 
responsibility of the Ex-Im Bank.
  That is not reality. The largest supporters of the Ex-Im Bank are 
those financial institutions that want to continue to provide credit 
and help grow those American businesses that are putting Americans back 
to work.
  One of the things I did want to talk about today is that way too 
often we hear about the so-called bank of Boeing, the bank of GE, and 
how it is that this institution helps only those large manufacturers. 
What I would tell you, first, is if you look at the business model of 
GE or the business model of Boeing, what they do is assemble. They 
assemble products that are manufactured all across the country, and the 
components are manufactured in large shops and small shops all the way 
down the supply chain to small communities that are doing things in 
Jamestown, ND, that are growing jobs. In the communities that you just 
heard about in Bangor, ME, and communities in Delaware, they are 
building out those jobs. Those are the people we are hearing from. 
Those are the people who are shaking their heads, saying: Why is it 
that you guys talk all the time about helping American business, 
growing the economy, growing exports? You talk all the time about jobs 
and the need to bring back the innovation, and you curtail and limit my 
ability to grow and, quite frankly, my ability to survive. How does 
that happen?
  I want to talk about the equipment wholesalers that will see a 
negative impact. Look at this--35 to 40 percent, if Ex-Im isn't 
reauthorized.
  Equipment wholesalers stated that without the Export-Import Bank, it 
will be at a disadvantage in increasingly globalized markets. No 
access--do you know why? Because there are 80 other countries that have 
export credit agencies.
  The first thing China and India did when Asia slowed down, when they 
knew their economies were beginning to suffer some of the consequences 
of slow growth--guess what they did. The first thing they did is pump 
more money into their export credit agencies--in fact, billions more 
into those export credit agencies. Then, when this institution shut 
down the Ex-Im Bank, they shouted: Hip, hip, hooray. They knew that not 
only did they have money to capitalize and to guarantee these sales, 
but they were operating in a market where we have unilaterally, 
economically disarmed in the export market.
  When we go back and take a look at how the U.S. Export-Import Bank 
has supported more than 850,000 jobs, when we look at Wahpeton, ND--
Wahpeton, ND, is the largest town next to my hometown. Not a lot of 
people live there, but for the people who work there, those jobs 
matter. Look at that--almost $1 million--and those jobs are being 
threatened today because of the inactivity of this institution.
  Sixty percent of WCCO Belting's annual sales and revenues come from 
customers who are located outside the United States of America. This is 
a small town in Wahpeton, ND. Many of the pages here probably didn't 
even know such a place existed, but the people who work there are doing 
a great job, and they are contributing to the global economy. More 
importantly, they are building up their local economy, and they are 
building up the U.S. manufacturing and trade deficit. This is something 
I know the Presiding Officer, as a former member of the OMB and 
somebody who has watched the American economy, is very concerned about, 
making sure that the trade deficit is favorable to us, that we are 
actually exporting more than we are importing. That is how we grow our 
economy. That is called new wealth creation.
  When we look at not just manufacturing, but we look at J.M. Grain, a 
business that I visited--built out of nothing by a mom and pop who put 
their heads together and said: This is something I think we can do. 
They built this great business. The Export-Import Bank provides credit 
and credit insurance needed for J.M. Grain to export its products. If 
Ex-Im isn't reauthorized, J.M. Grain may be forced to sell its products 
to larger corporations that can finance the exports--consolidation--
because we can't take care of small business.
  Even though we hear the platitudes and all of the statements quite to 
the contrary on the floor of the Senate and the Congress, that we care 
about small business, we do nothing in terms of our actions to really 
prove that.
  Amity Technology is a great story. This is a family--the developers 
of this company come from the family who developed the Bobcat skid-
steer loaders, if you can imagine that. That company was sold and has 
moved on, yet those young entrepreneurs--those young inventors--have 
taken the next step. This is a company that is absolutely dependent on 
the Export-Import Bank. If you look at this, it has supported more than 
$50 million in exports in the last decade. Without the help of the 
Export-Import Bank, Amity would lose at least 10 percent of its 
business.
  Story after story in America--this is just North Dakota. We can tell 
you more stories about what is happening in North Dakota, but stories 
after stories in the State of North Dakota and across the country 
include small businessmen and small businesswomen who are shaking their 
heads, saying: What did we do? Why is it that something such as the 
Export-Import Bank, which is so critical to our being successful and 
doesn't cost the American taxpayers a dime. Why is it that this is so 
hard?
  I have to try and explain how it is that we got 64 votes for the 
Export-Import Bank here on the floor of the Senate--a huge majority. We 
think we actually have the support of about 67 Members of the Senate--a 
veto-proof majority, if you look at it that way.
  And we know that over in the House of Representatives there is well 
over 50 percent of the Members of that body that would vote for the Ex-
Im Bank. Where is the hangup? Where is the problem?
  Quite honestly, the problem is with leadership because if this isn't 
a priority or if the Ex-Im Bank may be a problem for a Speaker who has 
a small but vocal group of conservatives who hate the Ex-Im Bank and 
who have made this their celebrity cause, then we will just send it 
over here and we will try to sneak it in. That is kind of the idea, 
right? We need a vehicle.
  I hear that so often for good ideas and for things we know we have 
majority votes for and well over majority votes for: We need a vehicle. 
I joke to my staff that I am going to introduce a bill, and it is going 
to be called ``the vehicle.'' Then we will be able to do everything we 
have to do to keep the American economy moving forward--

[[Page 14687]]

the things that we can all agree on--because then, maybe, the American 
public will see something that is not rancor and disagreement. They 
will see us listening to American business, to American manufacturers, 
to American workers, and they will hear that we actually will respond, 
and we will move this bill forward.
  Now there is a lot of talk that we may not get this done in 
September. No, it doesn't look very good. And if you had told me when 
we shut down the Bank in June, if you had told me that we were going to 
open it up in July, I would have said: That is not likely. We will get 
the Bank reopened in July.
  July came and went, and the promise of the vehicle, which was 
supposed to be the Transportation bill, never materialized. And the 
promise of putting it somewhere where we could actually get it done 
never materialized. So we went home in August, and I said: Well, we 
will get it done in September. We will figure out a way to reauthorize 
the Ex-Im Bank in September because we can't shut it down for that 
long.
  September has come and gone. We have got other priorities--no 
opportunity for floor time. Now we are looking at October, and the 
promise once again in October is that we are going to put it on the 
Transportation bill. Well, this Senator has heard that promise twice. 
So I think it is now time to ask for consideration of this bill.
  People say: We all need to reserve the special floor time of the 
Senate for really important ideas. I say that these people, the 80 
people, 90 people in Bangor, ME, think this is an important idea. All 
the people now who supply GE who are looking at GE's plan to move a lot 
of this manufacturing and assembly overseas, they think this is very 
important. They think American jobs, American manufacturing, our trade 
deficit, and our access to global markets, are very important for the 
Congress to consider.
  So we have a bill that has broad bipartisan support: the Kirk-
Heitkamp Export-Import Reauthorization bill. We can put that bill on 
the floor. We can move it in an expedited fashion because we have a 
procedure to do this. When there is a will, there is a way. We can move 
pretty quickly to votes here if we want to, and we can pass this bill. 
Then we can send it over to the House of Representatives. They can put 
it on the floor, and they can pass this bill. It can get sent to the 
President's desk and get signed, and we can reopen the Export-Import 
Bank. We can hang out a big sign: ``Open for business once again.''
  But the longer we wait, the longer we continue to allow this to 
become the celebrity cause of a very, very small minority of hard-core 
conservatives in this country, the harder it is going to be to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Make no mistake. At the end of the 
day, it is not about inside-the-beltway politics. It is not about 
whether we are going to have political winners or losers. What this is 
about is people's livelihoods. It is about helping American workers do 
what we know we do best: innovate, create, manufacture, and export.
  I thank the Presiding Officer so much for the time. We will continue 
to be talking about the Ex-Im Bank. As you know, I almost can't even 
approach a group because they think I am going to regale them with 20 
hours of the Ex-Im Bank and the challenges we have with 
reauthorization.
  But I will tell you this: The Ex-Im Bank is not only about 
manufacturing; it is almost a metaphor for what is wrong in the 
Congress. What that is, is an institution that creates jobs, has broad 
bipartisan support, and has the ability to provide opportunity for 
American workers, and we shut it down because the Congress cannot 
figure out how to avoid a minority of people dictating the agenda.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                       Tribute to Ashley Aldridge

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to share a 
story with Members of the Senate and those following us this evening. 
It is an amazing story of the selfless courage of a young Illinois 
mother who many are calling--with good reason--a guardian angel.
  Ashley Aldridge of Auburn, IL, was home making lunch for two little 
babies last Tuesday. She heard someone outside crying for help. She 
looked out her kitchen window and saw an elderly man in a wheelchair on 
the railroad tracks near her mobile home. He was calling for help.
  Without a moment's hesitation Ashley asked a neighbor to stay with 
her kids and she ran toward the man in distress. She saw the railroad 
guard arms coming down and heard the oncoming train. When she reached 
the man in the wheelchair, Earl Moorman, Ashley discovered that the 
wheel of his chair was lodged in the tracks. There was no moving it. So 
Ashley tried to pick up Mr. Moorman. Now, Mr. Moorman is 75 years old 
and he weighs about 200 pounds. Ashley could not move him. She tried 
again. With an Amtrak train barreling down the tracks at 81 miles an 
hour, Ashley Aldridge somehow, some way found the strength to lift Earl 
Moorman up and out of his trapped wheelchair. Not 5 seconds after she 
dragged him off the railroad track, the train hit the wheelchair and 
smashed it into bits.
  When the last car on the Amtrak train passed, Ashley looked up and 
saw a police car on the other side of the tracks. Someone had heard Mr. 
Moorman and called 911. The police were there quickly, but they could 
not get there fast enough to save Mr. Moorman. Ashley Aldridge, a 19-
year-old wife and stay-at-home mom with two little kids got there in 
time. No wonder Earl Moorman is calling Ashley his guardian angel.
  Ashley Aldridge and Earl Moorman live in Auburn, IL. It is a little 
town about 20 miles south of my hometown of Springfield. Auburn's mayor 
and town council and all the folks around town are hailing Ashley 
Aldridge as a hero. She is that and more. In a world in which we often 
hear the message that we should only be concerned about ourselves and 
our own families, Ashley is an inspiration. Without a moment's 
hesitation this brave, young mom risked her own life to save the life 
of a man she had never met. It is an amazing story of selfless courage. 
In this world filled with so many innocent people in danger, I hope we 
will all remember and be inspired by the courage of this remarkable 
young woman.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Religious Liberty

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is a historic week in Washington, DC. 
Later today Pope Francis will arrive in Washington for a 2-day visit. 
During his time here, the Holy Father will meet with President Obama, 
celebrate mass, canonize a new saint, and address a joint meeting of 
Congress. This will be the first time a Pope has ever addressed 
Congress.
  In light of Pope Francis's historic visit, I believe today is an 
appropriate time to reflect on the importance of religious liberty in 
American life. This will be the first of a series of addresses I will 
be delivering on this vital subject. Religious liberty is an issue of 
deep significance to me. I come from a family of faith. I represent a 
State that was founded by religious pioneers fleeing persecution.
  In my many travels, I have seen people express religious devotion in 
a multitude of ways, affirming their belief in the Divine through song, 
word, and deed. I have also seen misguided government officials limit 
religious expression, often in the name of security or some other 
nebulous goal. I have seen people of courage stand up to these 
officials, refusing to accept claims that the commands of the State 
trump rights of religious belief, nor am I alone in viewing religious 
liberty as a vitally important subject. Indeed, throughout our history, 
protecting religious liberty has been a priority of lawmakers and 
laymen alike.
  As far back as 1657, residents of the community known today as 
Flushing, NY, petitioned colonial leaders to end restrictions on 
religious practice that prevented some community members

[[Page 14688]]

