[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18355-18370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016--Continued

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask to speak on one other subject 
briefly for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


           Department of Veterans Affairs Performance Bonuses

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern that 
the Department of Veterans Affairs chose to issue performance bonuses 
to senior executives, including the director of the St. Paul Regional 
Office of the Veterans Benefits Administration, despite recent 
revelations of improper and dishonest conduct.
  According to a report released by the VA's Office of the Inspector 
General in September, two VBA executives used their positions to assign 
themselves to different jobs that involve fewer responsibilities while 
maintaining their higher salaries. They actually assigned themselves to 
a different job where they had to work less and then kept their high 
salaries.
  One of them was a woman named Kim Graves, the director of the 
Veterans Benefits Administration St. Paul Regional Office since October 
2014. The inspector general found that Ms. Graves used her influence as 
director of the VBA's Eastern Area Office to compel the relocation of 
the previous St. Paul office director. So she moved that person and 
then moved herself into the job. She then proceeded to submit her own 
name for consideration and fill the vacancy that she had just created.
  Taking on the job of directing the St. Paul Regional Office was 
actually a step down in responsibility for Ms. Graves. In the inspector 
general's words, she ``went from being responsible for oversight of 16 
[regional offices] to being responsible for only 1 [regional office],'' 
but she kept her Senior Executive Service salary of $173,949 per year. 
She also received over $129,000 in relocation expenses.
  In spite of this behavior, Ms. Graves received an $8,687 performance 
bonus this year. The St. Cloud VA health care system chief of staff, 
Susan Markstrom, received a performance bonus as well the same year she 
was reported with some mismanagement issues.
  A chief of staff collecting bonuses while running off nurses and 
doctors and a senior executive using her position to push out one of 
her colleagues and give herself a plum assignment with fewer 
responsibilities but the same high salary are the kinds of actions that 
create a breach of trust. I am generally proud of Veterans Affairs. We 
obviously have issues in our health system with backlogs and other 
problems, but there are a lot of hard-working people who work in 
Veterans Affairs who should be lauded for that work because our 
veterans deserve nothing but the best.
  But in this case, I thank the inspector general for being willing to 
look into this difficult case and shedding light on what has been 
happening. The conduct is unacceptable and further erodes trust.
  It is commendable that the VA inspector general took action by 
referring these two cases to the U.S. attorney for possible criminal 
prosecution. The VA needs to do right by our veterans and taxpayers by 
holding bad actors accountable and implementing reforms to prevent 
exploitation such as this from ever happening again.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 310

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 310, the 
Eliminating Government-funded Oil-painting Act, or the EGO Act. I would 
like to thank my colleagues, Chairman Ron Johnson and Ranking Member 
Tom Carper of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. Their committee considered the EGO Act in its business meeting 
of June 24, 2015, and reported it favorably without amendment.
  The Eliminating Government-funded Oil-painting Act is commonsense 
legislation that bans the Federal Government from spending taxpayer 
dollars on oil paintings of Presidents, Vice Presidents, Cabinet 
Secretaries, or Members of Congress. These paintings can cost as much 
as $40,000 and are often placed in a back hall of a government 
bureaucracy, never to be seen by the public.
  I will note that $40,000 is the same as the average annual wage of a 
worker in Louisiana. Think about it--that worker worked a whole year, 
and what she earned is what the Federal Government will spend on the 
painting of a Cabinet Secretary who serves for 6 months, and then the 
painting is put in the back of a building, never to be seen.
  With trillions in debt, there is more to do in our obligation to 
spend taxpayers' money wisely, but this is a start.
  I offer my strong support for the EGO Act and urge its passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 165, S. 310; I further ask that 
the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I have no clue why the esteemed 
Democratic leader objects. All I can say is that is an incredible 
insensitivity to working families. I have no clue.
  There is a family out there right now struggling, not sure if they 
can pay their rent or their mortgage. They are going to lose their car. 
Their children will go to school in old clothes and maybe hungry 
because the amount of money they earn per year is not enough. They look 
at people in Washington like a new version of ``The Hunger Games''--it 
is the Capital of this country, and all the riches of this country are 
brought here to the Capital for paintings of government officials, to 
be hidden away, while they struggle to make their mortgage, their car 
note, and to make sure their child is properly fed.
  That people in government would be insensitive to those families 
shows the problem. That people in Washington would be insufficiently 
aware that the average family is making $40,000 a year--the same as 
what one of these paintings can cost--and not care is an indictment of 
those who do not care.
  I regret that there is objection to this, but we will bring it up 
later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