from practicing their faith. Their petition, known as the Flushing 
Remonstrance, declared that community members should be allowed to 
decide for themselves how to worship.
  In 1776, 120 years later, Virginia adopted a declaration of rights 
that proclaimed in no uncertain terms that ``all men are equally 
entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of 
conscience.''
  This was followed a decade later by the famous words of the First 
Amendment, which forbids Congress from making any law that prohibits 
the free exercise of religion. More recently, our leaders have 
continued to affirm the importance of religious liberty in both word 
and deed. In 1984, the United States joined 47 other nations in 
approving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which of course 
proclaims that every person has a right to ``manifest his religion or 
belief in teaching, practice, worship or observance.''
  Four decades later, in 1800, Congress passed a law declaring that 
government may not ``substantially burden a person's exercise of 
religion,'' unless doing so is necessary to further a compelling 
government interest. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and 
Barrack Obama have all issued proclamations affirming the continued 
importance of religious liberty in American life. President Obama's 
most recent proclamation, issued on January 15 of this year, called 
religious freedom a ``fundamental libert[y].''
  He declared that every person should be ``free to choose and live 
their faith.'' There can be no question that religious liberty has been 
a central concern throughout our Nation's history. Over the coming 
weeks, I will discuss a number of topics related to religious liberty. 
These topics will include, among other things, the legal and political 
history of religious liberty in our country, the ways in which 
religious liberty is under attack both at home and abroad, and what we 
in Congress should do to protect religious freedom against such 
encroachments. I will also address the history and importance of 
religion in the public square and the ways in which religion is 
beneficial to society.
  Today, however, I begin with first principles: why religious freedom 
matters, why it is important, why it is worth protecting. It is common, 
when speaking of religious liberty, to begin by noting that religious 
exercise is the first individual right listed in the Constitution. This 
priority of place denotes that religious exercise has special 
significance.
  Of all the potential rights out there, both God-given and manmade, 
the Founders chose to list religious freedom first. Part of this, no 
doubt, had to do with history. The United States exists because of 
religious freedom. The Pilgrims set sail because they wanted to go to a 
place where they could practice their beliefs free from state 
interference. The Founders of Maryland similarly sought a new land 
where an oppressed religious minority, Catholics, could live out their 
faith openly and honestly.
  Pennsylvania was a haven for Quakers and other religious groups. 
Although the motivations of colonists were multifaceted, the desire for 
religious freedom was a driving force behind many settlers' decisions 
to come to America. They came to escape persecution, to practice their 
religion as they wished without the need for official state sanction or 
the threat of state-sponsored suppression.
  But history is not the end of the story. There is something inherent 
in the nature of religious exercise that merits special protection. To 
explain, I first need to talk a bit about the character of government. 
I will then connect my discussion back to religious liberty. Government 
is, at bottom, a war of wills. It is how we answer the fundamental 
question of all human relations: Who decides?
  Government is the instrument by which we place certain conduct off-
limits or make other conduct compulsory and then back up those rules 
with threat of force. We may extol democracy as the best and highest 
form of government, while at the same time disparaging autocracy or 
other dictatorial regimes, but the difference between these governments 
is a difference of form, not function.
  All governments limit individual freedom. The question is, who 
decides what those limits are and how far they extend? When government 
limits freedom, it makes a value judgment that the conduct proscribed 
is less important, less worthy, than whatever goal the government is 
seeking to accomplish. Take the fight against drugs. Long ago, Congress 
made a decision that avoiding the devastating consequences of drug 
addiction and drug violence is a more worthy goal than permitting 
people to choose for themselves whether to ingest certain mind-altering 
substances. We made a value judgment that reducing violence and 
preventing addiction is more important than giving people unfettered 
control over what they consume.
  It is easy to see why. Violence and addiction are tangible, 
devastating harms that ruin lives and destroy aspirations. The ability 
to consume mind-altering substances, by contrast, is a narrow concern 
that does not go to any core concept of personhood. In other areas, the 
calculus may be more complicated. Whether we are debating the proper 
approach to energy production, health insurance, infrastructure 
investment, education standards or tax reform, we weigh competing 
values. The policy we ultimately select depends on which values to 
which we give greater weight.
  Now to religious liberty. I said earlier that religious liberty 
merits special protection. Indeed, it deserves preeminent protection 
against all other rights. The reason is that rights of conscience and 
of religious exercise go to the very heart of who we are as human 
beings and how we make sense of our world. There can be no higher value 
than enabling people to find purpose in their lives, to make sense of 
the sorrows and disappointments, as well as the joys that attend life 
here on the Earth.
  Indeed, the choices we make about what we believe and about whom we 
stand among are the most important choices we make in life. When a 
person feels called by a higher power to perform some act or to refrain 
from some activity, that person is defining himself by reference to his 
beliefs. Those beliefs may seem irrational to some or silly to others, 
but to the person who holds those beliefs they make all the difference 
in the world.
  When government interferes with religious exercise, it seeks to 
insert itself into the place of God. It tells a believer that his views 
about what really matters may be an interesting curiosity, a nice 
psychosocial experiment, perhaps, but that at the end of the day they 
are illegitimate. The state's interests must prevail because the state 
is the source of justice and truth.
  What is going on is a value judgment. Just as with all other 
government decrees, when a state commands a person to violate his 
religious beliefs, it makes a value judgment that the state's 
objectives override all contrary concerns. It just so happens that in 
this case, those contrary concerns are an individual's most personal, 
deeply held beliefs.
  This is a problem for three reasons: First, we have or are supposed 
to have a limited government. Our government is supposed to serve us. 
It is supposed to help us flourish, not vice versa. But the government 
that overrides religious belief is not a limited government; it is a 
tyranny. It presumes power to decide for its citizens the most 
fundamental and defining choices of life: who we are, why we are here, 
what our purpose is, and how we find happiness.
  No decision is more fundamental to human existence than the decision 
we make regarding our relationship to the Divine. No act of government 
can be more intrusive or more invasive of individual autonomy and free 
will than the act of compelling a person to violate his or her 
sincerely chosen religious beliefs. We should have more humility than 
to think we can define better than our fellow citizens the purpose of 
life and the ends thereof. Certainly a limited government such as ours 
ought not tell its people that it knows best on matters far beyond its 
ambit.

[[Page 14689]]

  Second, valuing transient policy objectives over deeply held 
religious beliefs places citizens on the horns of an impossible 
dilemma: either obey God whose commands are eternal and unalterable or 
obey the state, which controls life, liberty, and property here on 
Earth. There are some who seek to equate religious liberties with other 
forms of liberty or to downgrade it to a form of ``belief liberty.''
  Under this view, as explained by LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, there is 
nothing particularly special about religious liberty. It is merely the 
ability to believe as one chooses about spiritual matters, just as one 
might choose a political party, a favorite philosopher or a favorite 
actor, but there is no equivalency. Religious liberty alone goes to 
one's conception of self of one's place in the universe. It alone goes 
to those most fundamental questions that help us find purpose in our 
lives. What is more, it implicates duties that transcend mere personal 
choice and become obligatory in the life of the believer.
  Professor Robbie George, the chairman of the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, explains powerfully the flaw in the 
claim that religious liberty is just another type of so-called belief 
liberty:

       The right to follow one's conscience, and the obligation to 
     respect conscience--especially in matters of faith--obtain 
     not because people as autonomous agents should be able to do 
     as they please; they obtain, and are stringent and sometimes 
     overriding, because people have duties and the obligation to 
     fulfill them. . . . The right of conscience is a right to do 
     what one judge's oneself to be under an obligation to do, 
     whether one welcomes the obligation or must overcome strong 
     aversion in order to fulfill it.

  When government denies religious freedom, it forces believers to 
choose between duty to God and duty to man--duty to man backed by a 
threat of force. No government that values its citizens' agency and 
certainly no limited government that exists at the suffrage of the 
people should put its citizens to such an impossible choice.
  The third reason why valuing State objectives over religious beliefs 
is a problem is that it sets up the State as moral arbiter. I will 
speak only briefly to this point.
  When the State declares certain beliefs out of bounds or unworthy of 
protection, it tells the world that the opinions of government 
officials trump rights of conscience. It tells believers that 
government knows best and that their benighted views--the believers' 
views, that is--have been weighed and found wanting. The current 
wisdom, which may be contrary to the wisdom of all human history, must 
triumph for no reason other than it is current and currently favored by 
government elites. All must fall before the State, which is supreme 
both in matters of might and morality.
  This aggressive view of the State's moral authority has no place in a 
system of limited government and is completely contrary to our 
constitution. Humility should be our watchword. We should remember that 
we may be wrong.
  Now, this doesn't mean religious freedom should be unlimited, that 
there should be no boundaries on religious exercise. When a religious 
practice causes injury or threatens to upend important State goals, 
government does have a proper role to play in balancing interests. But 
the standard that must be met before the State intervenes should be 
very high.
  Again, we are not talking here about mere personal preferences, about 
things people would rather do or not do, all else being equal; we are 
talking about acts that, as Professor George puts it, individuals feel 
they have an obligation to do, an obligation that comes not from family 
or friends or from society but from God himself.
  Before we ask individuals to contravene commands they believe come 
from a higher power, we had better be sure that what we are asking is 
absolutely necessary. We had better be sure that what we are asking 
furthers a compelling government interest and is the only way to 
accomplish that interest. Only this standard, which requires government 
to exhaust all other options before invading the religious liberty over 
its citizens, adequately accounts for the centrality of faith in the 
lives of believers and the proper relationship between individual and 
State.
  Mr. President, my argument today has been based on first principles, 
on the inviolate right of each and every person to look out for himself 
or herself, the purpose of life, and his or her place in the universe. 
It has also been based on the principle, enshrined in our Constitution, 
that ours is a limited government that exists to serve, not dominate, 
its people.
  I have purposely stayed away from arguing that religion is a good 
thing, a net benefit to society, because I believe religious freedom 
deserves special protection separate and apart from whether religion 
makes men and women better citizens. Religious liberty should be a 
protected value because the State has no authority to tell individuals 
how they should approach the Divine or prescribe for them the meaning 
of their lives. It is a matter of autonomy, a question of who serves 
whom. But I would be remiss if I did not briefly outline the many ways 
religion and religious exercise have benefited our Nation.
  Today, many people sadly view religion as a sort of fetter, a chain 
that holds us back as a society from achieving our true potential. They 
see religion as the antagonist of social justice, as a refuge for 
reactionaries who do not understand or who fear our modern world. This 
view is not only shortsighted, it is ignorant.
  The two greatest social movements in our Nation's history--the 
abolition movement and the civil rights movement--were inspired by 
religious conviction and led by religious leaders. We speak today of 
Dr. Martin Luther King, but we forget that before he was a doctor, he 
was a reverend. In 1967, the year before his death, Reverend King 
proclaimed:

       Before I was a civil rights leader, I was a preacher of the 
     Gospel. This was my first calling and it still remains my 
     greatest commitment. . . . [A]ll that I do in civil rights I 
     do because I consider it a part of my ministry.

  Religion instills in our youth principles of morality and right 
behavior. I do not claim that religion is necessary for a person to be 
a good citizen, but I do affirm that religion, rightly practiced, 
instills virtues--concern for others, a desire for good, objectives 
beyond the mere pursuit of something pleasures--that lead to engaged 
citizens and a healthy society. Happily, religious freedom is not just 
a good in and of itself but is a good for society as well.
  I will have much more to say on this topic in a future set of 
remarks. For present purposes, I will conclude with this point: 
Religious liberty is a fundamental feature of our Republic. It is why 
we exist as a nation. It helps to explain why we have endured so long 
despite our many differences. It has been a bedrock of our laws for 
centuries and was largely uncontested until only a few years ago. It 
deserves continuing protection as a preeminent value because it 
safeguards our ability as citizens to find purpose in our lives and to 
divine for ourselves who we are. It matters more than any other 
freedom. That is why it was listed first in the Constitution.
  Too many of our fellow citizens--perhaps even too many in this body--
have lost sight of the purpose and importance of religious liberty and 
of our duty as legislators to protect the freedom of all citizens to 
believe and to act according to their beliefs.
  I will return to this theme in the coming weeks as I deliver 
additional remarks on this most crucial topic. All I can say is that 
religious freedom means everything to me. I think it means everything 
to people of good will who really have studied how this Nation came 
about, how it progressed, how it has overcome some of the most 
monumental problems in the history of the world, and how we have been 
so successful after all these years.
  We have a tendency in this current climate, in this current world to 
start to decry religious belief. I want to make sure that we don't end 
it, that we augment it, and that we get back to where we should be as a 
Nation so that we can continue to maintain this great Nation as the 
greatest Nation with the greatest freedom and the greatest Constitution 
in the world.

[[Page 14690]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks, the Senator from Alaska be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I was proud and honored to vote for 
cloture on the motion to proceed to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act, offered by my dear friend and leader, Senator Graham of 
South Carolina.
  Nearly 17 years ago to this day, I came to the Senate floor to cast a 
vote to override then-President Clinton's veto of the Federal partial-
birth abortion ban and to speak out for the voiceless unborn children 
who were victims of that deplorable practice. As supporters of that 
effort to end partial-birth abortions in the United States will recall, 
it was a long journey to see legislation finally signed into law in 
2003 but a journey fully consistent with America's long commitment to 
the rights and dignity of all human life. Enacting that legislation 
called upon our Nation's moral conscience in the same way our country 
is compelled to action in the face of injustice at home and abroad, and 
I believe we as a nation are better off for it today.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act the Senate considered 
today is no different. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this 
legislation to protect the lives of unborn children by banning 
abortions beyond the time when a child in the womb can feel pain. My 
support for this bill is a continuation of my longstanding and 
unequivocal pro-life record since I was first elected to the Senate.
  As was the case when the Senate considered the ban on partial-birth 
abortion, we have to recognize that the bill the Senate voted on today 
does not fit neatly into the traditional debate about whether you are 
pro-life or pro-choice. The bill is about banning the extreme practice 
of late-term abortions and protecting the lives of fully formed human 
beings who can feel real pain. These abortions occur at the beginning 
of the sixth month of pregnancy. They end the life of a human being who 
has been found worthy of fetal anesthesia to dull the pain the 
procedure causes but somehow unworthy of life. I submit that to oppose 
this bill, to vote to allow this practice to continue to be legal in 
this country, is extreme and unconscionable.
  This effort puts us on the right side of the American people and the 
right side of history. This legislation has 45 cosponsors in the 
Senate, and it passed the House by a vote of 242 to 184 in May of this 
year. A recent poll found that 64 percent of Americans support 
restricting late-term abortions.
  I am proudly pro-life because I believe this is a human rights issue 
inextricably tied to the values of our Nation. These are the same 
values that have resulted in a long-held American commitment to 
fighting for human rights and for the disadvantaged and the voiceless 
around the world. The same commitment to fighting for human life must 
be true in our Nation today for unborn children.
  In April 2014, Time magazine ran a story called ``A Preemie 
Revolution: Cutting-edge medicine and dedicated caregivers are helping 
the tiniest babies survive--and thrive.'' The article discussed 
remarkable medical advancements that have resulted in a steadily 
decreasing age of viability for infants born prematurely. It details 
the complexities of caring for premature babies, the challenge of 
seeing to things as basic as breathing for these babies, as well as the 
``round-the-clock SWAT team of nearly 300 [medical professionals]'' 
that come together at neonatal intensive care units, NICU, to fight for 
these tiny lives.
  In the author's words:

       [I]n some ways, the work of a NICU will always seem like an 
     exercise in disproportion--an army of people and a mountain 
     of infrastructure caring for a pound of life. But it's a 
     disproportion that speaks very well of us.

  The painstaking fight for human life that goes on in NICUs around the 
country is irreconcilable with the current status quo in our Federal 
law that permits late-term abortions.
  As we know, what is at stake in this debate is made all the more real 
and urgent by the heinous video footage showing Planned Parenthood's 
role in the harvesting of unborn babies' body parts. I was proud to 
vote in support of defunding Planned Parenthood while preserving 
Federal funding for women's health services in facilities such as 
community health centers.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the significance of this vote today, 
the reality of the practice that this bill is aimed at prohibiting, and 
what permitting late-term abortions says about our Nation's commitment 
to fighting for life and standing up for human rights when our 
conscience calls us to. I deeply regret that this body failed today to 
vote for the voiceless and ban late-term abortions and protect life. I 
urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their 
position on this important issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, listening to the last two speakers, I am 
reminded what a privilege and honor it is to be able to serve in the 
Senate alongside great Americans--the President pro tempore, the 
Senator from Utah, and the Senator from Arizona, John McCain, who have 
served this country for decades--decades--with honor and distinction, 
and, as we saw in their remarks just a few minutes ago, with wisdom 
from experience and conviction.
  We took two important votes today. One, as Senator McCain was talking 
about, was the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, very important 
pro-life legislation. I agree with what the Senator from Arizona said 
about that very important bill and commend the Presiding Officer for 
his leadership throughout the country.
  We also voted on the Defense appropriations bill today, another 
important bill. I am not sure it is going to get a lot of press, but I 
wish to talk about what is going on there because it is actually very 
important for the American people to really have a sense of what is 
happening. We saw in the media, we see all over Washington and on TV 
this talk concerning a government shutdown. I think a lot of people 
have concerns about it. Let me talk about that in the context of the 
bill we voted on today, which, unfortunately, was filibustered by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  A lot of us who are new here in the Senate--the Presiding Officer, my 
colleague from North Carolina--ran on the issue of a dysfunctional 
Senate, where the most basic function of government was not happening. 
Let me give one critical example. We weren't passing a budget, we 
weren't funding government, and we weren't doing regular order in terms 
of appropriations bills. So many of us ran to say: Enough, we are going 
to change things here. With all due respect to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, they neglected this function--no budget, no 
appropriations bills--for years. The most basic function of government 
was not happening in the Senate.
  So many of us campaigned to change that--to work hard to change 
that--because we knew that is what the American people wanted. And we 
have done it. We are starting to do it. For example, we passed the 
budget resolution.
  If we look at the 10 years out of our budget versus the 10 years out 
of the President's budget, we cut $5 to $7 trillion in terms of the 
President's wasteful spending. That is serious. We did that. We passed 
the budget resolution. We debated it here for a number of weeks, not 
days. The other side of the aisle hadn't done that for years.
  When I went back home and said we did that, a lot of people in Alaska 
said: Well, big deal, my household passes a budget every year. My 
business passes a budget every year. The State of Alaska passes a 
budget every year.
  But it is a big deal because we hadn't done it here. But now we are 
doing it because that is what we committed to do.
  So that is one step: We passed a budget. Then the Members of this 
body,

[[Page 14691]]

working hard, particularly through the Appropriations Committee, passed 
12 appropriations bills--9 of which passed out of the committee with 
very, very strong bipartisan votes--to fund the government. So far so 
good--that is what we are supposed to be doing here. We are back to 
work, back to regular order.
  One of these bills was the Defense appropriation bill. What does that 
mean? It is kind of a wonky term. That is the bill that funds our 
military, that funds our national defense, that funds the sergeant in 
the Marine Corps and the Army--a really important bill. It passed out 
of the committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 27 to 3. We 
almost can't get any more bipartisan than that, 27 to 3. Virtually 
everybody, Democrats and Republicans, voted for that because they know 
how important it is.
  So what happened today? We took the next step in the regular order 
process as we promised the American people to fund our government by 
bringing forward that bill. At 27 to 3, it should be no problem passing 
it in the Senate. Look at how many Democrats voted for that bill. So we 
wanted to move forward on that bill. We all know how critical that bill 
is--probably one of the most critical appropriations bills we have 
because it is funding the defense of our Nation and the brave men and 
women who serve our Nation.
  So what happened in the vote today? Well, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle decided: No, we are going to filibuster that. I know 
we voted 27 to 3 to move it out of committee, but now we are going to 
filibuster that.
  In fact, according to the leader on the other side of the aisle, the 
Democrats are saying they are going to filibuster all 12 appropriations 
bills--all 12 of them.
  Let me repeat. Here is what is happening. We passed the budget. We 
passed, for the most part, very bipartisan appropriations bills. Let me 
read a few of them: Agriculture, 28 to 2, out of committee; Commerce, 
Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, 27 
to 3; Defense, 27 to 3; Energy and Water, 26 to 4; State and Foreign 
Operations, 27 to 3.
  This is a list of very bipartisan work by the Senate in the 
Appropriations Committee. I commend all the Members of this body who 
worked so hard on that. But now we hear that the other side is going to 
filibuster every single one of these. They did it today. That is 
actually the second time they did it with regard to the Defense 
appropriations bill. They are going to do it again and again and again.
  It is my view that we should bring all 12 of these bills to the 
Senate floor, like we did today. We are trying to move forward and fund 
this government. We are trying to get back to regular order, the way 
the Senate used to work. It hadn't worked like that for years, but now 
we are trying to do that. If the other side of the aisle wants to 
continually filibuster the funding of our government, let them stand up 
to the American people and do that.
  For example, I think we should bring up the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill that passed out of committee 21 to 
9. It is very important for the country. Let's bring it up. Let's have 
a vote on it. If they want to filibuster that, I think they will have 
to explain why they are not supporting veterans.
  This will make one thing clear, though. In all the talk we hear in 
the media every day about Republicans wanting to shut down the 
government, I think it is pretty clear when we look at what is 
happening here with the filibustering of all the appropriations bills 
that there is another side to this story. There is another side to this 
story. The defunding of the government--of our troops, as we saw 
today--is happening because of the filibuster.
  It is my hope that our friends in the media, who love to talk about 
this story, are going to look a little bit more deeply--look at these 
votes today, look at the budget, look at what the Appropriations 
Committee has been doing--and tell the real story. There are people 
very focused on stopping the funding of the government. We saw it 
today. It is not the majority party in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


               Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Bill

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the great State 
of Alaska for his comments. I wish to be associated with those 
comments. I also thank him not only for his service in the Senate but 
for his service in the Marines.
  I stand here today heartbroken over the failure to advance a bill 
that would protect the lives of unborn babies--babies who are old 
enough, who, with proper care, can survive when born at this age.
  Many of my colleagues have spoken regarding all that we know about 
the science of fetal development--how unborn babies feel pain, when 
they feel pain, the related neurological data, and so on. Others will 
tell us that the United States is out of step with the overwhelming 
majority of other nations on this policy. Others will show poll numbers 
that demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of Americans, especially 
women, think this policy is a good policy--the policy that was voted 
down in this Chamber today.
  But we don't need to know all that to know what is right and what is 
wrong. We know what is right. Any of us who have ever watched our 
wife's belly grow, as I did with the miracle of my son and daughter; 
any of us who have ever experienced the excitement before learning the 
results of a prenatal test; any of us who have seen an ultrasound or 
attended a baby shower, we all know. We know because of the hundreds 
and thousands of friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers whose own 
baby stories we have watched over our lives. The stories of successful 
deliveries, the complications, the joys, the tragedies, and all of 
these stories--the beautiful stories and the bittersweet stories--have 
taught us the truth about the unborn. We all know. We don't need to be 
scientists to understand what the science can tell us.
  So I wish to tell some stories that illustrate what this bill, which 
was voted down today in this Chamber, is about.
  I want to start with Samuel. As early as 1999, we were doing fetal 
surgeries here in the United States. Samuel's parents, Julie and Alex, 
were given the terrible news that their unborn son had permanent nerve 
damage from an opening in his spine due to spina bifida. Doctors said 
that half of all babies with spina bifida were aborted, but Julie and 
Alex chose a different path for Samuel. This was at 21 weeks. Samuel 
was operated on in utero. Today he is all grown up. Samuel said that he 
believes God sent him to Earth to help stop abortion.
  Then there is Elijah.
  When April Leffingwell's ultrasound at 20 weeks revealed a life-
threatening tumor growing in Elijah's left lung, she knew his life was 
in grave danger. Thankfully, this fateful diagnosis was not the end of 
the story. Instead, Elijah's life was saved by an innovative fetal 
surgery performed at just 25 weeks. During the surgery, 3 years ago, 5-
month-old baby Elijah was given anesthesia to protect him from pain. He 
was then partially removed from his mother's womb, and the life-
threatening tumor the size of an orange was removed. Elijah's primary 
surgeon at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia said that he would have 
died if the operation were not done before birth. Now, several years 
later, after a challenging beginning, Elijah is a healthy and very 
active toddler.
  Here is another story, about Micah.
  Micah's mom Danielle went into labor and delivered Micah when he was 
just 22 weeks old. This is little Micah shortly after delivery as shown 
in this picture. She was given the worst of news--that her son would 
not survive. But Micah received state-of-the-art care and spent the 
next 4 months in the neonatal intensive care unit, or NICU. Micah's 
parents kept vigil at his side and watched all the developmental 
milestones, which should have been reached in utero, be reached in the 
artificial environment in the NICU. And slowly, day by day, he made it. 
He thrived and is 3 years old.

[[Page 14692]]

  Micah and his family are here today at the Senate. I met them earlier 
today. He actually gave me this band that says ``Miracles for Micah.'' 
Surely my colleagues can see what Micah's parents see; that their son 
was just as precious at 22 weeks as he is today at 3 years old.
  There are more stories. Some of us remember former Philadelphia 
Eagles player Vaughn Hebron. Vaughn and his wife Kim were given the 
news that their twins, 5 months old in utero, were facing what is 
called twin-transfusion--a life-threatening condition. Doctors said 
there was a 70-percent chance that one or both of the twins would die, 
but Vaughn and his wife chose to fight for their boys. They received 
state-of-the-art care and both boys are now healthy teenagers.
  All of these children--the Hebron twins, Micah, Elijah, Samuel--there 
is only one difference between them and the babies aborted, 
dismembered, and sold by Planned Parenthood; the only difference is 
that these children were wanted and welcomed. If they are wanted and 
welcome, we fight like mad to save them. We throw everything at them 
that science and medicine can possibly do. We save their lives and we 
create miracles every day.
  We need this bill to protect those poor babies who are unwanted and 
unwelcome. We don't strip born children of their right to life and 
protection just because their parents don't want them. We take care of 
them at taxpayer expense. We try to help their parents support them. We 
provide health care for them. If their parents will not or can't raise 
them, we seek adoptive families for them. But if they are a few months, 
even a few days or a few minutes younger, our law denies them the 
opportunity to grow, to learn, and to become the bright-eyed, world-
changing children we all cherish and protect.
  They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I think this one says 
it better than anything any of us will say on this Senate floor. This 
is a baby in utero around 20 weeks. There is simply no arguing that 
this is a baby. At this age, she is about 10 ounces, about 10 inches 
long--about the size of a big banana. A baby this age is practicing 
swallowing for the first time. She is moving. Her skin is thickening up 
so it is starting to lose that translucent look. A good fraction of the 
babies who are delivered prematurely at this age survive. A few weeks 
later, almost all of them survive.
  The bill we voted on today would have protected babies from this age 
and older--when they can feel pain, when they look like humans in 
photographs and sonograms, and when they are kicking around in their 
mama's bellies. Although we didn't advance this bill today, we must not 
give up. I am not giving up on my colleagues because I believe justice 
can still win out. This bill must eventually pass. History will clothe 
us in disgrace if we fail to do so. The law should protect these 
children. Nobody put it better than the late great children's author 
Dr. Seuss when he said: ``A person's a person, no matter how small.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


              Corporate Culture in the Automobile Industry

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, Volkswagen has become part of the lexicon 
of the American economy, American culture. Volkswagen Beetles, at the 
time when I was growing up as a kid, were all a part of the America we 
know and love. Now we find out that Volkswagen for years has been 
purposely deceiving the American public--for that matter, their 
customers around the world--on their diesel cars by deceptively telling 
them what the mileage is on the cars. And oh, by the way, in the United 
States, because they were supposedly getting great mileage, there was a 
tax benefit to the purchasers of those vehicles.
  What in the world is happening to the American automobile industry 
and those foreign manufacturers that are selling automobiles here to 
take advantage of the American automobile-consuming public? It is an 
outrage that VW would take advantage of its consumers by purposely 
deceiving them on their mileage on diesel vehicles.
  First there was General Motors. Over 100 people died as a result of a 
defective ignition switch that General Motors did not tell us about, 
and in the process just recently--last week--announced a fine of $900 
million. Where are our U.S. regulatory agencies? What is the Obama 
administration doing about this in its regulatory agencies? Why are 
they not dropping the hammer on corporations and corporate executives 
that are purposely deceiving the American people about faulty 
automobile products that cause the loss of lives and property? It was 
General Motors. Then it was Takata airbags, which are in a lot of 
automobiles but especially in Hondas and Toyotas. We know that a number 
of people have lost their lives, a number of people have been maimed, 
and they are driving around with an airbag in the middle of the 
steering wheel--which now there have been millions and millions of 
recalls--and in the middle of that steering wheel is an explosive 
grenade because it hasn't been replaced.
  Today, Volkswagen admitted, over the course of the last half dozen 
years, that they have deceived people on their diesel vehicles by 
deceptively telling them what the gas mileage was. Has the corporate 
culture in what is an automobile society shrunk so low that we can't be 
upfront when our products are defective or when we are trying to gain 
competitive advantage? I lay this not only on the corporate culture, I 
lay it at the feet of the U.S. regulatory agencies that ought to be 
doing their job and ought to be doing it in a forceful way. Then there 
ought to be some prosecutions, and corporate executives who knew this 
and have done it ought to be going to jail.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                        Criminal Justice Reform

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, in the coming days we know that we are 
going to have an extraordinary visit. This is a historic occasion. We 
are going to gather both Houses of Congress to hear from Pope Francis. 
During his time in the United States, Pope Francis has chosen to do 
something that I think is extraordinary--to visit with the imprisoned.
  In his address here, he may or may not discuss the American criminal 
justice system, but this visit alone, which speaks to something deep 
within the Catholic faith, deep within the Christian religion, 
reflected in Matthew 25: ``I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was 
sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit 
me.'' This step by the Pope, to me, is an extraordinary accomplishment 
in bringing a further highlight to the challenges we have in the United 
States with our criminal justice system.
  The Pope has predicated his time as Pope on an ideal of mercy. His 
motto, ``miserando atque eligendo,'' which translates to ``to be shown 
mercy and be chosen,'' to me is extraordinary. I actually believe the 
Pope and what he is doing resonates not just in a religious sense with 
the Christian faith but in the American sense with our shared 
collective values.
  I have taken the time to speak on the Senate floor on numerous 
occasions about our criminal justice system from many perspectives, but 
on this occasion, I would like to talk about those moral values which 
do not divide us as a nation but unite us. Those are values deep within 
the core of our country, part of our heritage, part of our songs, our 
pledges, and our words.
  We know the criminal justice system as it stands right now has many 
issues. If it was just analyzed on an economic angle, it would be 
enough to show how this criminal justice system is out of step with who 
we are as a people. We know that right now we in America are 
imprisoning more people than anybody else on the globe. We are the 
``incarceration nation'' when it comes to comparing ourselves with 
other global nations. We are about 5 percent of the global population 
but 25 percent of the global prison population. One out of every four 
people on the planet Earth who are incarcerated are in the United 
States of America. The cost of that, from a fiscal perspective, is 
incredible.