[[Page 18356]]


  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here to speak in what is probably 
my 119th ``Time to Wake Up'' speech related to climate change.
  I would like to take this occasion to express my appreciation to a 
person whom the TV cameras can probably see behind me sitting on the 
staff bench, Joseph Majkut, who has been a fellow on my staff for over 
a year now. He has been very instrumental in helping me prepare these 
speeches. I am grateful to him.
  Today, I ask that we imagine a dark castle with looming ramparts and 
tall towers. It is strongly built, and it is well defended. Its 
defenders are determined and implacable. They patrol those ramparts and 
from their castle battlements attack and harass their opponents. The 
castle's thick walls are built to keep out unwelcome things. In this 
castle, those unwelcome things are science--the science of climate 
change; truth--the truth of what carbon pollution does to our 
atmosphere and oceans; and decency--the human decency, in the face of 
that information, to try to do the right thing.
  This is Denial Castle, the fortress of climate denial constructed by 
the big polluters. Like many castles, this castle is built on elements 
that date back to earlier wars. Some parts date back to tobacco 
companies denying that smoking causes cancer. Some parts of it date 
back to the lead industries denying that lead paint poisons children. 
Some parts go back to denial of what acid rain was doing to our New 
England lakes and denial of what pollution was doing to our 
atmosphere's ozone layer. There might even be a few bits dating back to 
denial that seatbelts and airbags were a good idea. But now it is the 
big carbon polluters who command Denial Castle. They now enjoy the 
power to pollute for free, so they attack climate science. They send 
out trolls to disrupt Web sites and blogs. They harass climate 
scientists. One minion became attorney general of Virginia and so 
harassed a University of Virginia scientist that Mr. Jefferson's 
university had to use university lawyers and the State supreme court to 
get the harassment stopped.
  This castle has within it its own little stable of scientists to trot 
out like trained ponies to create false doubt and uncertainty about the 
harm carbon pollution causes. Of course, the polluters have 
mouthpieces, such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page, to help 
spread their fog of doubt and denial. Most of all, they have weaponry. 
The weaponry on these dark ramparts is not just pointed outward at 
science and at the public; those polluter weapons point in, as well, at 
the Members of Congress who are held hostage inside the castle. This is 
not just a fortress; it is also a prison. Members know that if they try 
to escape, the full force of the polluters' political weaponry will 
fall on them. Many of the hostages are restless, but escape is 
hazardous. Some are actually happy to help man the ramparts. Look at 
the effort by Senate Republicans this week to override the Obama 
administration's Clean Power Plan--our Nation's most significant effort 
yet to assert global leadership in staving off the worst effects of 
climate change.
  For those Republican Senators who want out of Denial Castle, escape 
is hazardous because Citizens United, that shameful Supreme Court 
decision, armed the polluters on the ramparts with a terrifying new 
weapon: the threat of massive, sudden, anonymous, unlimited political 
spending. A Republican in a primary has virtually no defense against 
that. One minute you are on course to reelection; the next moment a 
primary opponent has millions of dollars, pounding you with negative 
ads, and the polluter-funded attack machine has turned on you.
  One polluter front group actually warned that anyone who crossed them 
would be ``at a severe disadvantage,'' and that addressing carbon 
pollution with a price on carbon would be a ``political loser.'' From a 
group backed by billionaires now threatening to wield, just in this 
election, $750 million in political spending, that is not a very subtle 
threat.
  Of course, a threatened attack doesn't actually have to happen to 
have its political effect. A threat, a quiet threat, a secret threat 
can be enough. We will never see those threats unless we are in the 
backroom where they are made. That is the unacknowledged danger of 
Citizens United.
  What were the five Republican judges thinking when their Citizens 