[[Page 14693]]

  We spend over a quarter of a trillion dollars every single year on 
our criminal justice system, a significant cost to American taxpayers. 
It is estimated that between 1980 and 2004, we would have had 20 
percent less poverty in America if not for mass incarceration. Think 
about that for a second--the costs of poverty on our productivity. We 
know that only about 9 percent of children who are poor are going to go 
to college. There are significant costs associated with poverty, both 
fiscal and moral. The poverty rate would be 20 percent lower if we had 
incarceration rates at the same levels as our industrial peers.
  At a time that our roads and our bridges are crumbling, as we as a 
nation have seen ourselves having gone from having the best 
infrastructure on the globe to now being a nation with an 
infrastructure that is not even ranked in the top 10 globally, at a 
time that we have seen investment go down as a percentage of our GDP, 
one thing we have seen go up is our investment in the prison 
infrastructure.
  We know that between 1990 and 2005, a new prison opened in the United 
States every 10 days. We have seen our prison population on a Federal 
level go up over the last 30 years about 800 percent. Looking at this 
from the fiscal perspective, we know we are digging a hole for 
ourselves--self-inflicted economic wounds that are just unnecessary for 
a nation of free people. Take for example a report from the Center for 
Economic and Policy Research. They concluded that in the year 2008 
alone, ex-offender unemployment losses to our economy were the 
equivalent of 1.5 to 1.7 million workers or $57 billion to $65 billion 
annually. In other words, when our folks come out of prison, as most 
do, they find it so hard to reintegrate into our economy. They find it 
hard to start jobs as there are bars to employment, finding it hard to 
start businesses as there are bars to business licenses. And that loss 
to our economy is the equivalent of about 1.6 million workers or $57 
billion to $65 billion annually.
  This reality, the fiscal reality alone--before we even talk about our 
values as a country, before we even talk about our morals--should be 
enough for us to find greater urgency about the need to reform our 
criminal justice system, especially because States in America are 
beginning to show that you can save taxpayer dollars by reducing 
incarceration levels and empowering people to succeed while 
simultaneously lowering the crime rate. This alone should be enough to 
show that we have a broken criminal justice system that violates the 
ideals of economic prudence and fiscal conservatism. We are digging an 
economic hole for ourselves.
  While the Pope will talk to us with a moral force during his visit, 
it is also important to understand that as a moral nation, the values 
we have put forth into the world are being violated by our criminal 
justice system as well.
  This body has been a body that has spoken with clarity on numerous 
moral issues--from the Civil Rights Act to the Fair Housing Act--but 
now we are seeing that we are failing to do what is necessary when it 
comes to living up to those powerful words of equal justice under the 
law. It is inscribed on the Supreme Court just hundreds of yards from 
where I am standing right now.
  We now know that there is no difference in drug usage and selling 
rates between African Americans, Whites, and Latinos. Yet our criminal 
justice system is incarcerating minorities in this country well 
disproportionate to their numbers in those drug crimes.
  Even at a time when we have had our last three Presidents admit to 
using drugs--the last two admitted to violating the drug laws--we still 
have a nation in which we are treating certain people differently.
  Take, for example, that we now know that African Americans and Whites 
have no difference for selling and using drugs, but Blacks are about 
3.7 times more likely to be arrested for a marijuana related crime. 
Take, for example, that African Americans and Whites are arrested for 
the same crimes, and Blacks are given sentences that are about 20 
percent longer than Whites for those similar crimes. African Americans 
are about 21 percent more likely to receive a mandatory minimum than 
Whites facing similar charges.
  This disproportionate experience under the law has created harrowing 
results within our Nation. There are more African Americans in jail, 
prison or under State or Federal supervision today than there were 
African Americans enslaved in 1850.
  Even though African Americans make up 14.7 percent of the population 
in my State of New Jersey, they make up 61 percent of the total 
correctional population. One in three African-American men born in 2001 
will go to prison during their lifetime. These numbers are astonishing, 
and in many ways they are being fueled by a criminal justice system 
that, from arrests to sentencing, is treating African Americans harsher 
than their White peers. This value of equal justice under the law is 
not being fulfilled.
  Latinos face the same challenges. Native Americans are also grossly 
overrepresented in our criminal justice system, with incarceration 
rates that are 38 percent higher than the national average. There is no 
difference in proclivity for drug crimes among people of color, but we 
have a system that actually punishes those who are of color in 
different ways. We need to begin, as a Congress and a nation, to find 
ways to have drug laws that make sense. The explosion of incarcerations 
in this country was fueled by the war on drugs, and we know that 
certain communities are facing the harsh impact of that enforcement in 
ways that other communities are not.
  We need to reform our harsh mandatory minimum policies. For too long 
we have taken away judicial discretion and tied the hands of sentencing 
experts who can and should weigh other factors when it comes to making 
sentencing decisions. We need to now avoid what Congress intended--
giving these harsh sentences to people who are not drug kingpins or 
large players but often low-level offenders.
  This idea of equal opportunity as well is something that is of value 
and is deep within our system. Unfortunately, the trends we see in our 
criminal justice system aren't limited to adults and the treatment 
under the law, but they are also showing that our kids as well do not 
always face equal pathways to opportunity. Today we know that the 
number of children who are born to people who are incarcerated or have 
an incarcerated parent is growing astonishingly. Right now, 1 in 28 
children is growing up with a parent in prison, and 1 in 9 African-
American kids, as a result of this mass incarceration 
disproportionately hitting minority communities, is growing up with a 
parent behind bars. These kids often struggle more in school, have 
families who are often poorer, and have limited opportunities of 
success.
  Over half of imprisoned parents were the primary earners for their 
children prior to their incarceration, and a child with an incarcerated 
father is more likely to be suspended from school than a peer without 
an incarcerated father--23 percent compared to 4 percent. These are 
serious gulfs in opportunity being created by a broken criminal justice 
system. The gulfs of opportunity between young people based on race 
start young and actually only grow with time.
  For too many children, zero-tolerance discipline policies in schools 
across America serve as a gateway into the criminal justice system and 
a lifetime of devastating collateral consequences. And just as in the 
American criminal justice system, too many young people of color in 
America are falling into the trap of that school-to-prison pipeline.
  According to the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil 
Rights in March 2014, Black students were suspended at a rate three 
times greater than White students. On average, 5 percent of White 
students are suspended compared to 16 percent of Black students. 
Students who have been suspended or expelled as a part of their 
school's disciplinary policy are 3 times as likely to become involved 
in the juvenile justice system within the next year. There is evidence 
showing that kids of different races face the harshness of those 
policies in different ways.

[[Page 14694]]

In other words, minority students are often treated harshly while 
others see leniency. We need to begin to enact commonsense policies 
that provide for equal opportunity--those commonsense policies that 
don't lead to suspension or involvement with police officers when in 
the past the infraction typically would have been dealt with the school 
internally. We need to find a system where a child's one mistake does 
not become a lifetime sentence, where children are empowered to succeed 
and not fear a retribution that destabilizes their lives.
  We also know that it is important that we begin to think: Are we a 
nation of second chances? Are we a nation where words such as 
redemption and mercy have meaning? Are we a nation that can live up to 
these ideals where just because you fall down and stumble and make a 
mistake, you cannot be someone who can still stand up again and make 
your way?
  We know that every single year approximately 600,000 Americans finish 
their prison sentences after paying their debt to society and reenter 
their communities. They often find themselves unable to work, to vote, 
to get back to school or to get a loan. The collateral consequences are 
extraordinary.
  The American Bar Association has identified over 46,000 collateral 
consequences that impact people with criminal records. About 60 to 70 
percent of them are employment-related. In other words, even though we 
are saying to people who have paid their debt that they now need to get 
back to work, we are actually putting up bars which prevent them from 
doing so. They are finding it hard to get a job, get a business 
license, get a loan, or get a Pell grant, and if they fall and stumble, 
they often find it hard to even get food stamps or get the social 
safety net that often keeps people from abject desperation. These 
realities place too many roadblocks in the way of people coming home.
  During Pope Francis's visits to prisons, he is said to have asked 
himself: Why did God allow that I should not be here? But for the grace 
of God.
  In advance of his visit, I believe we should be asking ourselves: 
What do these ideals of mercy and redemption mean to us--this idea that 
when we see people who are broken by society, we should understand that 
we should be investing in their success? It actually not only makes 
moral sense to do so, but it makes sense to do so because we will reap 
the economic benefit.
  If you take, for example, Americans who are suffering from addiction, 
we now know that $1 invested in people with addiction to get treatment 
produces a benefit in reducing interactions with the police and 
incarceration by $4 to $7. Yet the overwhelming majority of people with 
drug addictions do not get treatment. Not only is that fiscally 
unsound, but that makes no sense in the ideals of our morals as a 
nation, that we should help people who are broken by disease.
  This is the point we have come to as a nation, where we know that 
doing the morally right thing actually helps to save the dollars of our 
taxpayers so that we can keep that in our own pockets or invest them in 
areas that we so desperately need.
  Take, for example, a simple thing that companies around this country, 
such as Bed Bath & Beyond and Starbucks, are doing but we don't do in 
the Federal Government--this commonsense idea that those who have paid 
their debt will be given a level playing field and a fair shot to get a 
job to prove that they are worthy of work. Some people call this Ban 
the Box, something that 18 States have done. But here in the Federal 
Government, we still make people--right at the point of application--
check the box and say that they have been formally incarcerated, which 
means, for many Americans, that it gives them 50 to 60 percent less 
chance of even getting an interview or getting an opportunity to 
demonstrate their worth and make their case.
  We know that simple things such as moving that time of disclosure of 
a previous criminal conviction to later in the process could elevate 
the chances of getting more people to work. And when they get to work, 
they begin to be there for their families, their kids, our economy, and 
they become productive, as opposed to what we have now, which over time 
is a recidivism rate--the rate at which people go back to prison--that 
is upwards of 75 percent, costing us again billions of dollars as 
taxpayers.
  This system is broken. It makes no economic sense, but more 
importantly, it violates our ideals as a nation of equal justice under 
the law, the ideal of having a second chance in our country, and the 
ideal of equal opportunity for all.
  We must now embrace the urgency of the moment. To have a wasteful 
system that is broken, that further harms and injures people with 
illnesses--whether it be mental health disorder or an addiction--that 
aggravates them with practices such as putting children in solitary 
confinement--all of these things violate our principals as a nation, 
and it is time for us to join together and embrace change.
  I feel honored that right now in this country there is an emerging 
bipartisan and nonpartisan coalition around criminal justice reform. We 
see people from all across the political perspective approaching it 
from different perspectives--from Christian Evangelicals to fiscal 
conservatives to civil libertarians to civil rights activists--all 
beginning to say the system is morally bankrupt. It is bankrupting 
States and our Nation. It is a violation of who we are as a country, 
and it just makes no sense.
  It was James Baldwin who once said:

       There is never time in the future in which we will work out 
     our salvation. The challenge is in the moment; the time is 
     always now.

  With this visit from the Pope and his further spotlighting our 
criminal justice system, let us find that moral urgency in our Nation. 
Let us find the grit that we have shown in the past for overcoming 
injustice. Let us join together and begin with even more urgency to do 
the hard work of correcting the ills within our criminal justice 
system, of fixing what is broken, and making right in America that 
which we hold so dear--that we are a nation indeed with liberty and 
justice for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know my friend, the distinguished Senator 
from Vermont, has been waiting, and so I will be very quick with the 
statement that I am going to give.


                        Remembering Jim Santini

  Mr. President, today Nevada lost a historic figure. This morning 
former U.S. Congressman Jim Santini of Nevada passed away. He was a 
remarkably good person--a tremendous person who understood Nevada so 
well.
  He was a native Nevadan, born in Reno. He came from a real heritage 
that caused him to love his State of Nevada. His grandfather, Walter E. 
Clark, was the longest serving president at the University of Nevada. 
His uncle is a famous writer--a really celebrated author--Walter Van 
Tillburg Clark. It has been a long time, but what a great writer. His 
most famous work was ``The Ox-Bow Incident.'' I read it again a few 
years ago. It was made into a movie, which I watched again. It was 
considered by most to be the most--actually, the first modern Western 
novel.
  So Jim Santini breathed what Nevada was all about. He knew the State 
extremely well. He graduated from the University of Nevada--the same 
school where his grandfather was the president. He became close friends 
with former Senator Richard Bryan of Nevada, a two-term Governor and a 
striking figure in his own right. They were inseparable friends. They 
were in college together. They went to the same law school--Hastings 
Law School in San Francisco.
  Jim graduated from law school in 1962. He immediately decided he 
would serve his country, and for 3 years he served in the U.S. Army. 
His service to his State and country spans many decades.
  His good friend Richard Bryan convinced him that he should move from

[[Page 14695]]

Reno. The growth in the State was in the southern part of the State, 
the Las Vegas area. Jim--in some respects reluctantly--moved from his 
roots to southern Nevada, where he excelled. He worked as a deputy 
district attorney. After the first public defender in the State of 
Nevada decided to run for public office, he was replaced--that is 
Richard Bryan, the first public defender in Clark County--he was 
replaced with his good friend Jim Santini, who became a public 
defender.
  It was a short time thereafter that he was elected justice of the 
peace of Las Vegas. During this period of time, the role of the justice 
of the peace changed. It became more of a judicial officer rather than 
someone who became fabulously wealthy by marrying hundreds and hundreds 
of people. That is the way it used to be. He did a very good job as 
justice of the peace. He was so impressive that the Governor of the 
State of Nevada, Mike O'Callaghan, appointed him to serve as a Nevada 
district court judge representing Clark County.
  In 1972 Jim ran for Nevada's at-large congressional seat. From 1864, 
when Nevada became a State, until 1982, Nevada only had one 
Congressman, one Member of Congress, and it was an at-large seat. And 
when Jim ran for that in 1972, he ran against Republican incumbent 
David Towell, who just 2 years before was in a race with Congressman 
Walter S. Baring, who served in Congress for some 22 years representing 
Nevada's at-large congressional seat and who was defeated in the 
primary. But David Towell came from nowhere and beat the Democrat in 
that case. Santini came right back, and David Towell was a one-term 
Congressman.
  Jim represented the State of Nevada in Congress very honorably for 
four terms. He was well respected, well regarded, and very popular in 
the State of Nevada. However, in 1982 Jim decided to run for the 
Senate, and he was not successful. In 1986 he ran for the Senate again. 
I was his opponent. It was a relatively close race, but when that race 
was over, it was over. I knew Jim before he and I became opponents. We 
worked together on many different projects. We never had a cross word. 
To this day we never had a cross word.
  Jim became a counsel--a lawyer--and a lobbyist for America's tourism 
and travel industry. He worked to bring tourists to the United States 
and to the State of Nevada, and he did it very admirably and very well.
  Jim Santini had a wonderful wife, Ann Santini. She has quite a career 
in her own right. She is the director of international affairs for the 
LDS Church here in Washington, DC. They have four children: Lisa, Lori, 
Mark, and J.D. They have 11 grandchildren.
  Before leaving Jim Santini, we have to speak about his uniqueness. 
Here is a man who had--there may be someone who has a better arrowhead 
collection than Jim Santini; I just don't know who it would be. He 
spent many decades--a lot of the time in Nevada but around the 
country--collecting arrowheads. He had a great collection of 
arrowheads. He also collected Indian baskets, and in Nevada we had 
probably the most famous basket weaver in the history of the country, a 
woman by the name of Dat So La Lee. She is really a very famous woman. 
Many of her baskets are worth over $1 million. She made baskets this 
big--woven, of course, by hand--and baskets this large. Jim collected 
baskets. I don't know how many he wound up having of Dat So La Lee's, 
but I am sure he had some.
  It is with a great deal of sadness that I report to my friends in 
Nevada and the friends Jim had here in Washington that Jim passed away 
this morning. I said that earlier. I will miss him. He and I exchanged 
letters right after the first of the year, right after I got hurt, 
injured my eye. He always was a kind, gracious man, and I will miss him 
very much, as will everyone in Nevada and his friends here in 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                              Papal Visit

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am delighted that Pope Francis will be 
addressing a joint session of Congress on Thursday.
  The Pope has played, in my view, an extraordinary role since he 
assumed his position in speaking out with courage and brilliance about 
some of the most important issues facing our world. From the moment he 
was elected, he immediately let it be known that he would be a 
different kind of Pope, a different kind of religious leader. In 
choosing his Papal name--Francis--he said:

       Francis of Assisi. For me, he is the man of poverty, the 
     man of peace, the man who loves and protects creation.

  What I want to do in a short period of time is read some of the very 
profound and important statements Pope Francis has made over the last 
several years. They are incisive, they are courageous, and they speak 
to a world in trouble that needs the kind of leadership that he is 
providing.
  Let me quote from a number of the statements he has made.
  Quote:

       While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, 
     that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results 
     from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets 
     and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control 
     to States, which are themselves charged with providing for 
     the common good.

  Obviously, he is not talking about the United States; he is talking 
about the global economy. But certainly in our country, when he talks 
about the income of the minority increasing exponentially and that of 
the majority crumbling, he is, of course, right. We have right now in 
our country the top one-tenth of 1 percent owning almost as much wealth 
as the bottom 90 percent. We have about 58 percent of all new income 
being created now going to the top 1 percent. In the last several 
years, we have seen the 14 wealthiest people in America increase their 
wealth by $156 billion, and that increase in wealth is more wealth than 
is owned by the bottom 40 percent of the American people.
  As the Pope points out, this is not by any means just an American 
issue; this is a global issue. We are moving toward a period where very 
shortly the top 1 percent of the people on the planet will own more 
wealth than the bottom 99 percent. To me, that is immoral, that is 
wrong, that is unsustainable, and I am glad the Pope has raised that 
issue.
  He talks about another issue which is even more profound. It is one 
thing to talk about income and wealth inequality, and it is another 
thing to talk about poverty.
  Here, he says:

       We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf 
     of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of 
     money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless 
     and lacking any truly humane goal.

  ``The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless 
image in the cult of money.'' What does that mean? Well, I take it to 
mean that we are living in a society which turns its back on people who 
work hard, decent people, people who are good parents, but yet we 
worship those people who for whatever reason--sometimes honestly and 
with creativity, sometimes dishonestly and illegally--have become 
millionaires and billionaires. Those are the people we worship. The 
more money they make, the more they get worshipped. I think the Pope is 
right in saying that is not something we should be doing.
  In another statement, which is certainly relevant for a lot of the 
discussions we have here on the floor of the Senate, he said:

       In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-
     down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged 
     by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about 
     greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, 
     which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a 
     crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding 
     economic power and in the sacralized workings of the 
     prevailing economic system.

  What is he talking about? He is talking about a lot of what has gone 
on here in this country for many decades. There is a theory, which the 
Pope is right in saying has never been confirmed by the facts--quite 
the contrary--that if we give huge tax breaks to billionaires and large 
corporations, somehow that money will trickle down

[[Page 14696]]

to the middle class and working class. Well, that theory has not proved 
to be true. Under trickle-down economics, the rich get richer and 
virtually everybody else gets poorer. I think the Pope is quite right 
in making that point.
  Let me again quote the Pope. This is what he said:

       Man is not in charge today, money is in charge. Money 
     rules.

  Money rules. Well, 5 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-to-4 
decision passed the disastrous Citizens United decision which basically 
said to the wealthiest people in this country: You already own much of 
the economy; now we are going to give you the opportunity to buy the 
United States Government. And that is exactly what they are now 
attempting to do. Money rules. You have one family--the Koch brothers--
who will spend $900 million in this election cycle to elect candidates 
who will protect the wealthy and powerful. That is more money than will 
be spent by either the Democratic or Republican Party. When one family 
is spending more money than either of the two major political parties, 
I think it is an example of what the Pope is talking about when he says 
``money rules.''
  Money does rule, and that is why, in my view, we have to overturn 
Citizens United and move to the public funding of elections--so the 
wealthy and the powerful will not be able to buy elections.
  He also said something very interesting about the media. This is what 
he said:

       These things become the norm: that some homeless people die 
     of cold on the streets is not news. In contrast, a ten point 
     drop on the stock markets of some cities is a tragedy.

  Well, what is news? Is he right? We talk about the stock market going 
up, the stock market going up. It is big news. The 45 million Americans 
living in poverty--I don't hear much discussion about that. There are 
thousands of people dying every single year because they don't have 
health insurance and can't get to a doctor when they need to. That 
ain't big news--not big news at all. I think it is an interesting point 
about what constitutes news, and I think the Pope makes a very good 
point in that regard.
  Let me give another quote:

       It is a well-known fact that current levels of production 
     are sufficient, yet millions of people are still suffering 
     and dying of starvation. This, dear friends, is truly 
     scandalous.

  I think what the Pope is talking about is that in a world where we 
have enormous productive capability--industrial, agricultural--we have 
a situation where children die of diseases that are preventable all 
over the world, where people go hungry all over the world. Yet, as he 
says, our current levels of production are sufficient. We are producing 
enough to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide what people 
need, and yet we have an economy which works day after day to make 
billionaires richer and turns its back on desperate people all over the 
world.
  Let me end with this quote:

       Today everything comes under the laws of competition and 
     the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the 
     powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves 
     excluded and marginalized: without work, without 
     possibilities, without any means of escape.

  That is certainly true in the United States. It is certainly truer 
all over the world. We are living in a world of the survival of the 
fittest. If you are poor, if you are unemployed, if you are hungry, 
government turns its back on you. But if you are rich, if you are 
powerful, if you can make campaign contributions of hundreds of 
millions of dollars, we love you, we welcome you, and we need you more 
and more.
  I think during this week where we welcome the Pope to Washington, DC, 
I would hope that some of my colleagues would examine the very profound 
lessons he is teaching people all over this world.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wicker pertaining to the introduction of S. 2067 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a very important 
issue. It is a fundamental constitutional issue for this body and part 
of our duty in the Senate and the Congress; that is, to ensure next 
week the funding for the government which expires at the end of the 
month. With only 1 week until the current government funding runs out, 
it is our responsibility to work together to make sure that the 
government keeps running, that we do not disrupt people's lives, that 
we do not end up spending more money because we shut the government 
down to reopen it, and that we provide certainty with all of the 
challenges we face at home and, of course, the threats we face abroad.
  An issue has come up that is a very important issue, and that is an 
organization called Planned Parenthood and holding Planned Parenthood 
accountable in the wake of deeply disturbing videos that discuss the 
appalling practice of harvesting the organs and body parts of unborn 
babies.
  Like Americans across all political spectrums, I was just sick--sick 
to see the contents of recent videos that have been disclosed that show 
a callous disregard by officials at Planned Parenthood for the dignity 
of human life. These videos have shocked the conscience of people 
across our country because this organization does receive taxpayer 
funding. I understand why we have had an important debate in this body 
about redirecting this funding because of Planned Parenthood's actions 
and fully investigating what was revealed in these disturbing videos 
that show the practice of the harvesting of organs and body parts of 
unborn babies.
  So I support the efforts of the Judiciary Committee to investigate 
these disturbing videos. I also do not believe it is appropriate that 
taxpayer funds should be used to fund a private organization that 
performs hundreds of thousands of abortions each year and that engages 
in the horrific practices that were shown in these videos.
  That is why last month I joined a bipartisan majority of Senators in 
voting to redirect Federal funding from Planned Parenthood to community 
health centers that provide women's health services, including 
mammograms, cancer screenings, and contraceptives. In New Hampshire 
there are more than 30 community health centers, compared to 5 Planned 
Parenthood clinics.
  But when we had this debate and vote on the Senate floor, we received 
only 53 votes in favor of redirecting this money from Planned 
Parenthood to community health centers which provide women's health 
services, falling well short of the 60-vote threshold required to 
advance this legislation in the Senate. Yet despite already having had 
a vote on this, which failed the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, there 
are some that are pushing to attach this issue to the funding of the 
government, even though when we had the vote here, we did not have the 
votes to get it passed in the Senate, and even though the President 
himself has explicitly said he would veto any bill that prohibits 
funding for Planned Parenthood or redirects that funding to community 
health centers.
  In fact, the President is so dug in on funding for Planned Parenthood 
that he is prepared to let the government shut down over it. And those 
who are pushing the strategy, saying we should go forward with it 
anyway--they have not explained how we would obtain 67 votes in the 
Senate.
  When we had the vote on it, we only got 53, not even enough to 
advance the legislation in the Senate, which requires 60. The President 
certainly knows that we do not have 67 votes in the Senate to override 
his veto. Nevertheless, those who are pushing the strategy to attach 
this to the government funding bill--this issue of redirecting the 
funding--also know that there are not 60 votes in the Senate, never 
mind 67 to override a Presidential veto. So the result is that if we 
passed the bill, even if we could get the 60 votes, the President is 
sure to veto

[[Page 14697]]

it, and the 67 votes are not there to override his veto.
  In the end, we are heading for an imminent government shutdown if 
this is not resolved. Everyone who looks at this issue knows the 
reality of where the votes lie. In fact, those on my side of the aisle 
who have been pushing the strategy of pass the bill, send it to the 
President for his veto, I have asked them the question: Let's assume we 
get the 60 votes to do that; first of all, how do we get those 60 
votes? I have not received an answer to that question. Then I have 
asked the next question: Even if we could get those 60 votes to pass it 
out of the Senate and to send this to the President's desk with a 
government funding bill that redirects the money to Planned Parenthood 
over his opposition and he vetoes it, where do the 67 votes come from? 
I have not received an answer to that.
  So I am here on the floor today to say: I am tired of the political 
games. I am tired of the President's game on this, that he is so dug in 
on this issue that he would be willing to let the government shut down. 
I am tired of the people on my side of the aisle who are pushing this 
strategy even though they know they do not have the votes to have it 
pass the Senate, and they certainly don't have the votes to override a 
Presidential veto, so, therefore, they cannot answer the question: What 
is the end game for success here, even if you feel as passionately 
about these issues as we all do?
  So here we are again with the political posturing on both sides. I 
don't want to play this game anymore. I think it is too important that 
we not relive the movie of where we were in 2013 when the government 
shut down because I asked the very same question then, when the issue 
was defunding ObamaCare. I asked the question: How does this end? How 
does it end successfully to defund ObamaCare? How does it end without 
shutting down the government? I never received an answer then, and I 
have not received an answer now from those who are pushing this 
strategy.
  We saw the movie in 2013. I do not think we should relive that movie. 
Let's remember what happened. When you shut the government down and you 
reopen it, it actually costs us more money. So if you care about the 
fiscal state of the country, let's not waste money shutting down the 
government with no results. You think about the economy and the 
disruption in people's lives. I remember my constituents calling me on 
the phone, because I was answering my phones. I remember people who 
saved for years for a family vacation to our national parks and could 
not participate in that family vacation and lost the money they had 
sunk into it for years in their savings for their big family vacation 
because people were pushing to keep the government shut down, even 
though they had no strategy for achieving a result on it.
  I remember the uncertainty and the hardship for working families and 
our military. Even though we keep our national security piece open 
during a government shutdown, there is so much uncertainty about whom 
that covers and whom it doesn't. When we look at the threats we are 
facing around the world right now, we do not need uncertainty when it 
comes to those who keep us safe at home on the law enforcement end, on 
our intel, on our military, and all the civilian workforce that 
supports them and makes sure they can do their job every single day.
  The bottom line is, in 2013 we did
not get a result, the funding for ObamaCare continued, the government 
was shut down, it cost us more money and disruption. We never got an 
answer then for how that would end successfully. Here we find ourselves 
again, the same group of people pushing the same strategy on the 
Planned Parenthood issue, saying we should shut the government down 
again, even though they cannot answer the question: How do we get to 60 
votes? How do we get to 67 votes so that you can actually achieve a 
result here? I think the answer is that they don't know the answer, 
because we all know where the votes are. It is not going to happen.
  So I am here on the floor because I feel strongly. I agree with the 
National Right to Life on this. In a recent op-ed, the National Right 
to Life rightly points out that pursuing this shutdown strategy could 
actually undermine efforts to hold Planned Parenthood accountable, 
primarily by shifting public attention in the political blame game that 
would result inevitably from the shutdown. The National Right to Life 
also cited a study by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 
which found that the majority of Federal funds flowing to Planned 
Parenthood would not even be temporarily interrupted if the government 
shut down because the funds flow from mandatory spending programs like 
Medicaid rather than the congressional funding process, which is the 
discretionary spending piece impacted by what we will vote on regarding 
the continuing resolution.
  Again, this was the same issue that actually came up in 2013 when it 
came to the tactics of trying to defund ObamaCare without a strategy 
for success. Right now we are playing a game of chicken. It is a 
dangerous game. We already know as we stand here where the votes are 
and what it takes to keep the government open. Yet, as I understand it, 
we are going to be taking another vote on Thursday so we can show the 
proponents of those who are again seeking to attach the Planned 
Parenthood redirecting-of-funding issue to the government funding bill 
that, guess what, we already know the answer to this. We don't have the 
votes. We are not going to get to 60 in the Senate, never mind the 67 
it would take to override a Presidential veto.
  So we all know what it is going to take to keep the government open. 
I think we should have that vote now, instead of continuing to have the 
political show votes that show the people where we know the votes 
already are on this issue. That means a clean funding bill now, so that 
we are not wasting time, so that we are not bringing ourselves closer 
to the brink of a shutdown.
  So in good conscience, while I fully support redirecting the money 
from Planned Parenthood to community health centers who serve women, I 
cannot in good conscience participate again in this process, one that 
would ensure we come closer to the brink of a shutdown, when I have not 
heard a strategy for success.
  I think the American people are owed an answer to the question: What 
is your strategy of success if you are threatening to shut down the 
government? I would ask the same of President Obama: If this is such an 
important issue to you that you are willing also to participate in this 
exercise of threatening a shutdown, is it that important to you given 
that the money can be redirected to community health centers that 
provide services to women?
  That said, it is time to quit the games on both sides of the aisle. I 
came here to solve problems. That means we need to address this issue 
now. We should have the vote on the clean funding bill now. We should 
make sure we keep the government running, given the challenges we are 
facing at home and abroad, so that we do not have shutdown 2 and relive 
the movie we saw in 2013, and that was not a good one for the country.
  I hope we will take the vote right now instead of continuing to play 
political games on both sides of the aisle while the clock ticks down. 
This is a very important issue for our country, and I am prepared right 
now to vote for a bill that will keep the government funded.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Oil Export Ban

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week a bipartisan majority of 
Senators--Members of this body--voted to try to stop President Obama's 
dangerous and desperate deal with Iran--that is right, dangerous and 
desperate.

[[Page 14698]]

  The President wants to give Iran relief from the economic sanctions 
the world imposed. I believe President Obama traded away these 
sanctions too readily and he got too little in return. These sanctions 
included limits on the sale of Iranian oil. According to one estimate, 
Iran could soon begin to export as many as 1 million additional barrels 
of oil each and every day. I know the money Iran makes from these sales 
will go to shoring up its economy, and it will go to building up Iran's 
military. Some of it will undoubtedly go to supporting global 
terrorists. That is what President Obama traded away. Iran will be 
allowed to sell its oil anywhere in the world, yet American oil 
producers are largely prohibited from selling American oil anywhere in 
the world. Apparently, that is exactly the way the White House wants to 
keep things.
  There is legislation working its way through Congress right now to 
lift the ban on American crude oil exports. The Obama administration 
has said it doesn't support the bill. There is bipartisan support of 
the bill but not this White House--oh no. They think Congress shouldn't 
even get to decide. They think it should be up to Washington 
bureaucrats in the Obama administration to make the decisions. The 
administration thinks they are the only ones who should be allowed to 
decide whether the oil export ban gets lifted.
  It was the Obama administration that let Iran off the hook by signing 
such a terrible deal. It is the Obama administration that now wants to 
lift the sanctions and give Iran access to more than $100 billion. 
Should the Obama administration be the one to decide whether Iran gets 
to sell its oil without American competition? Is that what the 
President wants? Why is the Obama administration so interested in 
making sure Iran's economy gets back on its feet faster?
  The President ought to be focused on helping America's economy, not 
Iran's economy. Right now American producers export about 500,000 
barrels of oil a day. Where does it go? It goes to Canada. Iran is 
exporting about 1 million barrels a day. But once President Obama lifts 
the sanctions, that number is going to jump to almost 2 million barrels 
a day--2 million barrels a day. So President Obama favors a situation 
where Iran will be allowed to export four times as much oil as America 
does--four times as much. That is what the President is in favor of. 
And Senate Democrats who voted to help the President lift the sanctions 
want the same thing. That is what they say, 4 to 1--Iran over the 
United States.
  Republicans want something very different. If the export ban is 
lifted, U.S. energy producers could export another 1.6 million barrels 
a day. Our daily oil exports would jump from half a million barrels to 
about 2 million barrels. That is what we want, to lift the sanctions. 
At the same time, Republicans voted to keep the sanctions in place 
against Iran. So under Republican plans, America would be exporting 
twice as much oil as Iran.
  The Democrats vote four for Iran, one for the United States, and 
Republicans voted two for the United States, one for Iran. That is the 
difference between what Washington Democrats want and what Senate 
Republicans want.
  The Brookings Institution looked at this in September of 2014. They 
came out with a report. They looked at a variety of different scenarios 
for how much oil America might export. They found that for every 
scenario they looked at, ``there are positive gains for U.S. 
households,'' with the United States being able to export more crude 
oil. The Government Accountability Office said the same thing last 
year. It said that ``removing export restrictions is expected to 
increase the size of the economy''--that is the U.S. economy--``with 
implications for employment, investment, public revenue and trade.''
  Those are key for America.
  These studies and others predict that adding American crude oil to 
global supplies could ultimately reduce gasoline prices right here at 
home. By how much, you ask? Well, one study estimated it would save 
American consumers a combined average of almost $6 billion per year. 
This study found the savings would help increase the U.S. economy by 
about $38 billion by 2020. New oil exports could support an additional 
300,000 jobs by 2020.
  These are huge benefits for the American economy, for American 
families--all because we free up American energy and we allow it to 
compete in the world's markets.
  There would also be benefits for America's foreign policy. More oil 
would reduce prices worldwide. That means the other countries that 
export a lot of oil won't be able to make as much money off of their 
own oil sales. They would have to compete with us. This includes Iran. 
It includes countries such as Russia and Venezuela that use the wealth 
from their energy sales to pilot their own economies and not for the 
good.
  New oil exports would undercut the ability of those countries to do 
things that are not in America's best interest. It would also help 
American allies around the world. Poland gets 96 percent of its oil 
from Russia. When they are negotiating to buy more oil, they would 
love--love--the opportunity and the option of American oil as an 
alternative. Belgium gets 60 percent of its oil from Russia and Saudi 
Arabia. Japan gets 75 percent of its oil from Russia and the Middle 
East. All of these countries and many more around the world could 
benefit from U.S. oil being sold on the world market.
  Of course, another country that would really be helped is Israel. 
President Obama's reckless deal with Iran has put Israel in a much more 
dangerous situation. Even the White House seems to recognize this. The 
Obama administration says that it plans to offer Israel more military 
aid--aid to be used to bolster Israel's defenses against Iran. But the 
administration should not stop at military aid; it should also offer 
Israel the opportunity to import American oil. Israel has trouble 
buying oil from many of its neighboring countries because they do not 
recognize the State of Israel. That leaves places such as Russia and 
Iraqi Kurdistan as its largest suppliers of crude oil.
  If the Israelis had the opportunity to buy from American oil 
producers instead, that would be a big help in making sure their oil 
supply is stable and secure. It would also help repair some of the 
significant damage the President's Iran deal did to the relations 
between our two countries.
  This should be an easy call. Ending the ban on U.S. oil exports would 
be good for American families, good for our national security, and good 
for our allies. The Obama administration should change course now. The 
Obama administration should work with Congress to end this ban on 
American energy exports as quickly as possible.
  This past Saturday marked 7 years since a Canadian company filed its 
application to build the Keystone KL Pipeline--7 years. It has been 
buried in the bureaucratic limbo of the State Department ever since. 
That pipeline would provide American jobs just as more oil exports 
would. Americans should not have to wait another 7 years for Washington 
to lift the oil export ban and unleash the power of American energy.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


             Climate Change and Nonprofit Energy Efficiency

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a critical 
issue that I think the Pope's arrival today in Washington really 
highlights, and I am hopeful we will be addressing it in this Chamber.
  I wanted to join Senator Whitehouse yesterday. He has been an 
unwavering voice on the need for Congress to take legislative action to 
address climate change. He hit a milestone in May of this year by 
giving his 100th speech on the floor calling on his colleagues to act 
on climate change. He has also brought together a group of Senators to 
form a climate action task force, and I am proud to be a member of the 
group.
  I believe we need a strong energy agenda for America, one that 
recognizes the challenges of climate change and that empowers people to 
be part of the solution.

[[Page 14699]]

  The Pope has called climate change ``one of the principal challenges 
facing humanity in our day.'' He has gained international attention for 
his commitment to protecting our world and serving those in need. 
Thursday, when we have the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to hear from 
the Pope as he addresses Congress, I anticipate he will call on all 
Americans to come together to tackle many challenges, but among them is 
climate change.
  During my time in the Senate, we have made some progress on this 
issue. In 2008 we took action to raise gas mileage standards for cars 
for the first time in decades. We have also made energy efficiency 
improvements for consumer goods and have maintained tax credits for 
energy-efficient products and renewable sources. We passed farm bills 
in 2008 and again in 2014 with a large number of conservation, 
environment, and energy groups strongly supporting them. As a member of 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I have ensured 
that the energy title promoted investment in the next generation of 
biofuels crops, which are important renewable sources of energy. 
Earlier this year, we passed the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 
2015, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Portman and Shaheen. 
It included the Water Heater Efficiency Act, which I worked on with 
Senator Hoeven. This bipartisan measure enabled rural electric co-ops 
to optimize their energy management through continued use of energy-
efficient water heaters. It also included measures to encourage energy 
efficiency practices in office spaces. These achievements are thanks to 
a combination of many factors. It continues to be the case that we need 
bipartisanship to move sound energy policy forward. And while we have 
taken some action, there is so much more to be done.
  This summer, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed a 
bipartisan, comprehensive energy bill. I commend Chairwoman Murkowski 
for her tireless efforts and Senator Cantwell for her introduction 
today of the Energy bill--a bill I am a sponsor of--which sets a bar on 
comprehensive energy policy reform that would aggressively move our 
country forward in addressing climate change. Both of these pieces of 
legislation include the bill I have with Senator Hoeven, the Nonprofit 
Energy Efficiency Act, which would allow the nonprofit community to 
save energy and money through a retrofit program.
  During my time in the Senate, I have worked to find innovative 
solutions that move us forward. One example is this bill. Our bill 
empowers the nonprofit and faith communities to make energy efficiency 
improvements. It would help both our environment and our local 
communities by ensuring nonprofit organizations can benefit from 
policies that promote greater energy savings and efficiencies.
  Whether feeding the hungry, helping the sick, or mentoring youth, my 
State's nearly 7,000 nonprofit organizations work hard every day to 
make a difference in people's lives. Nonprofit organizations are at the 
heart of our country and serve millions of Americans every day. Houses 
of worship, hospitals, schools, youth centers, and other not-for-profit 
entities provide critical services and assistance to communities across 
the country, but like businesses they must count their pennies and 
operate on a budget. Right now, nonprofit organizations--which, by the 
way, are often in very old buildings, including churches, synagogues, 
mosques--cannot benefit from any of the energy efficiency programs 
available to regular businesses because these programs are provided in 
the form of tax credits, and because nonprofits are tax exempt they 
can't get these credits. That often leaves nonprofits with a difficult 
choice. They can either invest in energy efficiency projects or they 
can dedicate their very scarce resources to providing valuable 
resources to the community, but we know investing in energy efficiency 
improvements today can lead to savings over time that go beyond the 
cost of the initial investment. So our nonprofits find themselves 
asking this question: Should we help fewer people for a year or two in 
order to replace our heating system and then use the long-term savings 
to serve our community well into the future? That is not a choice they 
should have to make.
  Our bill provides $10 million each year for the next 5 years to 
create a pilot program at the U.S. Department of Energy that would help 
local nonprofit organizations make their buildings more energy 
efficient. The grants would promote energy efficiency in savings by 
helping to upgrade and retrofit old buildings as well as installing 
renewable energy generators and heaters. We worked to ensure that the 
grants will achieve a significant amount of energy savings and are done 
in a cost-effective manner. The grants would require a 50-percent match 
so that there is complete buy-in from nonprofits. This will be 
especially valuable to the many nonprofit organizations that work from 
older, less energy-efficient buildings.
  We are taking a fiscally responsible approach. Our amendment is fully 
offset. We have support from both sides of the aisle with not just 
Senator Hoeven and myself but Senators Stabenow, Risch, Schatz, Blunt, 
Mikulski, Whitehouse, and Udall. I am proud to say we have the support 
of many religious organizations and nonprofits, including the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops that has been a leading supporter of our 
efforts. They say the bill would enable them to reduce their operating 
costs, lessen impact on their environment, and bolster America's energy 
independence.
  The bill is now part of both the Energy Policy Modernization Act that 
recently passed in a bipartisan manner out of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, and it is also part of the bill Senator Cantwell 
introduced this morning. Although Senators may differ on the specific 
details of these two energy plans, I believe we can find broad 
agreement that energy efficiency must be a part of any energy plan. 
Energy efficiency is an issue we should be able to find common ground 
on. It is good for the economy, good for consumers, and good for the 
environment.
  I urge my fellow Senators to work together to keep taking real steps 
forward on meaningful energy legislation that does something about 
climate change.
  As we prepare to welcome Pope Francis to this Congress, it is time to 
pass legislation that will help nonprofits continue to serve our 
communities and conserve our natural resources for generations to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to reiterate the importance of 
providing necessary resources to our men and women in uniform.
  We are rapidly approaching the end of the fiscal year, and there are 
many major issues awaiting thoughtful consideration and action by 
Congress. There is one item on our to-do list that should have already 
been checked off; that is, fully funding our national security. That is 
why I am very disappointed that once again efforts to advance the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act were halted today by my 
friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Congress's first priority is, and should be, the defense of our 
Nation. We should not be hindered by political games in meeting that 
core duty that we have. The world is a dangerous place. It is not 
getting any safer. We cannot afford to be complacent about these 
threats. Our Nation faces challenges from nation states and asymmetric 
threats. These threats span the globe.
  In Asia, Chinese behavior in the South China Sea threatens the 
longstanding freedom of navigation and our ability to operate on the 
high seas. Continuing China's pattern of increasing antagonism, a 
senior Chinese admiral recently declared that the entire South China 
Sea belongs to China. China's increasing military power, bullying of 
its neighbors, expansionist policies, and rejection of international 
norms threatens to upend the stability of that region. Simply put, 
China's behavior has dramatic consequences for

[[Page 14700]]

the interests of the United States and our allies. The Asia-Pacific 
region will continue to grow in importance to the global economy. The 
ability of our military to operate freely in the Pacific is a key 
component to our national defense strategy and our economic security. 
We must vote to provide the necessary resources to address this 
challenge.
  Additionally, the violence in Syria and Iraq continues to grow. This 
instability has created a vacuum in which terrorist groups like ISIL 
continue to operate. Its actions threaten the security of the United 
States and its allies in the region as well as basic human rights and 
religious freedom.
  These challenges are far from the only threats that are facing our 
Nation. We still have thousands of servicemembers deployed in 
Afghanistan. What is more, regional conflicts in Yemen and Libya 
jeopardize U.S. interests. The same is true of the growing number of 
terrorist groups from the Sinai Peninsula to West Africa.
  Congress must ensure that our Nation's military has the necessary 
resources to protect the United States and to meet our commitments to 
our allies. As the character of these threats changes between the 
conventional, the unconventional, and the unknown, failure to 
appropriate defense resources is a threat in itself to our defense 
strategy.
  As a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have heard our 
Nation's highest military officers repeatedly testify on a wide array 
of threats to our national security. For example, in his testimony to 
the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 29, Secretary of Defense 
Ash Carter highlighted the threat that is posed by Iran. Beyond its 
nuclear program, Iran's support for proxies like Hezbollah and the 
Assad regime, its hostility toward our ally Israel, and its 
contribution to the ongoing violence in Yemen--they all present very 
serious threats to the interests of the United States.
  Additionally, referring to the nuclear deal President Obama has 
signed with Iran, Secretary Carter said the deal places ``no 
limitations on what the Department of Defense can and will do to pursue 
our defense strategy in the region''--``no limitations on what the 
Department of Defense can and will do.''
  For the Department of Defense to operate robustly and swiftly and 
without limitation requires funding of its people, programs, equipment, 
supplies, and research and development. Yet with an array of dangers 
facing our Nation, the Commander in Chief of our military has stated he 
will veto defense spending unless it is accompanied by an increase in 
nondefense spending.
  To be clear, this appropriations bill would provide the President 
with the funding he asked for in his budget request. A strong 
bipartisan majority in this body has already voted that we must provide 
our military men and women with the resources they need to protect this 
country. In June of this year, the Senate voted 71 to 25 and said we 
must authorize spending at a level similar to what is contained in the 
Defense appropriations bill, but when it comes to actually 
appropriating the necessary resources by stepping up and voting to 
supply our military servicemembers with the resources they need to 
accomplish the missions they are given, the minority party objects 
because they contend that nondefense spending is insufficient.
  I fundamentally disagree with this view. All government spending is 
not created equal. Resources that support our soldiers should not be 
held up for any reason--least of all in an attempt to increase spending 
on various objectives that are championed by the EPA or the IRS.
  For the first time in 6 years, the Senate Appropriations Committee 
has sent all 12 appropriations bills to the floor. That is a positive 
step. That is a good thing, but unfortunately, despite their support in 
committee, my friends on the other side of the aisle have blocked them 
on this floor.
  So now we find ourselves once again at the brink. Once again, we are 
veering toward a crisis. We can and we must do better to responsibly 
govern. That starts with providing for our common defense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, today Pope Francis arrives in 
Washington. In 2 days, he will be speaking to a joint meeting of 
Congress, where he will undoubtedly remind us all to remember what he 
has termed ``the most abandoned.''
  It was Pope Francis who said: ``I invite all of the institutions of 
the world, the Church, each of us, as one single human family, to give 
a voice to all of those who suffer silently from hunger, so that this 
voice becomes a roar which can shake the world.''
  He continued and said: ``This campaign [to end hunger] is an 
invitation to all of us . . . to stop thinking that our daily actions 
do not have an impact on the lives of those who suffer from hunger 
firsthand.''
  It turns out that the Pope's message on addressing hunger is more 
timely than we could have imagined. In a moment, I will explain why. It 
has to do with the government shutdown. Certainly we know from 2 years 
ago that a government shutdown hurts every family in America, it hurts 
small businesses across America, it sets the economy back, it creates 
all sorts of obstructions and frustrations, and it is a self-inflicted 
wound on America. Yet my colleagues across the aisle are contending 
that is exactly where they want to head, another showdown over social 
issues. We have been down this road before. It is a needless self-
inflicted wound. We shouldn't be planning to go there.
  But here is why the Pope's words on hunger are particularly timely:
  Two years ago when we had a government shutdown, it did not impact 
the program known as SNAP or food stamps--the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program or food stamps, as we often refer to it. That is 
because we still had funds left from the stimulus program to be able to 
make sure hungry Americans did have the ability to receive the credits 
on their electronic food stamp card and to purchase groceries for their 
families. But we are in a different position this time around.
  Last Friday the U.S. Department of Agriculture notified the 
Appropriations Committee that because the stimulus funds that existed 2 
years ago are not there any longer, that come October 1, if we shut 
this government down, then we are also going to be shutting down food 
stamps--that is shutting down food stamps for 45 million Americans.
  In my home State of Oregon, there are about one out of five 
Oregonians who depend on food stamps to hold hunger at bay. We are 
certainly talking about an incredible number of children among that 
number, so across the country, millions of children, millions more 
Americans--45 million Americans. Yet here we are saying that it is all 
right to shut down food stamps and leave millions of Americans with the 
prospect of going hungry.
  It causes me to reflect on Robert Kennedy's effort to take on hunger. 
He was known back in 1967 to have visited children in Mississippi, and 
he said the following:

       I have seen children in the Delta area of Mississippi with 
     distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from 
     starvation, and we haven't developed a policy so we can get 
     enough food so that they can live, so that their children, so 
     that their lives are not destroyed. I don't think that's 
     acceptable in the United States of America and I think we 
     need a change.

  That is what Robert Kennedy said to our Nation. His advocacy had an 
impact in two particular areas, and that is that we proceeded to put a 
lot more resources into fighting hunger and we rewrote the food stamp 
regulations to provide greater access for those at the lowest income 
levels. The Food Stamp Program--or as it is now called, SNAP--has 
become the largest, most effective program in the United States in the 
fight against hunger.
  Again, the USDA contacted us Friday of last week and said it looks 
like they will have to shut down this program if there is a government 
shutdown. This did not happen 2 years ago, so this is new information. 
They said they are going to work through the

[[Page 14701]]

weekend to see if they can find any way with an existing law to prevent 
this from happening. As of this morning, they had been unable to find 
any legal pathway to extend the Food Stamp Program should we be in a 
government shutdown.
  In our country, the poverty threshold for a family of four is about 
$24,000. For a family of four, that translates to about $6,000 a 
person. More than half of those who receive food stamps live in 
families who are below 50 percent of that threshold or roughly $3,000 
per year per individual in the family.
  In my home State of Oregon, SNAP provides food benefits for about 
800,000 residents or, as I mentioned, one in five Oregonians. This will 
have a widespread impact on hundreds of thousands of individuals in my 
home State and for my colleagues, hundreds of thousands of individuals 
in their States--45 million across the country. The USDA tells us that 
the timing for the recharging of the food stamp cards varies. Not 
everyone will be affected on October 1, but all of those 45 million 
would be affected in the month of October. The majority of the SNAP 
recipients in Oregon and nationwide are vulnerable populations. They 
are children. They are the disabled. They are the elderly. Can we not 
come together in a responsible fashion to prevent sending millions of 
Americans into a crisis over available food, millions of children 
across our country in a crisis because they do not have food because of 
our inability to act responsibly?
  The words Robert Kennedy used were that this should not happen in 
America. Let me repeat that certainly I believe this should not happen 
in America. I cannot conceive of any moral argument that would justify 
leaving our children, our disabled, our elderly hungry because a few 
people in this body want to make a political point over a social issue. 
That is unacceptable.
  I do a lot of townhalls back home in Oregon, one in every county 
every year. I hear from folks who are worried over a lot of issues. 
They are certainly worried about finding a good job. They are certainly 
worried about the cost of sending their children to college. They are 
certainly worried about cuts to Head Start programs and the quality of 
their public schools. They are worried about the possibility of a 
secure retirement. And now, because of the threats of partisan point-
making here in the body of the Senate, they are going to have to worry 
about whether they can put dinner on the table and feed their children. 
That is wrong.
  The American people are sick and tired of Congress manufacturing 
crises like this. Let's move beyond this brinkmanship and this hostage 
politics. Let's avert this shutdown. Let's carry out the 
responsibilities to the people of the United States of America.
  Pope Francis said in that initial quote I noted that he invited all 
of the institutions of the world to give voice to all those who suffer 
silently from hunger. Little did he imagine that on the day he arrived 
here in Washington, DC, this institution--the U.S. Senate--would be 
involved not only in not helping those who are hungry but plotting and 
planning a shutdown of the government that will put millions of 
Americans into a food crisis. Let's change that. Let's come together. 
Let's address a responsible plan for carrying the full funding of our 
government forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I want to thank the majority leader for 
bringing the Defense appropriations bill to the floor for a vote and 
remind everyone that the Senate Appropriations Committee has put 
forward 12 appropriations bills that adhere to the Republican budget 
and that reflect the priorities of the American people.
  You have heard all year that we need to get back to regular order, 
and that means we need to bring up and debate each of these 12 bills 
individually. It is clear after two votes that the Democratic 
obstructionism through the Defense appropriations bill will prevent us 
from funding our service men and women. My colleagues across the aisle 
are voting against supplying the military with the tools to stop ISIS. 
They are voting against the much needed upgrades to our missile defense 
program. They are voting against increasing missile defense support to 
Israel. They are voting against restoring readiness to our military.
  The demands on our military are great. The threats we face today as a 
nation are numerous, complex, and may be the most dangerous in my 
lifetime. Those who also volunteer to defend our great Nation against 
these threats rely on us to meet these obligations as Senators.
  Congress is responsible for ensuring that American service men and 
women have the tools they need to do their jobs and remain safe. But 
today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done our Nation 
a great disservice. By failing to bring up the Defense appropriations 
bill, Democrats aren't letting us do our job. That is dangerous.
  We need to return to regular order and vote on these appropriations 
bills so that the priorities of the American people can once and for 
all be restored.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Inspector General Vacancy at the VA

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee--headed by Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member 
Carper--had a very important hearing where we heard from whistleblowers 
from the VA, and then afterwards we heard from VA officials and 
representatives from the inspector general's office. The issue of how 
we treat those who have served the country is so critical to who we are 
as a nation. Yet, over the last year, we have learned of shocking 
failures at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and today's testimony, 
unfortunately, was no different in terms of how whistleblowers were 
retaliated against at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Instead of a 
culture that encourages people to come forward when things go wrong, 
people who come forward when things go wrong are treated badly and also 
face consequences as far as their employment, and that is wrong.
  Over the last year, we have seen shocking failures, including 
veterans being denied care after being placed on secret wait lists, 
experiencing extended delays in benefits, and endless wait times for 
repeals, reviews, or action on claims.
  Recently, we also learned that as of last year, the VA had 867,000 
pending health care enrollment records. That is almost 1 million 
records without a final determination status--some from decades ago. 
Nearly one-third of the veterans who had applied to the VA for care 
have now been reported as having died. Additionally, the VA staff has 
deleted 10,000 transaction records, but the reasons are undocumented. 
These failures are outrageous, and that word is used a lot around here, 
but this truly does define what is happening in our VA--outrageous.
  Our veterans, who have served and sacrificed so much for our country, 
deserve the very best care and support we can give them. The VA has 
fallen short time and time again in meeting that goal.
  The bipartisan VA reform bill, enacted last summer, represents an 
important step in increasing accountability and mismanagement at the 
department, and also giving our veterans the choice of care in their 
communities rather than waiting in line. That is very important to my 
State, New Hampshire, where, unfortunately, we don't have a full-
service veterans hospital. There is so much more work to be done on 
that front; however, we continue to hear about reports of bureaucratic 
delays and failures at the VA, such as overprescribing opiates, bonuses 
paid to employees involved in serious misconduct, enrollment record 
mayhem, and inflated claims of VA employees being held accountable and 
fired. Unfortunately, we still can't get a number, even after all the 
wait-list

[[Page 14702]]

scandals where veterans literally died while waiting for care.
  I have a few recent headlines about the VA. In the Chicago Tribune, 
January 9, ``Veterans: VA hospital nicknamed `Candy Land' because 
painkillers given out freely.''
  Arizona Republic, February 13, ``Whistle-blowers: VA still 
endangering suicidal vets.''
  Washington Post, March 9, ``Veteran Affairs manager pokes fun at 
mental health issues with photo of elf begging for Xanax.''
  Associated Press, April 9, ``Veterans hospital wait times haven't 
improved.''
  Stars and Stripes, April 13, ``Whistleblowers say retaliation 
unabated year into VA scandal.''
  The Washington Post on May 14, ``Veterans Affairs improperly spent $6 
billion annually, senior official says.''
  In light of all of the issues that have been raised with our VA, can 
you imagine that we are in a place where there is no permanent 
inspector general who has been appointed by the President to serve in 
that important watchdog position for the Veterans' Administration after 
all of the issues I just cited in this Chamber? There are many more 
issues that I didn't even have on this list.
  The inspector general position at the Veterans' Administration has 
been vacant since December of 2013. That is 631 days--631 days that the 
President has failed to appoint someone to ensure that there is 
critical oversight and transparency at the Veterans' Administration. In 
fact, we have just had acting individuals in that position. We have not 
had a permanent watchdog in that position. In light of everything we 
have been through, we have had 631 days without adequate 
accountability; 631 days without permanent oversight leadership; 631 
days without a permanent watchdog to investigate scandals that have 
tarnished the promises we made to our veterans which they earned by 
defending our great Nation; 631 days without the President even 
submitting a nomination to fill this empty position. That is 
unacceptable.
  We need the President to step up and appoint an inspector general to 
be the watchdog for the Veterans' Administration so they can have a 
continuity of leadership. There is no more important oversight issue 
right now.
  I have written the President, along with Members on both sides of the 
aisle. We have repeatedly called on the President to make a nomination 
for this inspector general position, and we know that--through the 
process--names of individuals who are qualified to serve in this 
position have actually been submitted to the President's desk. Both 
sides of the aisle in this body agree on this issue. Our desire--on a 
bipartisan basis--is to make sure that those who have defended, served, 
and answered the call of duty for our Nation receive the very best care 
for what they have done to defend our freedom. Yet, after all the 
scandals and all the issues and challenges that our veterans face, can 
you imagine leaving this particular position open for 631 days?
  I am, again, in this Chamber going to call on the President, and I 
know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, whom I have 
worked with on this issue, agree that it is time for the President of 
the United States to nominate a qualified individual--he has had many 
names submitted to him--to serve in this critical watchdog position as 
the permanent inspector general for the VA with the full authority to 
conduct the investigations that need to be conducted on issues that 
have been raised repeatedly about the Veterans' Administration.
  What is clear from the testimony we heard today at the homeland 
security committee hearing is that we have so much more work to do to 
ensure accountability at the Veterans' Administration and to ensure 
that our veterans get the very best of what they deserve and have 
earned by defending our Nation.
  What is clear is that the IG council has done its job and nominated 
individuals for the President to consider for this inspector general 
position.
  I am now calling on the President: Mr. President, please nominate a 
qualified individual to be a permanent VA inspector general in order to 
protect our veterans.
  Mr. President, 631 days is already way too long, and our veterans 
should not have to wait a day longer to have this position filled. This 
important agency needs a watchdog that is there to serve them.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  With that, 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.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Puerto Rico

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today deeply concerned about the 
growing economic crisis in Puerto Rico, which threatens to destabilize 
the island, and that we must step in and help our fellow American 
citizens--but sometimes we forget that the 3.5 million people who live 
in Puerto Rico are American citizens--before a financial crisis becomes 
a calamity.
  I again urge, as I recently did in a letter to Secretary Lew, along 
with seven Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that the 
Department of the Treasury move beyond simply providing technical 
assistance and take a full-throated leadership role to resolve this 
crisis immediately as we have done in previous financial crises. If we 
do not act, the result could be a financial disorder that will, at the 
end of the day, be much more expensive, much more chaotic, and will, in 
both the long and short term, cost Puerto Rico and the United States.
  The fact is that a potential solution rests in the hands of the 
administration, with Treasury and with HHS. As we said in the letter to 
Secretary Lew, the world is watching Puerto Rico, and we must ensure 
that the United States does everything in its power to take strong, 
bold, and substantive action that stabilizes the situation and protects 
the 3.5 million American citizens on the island and their families. 
Technical assistance and advice from Treasury is all well and good, 
but, in my view, it is just not enough.
  Treasury needs to take an active role, and Congress needs to approve 
the pending debt restructuring legislation I introduced with Senators 
Blumenthal, Schumer, and other Senate colleagues that would allow the 
government of Puerto Rico to authorize its public utilities to rework 
their debts under chapter 9. That is in the best interests of both 
Puerto Rico and the mainland.
  The fact of the matter is Puerto Rico would actually be running a 
surplus--a surplus--if it did not have to make debt payments. Allowing 
government-owned corporations to restructure their debts using a sound 
legal process would give the island breathing room to make necessary 
reforms and would not cost U.S. taxpayers a dime. This could go a long 
way to promote the fairest and most efficient outcome.
  The idea has been endorsed by the editorial boards of the Wall Street 
Journal, the Washington Post, Bloomberg View, the New York Times, the 
Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and others. The bill is also 
supported by the nonpartisan National Bankruptcy Conference and 
numerous bankruptcy lawyers and judges.
  Additionally, it is clear that the island's health care system is 
adding additional pressure to the overall financial situation, 
accounting for 20 percent of the island's economy and responsible for a 
third of its overall debt burden. Sixty percent of Puerto Ricans living 
on the island are enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. And because of the 
disparity in how these two health programs are funded relative to the 
50 States, the financial crisis is only exacerbated.
  To help alleviate some of this pressure on the health care system, I 
have introduced the Improving the Treatment of U.S. Territories Under 
Federal Health Programs Act of 2015 with Senators Schumer, Nelson, 
Gillibrand, and Blumenthal. This legislation provides several policies 
that will ensure Puerto Rico providers, both hospitals

[[Page 14703]]

and physicians, are treated more equally to the States under the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  Just as importantly, this legislation ensures that beneficiaries on 
the island are treated equally too. As citizens of the United States, 
it is imperative that Puerto Ricans be afforded the same access to 
care, coverage, and health benefits as everyone else.
  While I believe this legislation will go a long way toward addressing 
the island's systemic health care issues, there are several steps that 
HHS can take immediately and without the need for congressional action. 
They can change payment calculations under Medicare Advantage and 
Medicare's in-patient hospital rules to more accurately reflect the 
costs and demographics on the island. By making necessary adjustments 
to certain key payment formulas, HHS could make the practice of 
medicine a financially viable option in Puerto Rico and stem the tide 
of physicians leaving the island for the U.S. mainland and ensure that 
our fellow Americans living on the island are able to receive the care 
they need and deserve. I urge not only Treasury Secretary Lew but HHS 
Secretary Burwell to do all they can to provide financial and health 
care-related relief to Puerto Rico to help curb the island's financial 
crisis.
  Now, Governor Garcia Padilla's Working Group for the Fiscal and 
Economic Recovery of Puerto Rico has also recently released a 5-year 
plan earlier this month. While I don't agree with everything included 
in the plan, it shows a determined and legitimate effort to confront 
the economic crisis facing the island. Unfortunately, the current debt 
structure and legal restraints threaten the effectiveness of these 
proposed reforms. Without providing some flexibility and room to 
maneuver, all the difficult choices in the world won't be able to 
resolve the crisis.
  I wish to make it, however, absolutely clear: I am not--I am not--
calling for a Federal bailout of Puerto Rico. But there is still much 
we can and should do to restore solvency to the island that is home to 
3.5 million Americans. Our bond with these Americans who live on the 
island has always been strong. Our relationship with Puerto Rico is 
long and deep and extensive. With more than 5 million Puerto Ricans 
residing in the United States--more than in Puerto Rico itself--we are 
inextricably tied.
  Now, I should not need to remind this body that from the infancy of 
our Nation, the people of Puerto Rico have been there for us. Now we 
need to be there for them. Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States 
in 1898 after the Spanish-American war. Less than two decades later, in 
1917, Congress passed the Jones Act, granting American citizenship to 
residents of the island.
  But even long before they were granted U.S. citizenship, Puerto 
Ricans have had a long and proud history of fighting on the side of 
America. As far back as 1777, Puerto Rican ports were used by U.S. 
ships, enabling them to run British blockades and keep commerce 
flowing, which was so crucial to the war effort. It was Puerto Rican 
soldiers who took up arms in the U.S. Civil War, defending Washington, 
DC, from attack and fought in the Battle of Fredericksburg. In World 
War I, almost 20,000 Puerto Ricans were drafted into the U.S. Armed 
Forces. Let's not forget about the 65th Infantry Regiment, known as the 
Borinqueneers, the segregated military unit composed almost entirely of 
soldiers from Puerto Rico that played a prominent and crucial role in 
World War I, World War II, and the Korean war, one of the most highly 
decorated regiments known in military history.
  I am proud to say I have worked with Senator Blumenthal and others to 
make sure that the heroic Borinqueneers, the only Active-Duty 
segregated Latino military unit in the history of the United States and 
the last segregated unit to be deactivated, received well-deserved and 
long-overdue national recognition when we passed a bill last year 
awarding these courageous patriots with the Congressional Gold Medal--
the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished 
achievements and contributions to the United States.
  It is very easy to point our fingers at our brothers and sisters on 
the island and fault Puerto Rico for carrying more than $70 billion in 
debt. But I challenge my Senate colleagues to work with me on finding 
solutions, to step up to our responsibility at the Federal level by 
seeking opportunities for Congress and the administration to correct 
some of the inequities that have contributed to this crisis. I am 
talking about the unequal Medicare and Medicaid funding that I 
referenced earlier, the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the Supplemental 
Security Income program that aids the most vulnerable Americans, the 
exclusion of Puerto Rico from the child tax credit and earned income 
tax credit, which encourages low-income individuals to seek employment, 
and, as previously mentioned, the exclusion of Puerto Rico from chapter 
9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
  Now, more than ever, we need to be asking in Washington what steps 
can be taken to manage this crisis. Unequal treatment at the Federal 
level is, whether we want to own up to it or not, a contributing factor 
to the current economic crisis. The lack of Federal support has 
encouraged heavy borrowing by the Puerto Rican government of many, many 
administrations going back. We must do our part, both in Congress and 
the administration, to address this crisis, and we must act now, with 
urgency.
  I think the point is clear. As I said, we have a special, historic, 
unshakeable bond with Puerto Rico, and now is the time to strengthen 
that bond. The time has come to prevent the worsening fiscal crisis in 
Puerto Rico. The time has come to help Puerto Rico, and we can do so 
simply by giving them the wherewithal to help themselves through the 
Bankruptcy Code, as we would any other similar entity, to have the 
wherewithal to have an orderly restructuring and to get their economic 
future back in shape.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, we are on the eve of yet another 
government shutdown, yet another manufactured crisis. Two years ago it 
was over defunding the Affordable Care Act. Today Republicans 
introduced a continuing resolution that holds our country hostage over 
funding for Planned Parenthood.
  The 2013 shutdown of a couple years ago cost billions of dollars in 
economic losses. We heard many stories of hardships caused by the 
shutdown, including small business owners who were suffering because 
our national parks closed, public safety workers protecting our country 
without pay, and Federal contractors left holding the bag for personnel 
and program costs. We cannot do this to our working families for the 
second time in 3 years. We cannot do this to our country.
  Instead of funding the government, my colleagues across the aisle are 
using threats of a shutdown to attack Planned Parenthood without any 
hard evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. Threatening to shut 
down the government over an organization that annually provides 400,000 
cervical cancer screenings, 500,000 breast exams, and 4.5 million tests 
and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases is completely uncalled 
for.
  Arguments that there are other providers that can fill the important 
and critical role of Planned Parenthood are not persuasive. According 
to the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood serves more 
contraceptive clients each year than any other similar provider, 
including federally qualified health centers. In more than 300 counties 
across the country, safety net providers such as Planned Parenthood are 
the providers of choice for nearly half of women. Furthermore, Planned 
Parenthood is the sole safety net provider in nearly 100 of these 
counties.

[[Page 14704]]

  Planned Parenthood services cannot be easily replaced. In an attempt 
to defund Planned Parenthood, one State submitted a list of providers 
they said could replace Planned Parenthood's critical women's health 
care services. This list that the State provided included dentists, 
ophthalmologists, radiologists, and nursing homes. Think about that. 
Providers are not widgets.
  After a Federal judge called their bluff, the State cut their list 
from over 2,000 providers to just 29 providers who actually are able to 
provide primary care services to women. Those 29 providers could not 
possibly absorb the thousands of patients Planned Parenthood served in 
that State. Planned Parenthood has long been in the crosshairs of the 
anti-choice movement.
  This recent attack on Planned Parenthood is based on heavily edited 
videos by radical fringe groups. I refer my colleagues to a letter from 
Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards to House and Senate leadership 
dated August 27, 2015.
  Instead of improving the lives of women by passing legislation 
raising the minimum wage, closing the gender pay gap or ensuring paid 
leave for all workers, my colleagues across the aisle continue to 
narrowly focus on ways to further marginalize women. Instead of 
introducing continuing resolutions that contain these kinds of poison 
pills, such as defunding Planned Parenthood, we must pass clean 
legislation that keeps our government funded, that provides needed and 
critical services to the people of this country. I ask my colleagues to 
join with me.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.

                          ____________________