United decision unleashed unlimited political spending and its dark 
twin, the silent threat of that unlimited political spending? This is 
not an idle concern. By 2 to 1, Americans think the Justices often let 
political considerations and personal views influence their decisions. 
Americans massively oppose the Citizens United decision--80 percent 
against, with 71 percent strongly opposed. Most tellingly, by a ratio 
of 9 to 1, Americans now believe our Supreme Court treats corporations 
more favorably than individuals. Even self-identified conservative 
Republicans by a 4-to-1 margin now believe the Court treats 
corporations more favorably than individuals.
  Linda Greenhouse, who long resisted drawing such a conclusion, has 
written that she finds it ``impossible to avoid the conclusion that the 
Republican-appointed majority is committed to harnessing the Supreme 
Court to an ideological agenda.'' Other noted Court watchers such as 
Norm Ornstein at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and 
Jeffrey Toobin long ago reached a similar conclusion.
  Let's look carefully at what those five Justices did in their 5-to-4 
Citizens United decision. Let's start where they started, with the 
First Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment protects 
honest elections by allowing limitations on the influence of money. The 
First Amendment allows limitations on election spending when they 
reflect a reasonable concern about corruption.
  If you are a judge who wants to unleash unlimited corporate money 
into elections, you need to get around that problem, which they did by 
making the factual finding that all this corporate money will not 
present even a risk of corruption, not a chance. That is obviously 
false, but they said it anyway, which is interesting. But wait, it gets 
more interesting still. To make that factual finding, they had to break 
a venerable rule--the rule that appellate courts don't do factfinding. 
They broke that rule.
  They did something else, too. Every time Congress or the Supreme 
Court had examined corporate corruption in elections, they found a 
rich, sordid record of corporate corruption of elections. That is 
American history. The five Justices knew a record like that in the case 
would have made it pretty hard to find no risk of corporate corruption 
of elections. All the evidence would go the other way.
  How did the five Justices make sure the case had no good evidentiary 
record on corporate corruption of elections? Very cleverly. They 
changed the question in the case--what the Court calls the question 
presented. They changed the question late in the case, after there was 
any chance to develop a factual record on that new question presented. 
It is very unusual, but it is exactly what they did. Then they 
overruled a hundred years of practice and precedent of earlier Courts.
  One could argue that each one of these different steps was wrong. 
Certainly, the ultimate factual finding, that corporate money can't 
corrupt an election, is way wrong. But the worst wrong is that these 
steps are linked together in a chain of necessity you must follow to 
get that result.
  What is the chance that these conservative Justices just happened to

[[Page 18357]]

change the question presented, which just happened to prevent there 
being a robust factual record on the very question where they just 
happened to need to make false factual findings about corruption; which 
just happened, this of all times, to be the time they broke the rule 
against appellate fact finding; all of which just happened to provide 
the exact findings of fact necessary to get around that First Amendment 
leash on corporate political spending?
  Put all those steps together, and what you see is Justices behaving 
not like an umpire evenly calling balls and strikes, but like a 
locksmith carefully manufacturing a key, each of whose parts is 
precisely assembled to fit the tumblers and turn a particular lock. The 
result was amazing new weaponry for the corporate polluter apparatus, 
political Gatling guns in a field of muskets, which the polluters have 
deployed very effectively to silence debate about climate change.
  Before Citizens United, Republicans regularly stood up to address 
climate change. A Republican nominee campaigning for President had a 
strong climate change platform. A Republican President spoke of its 
urgency. Republican Senators authored and sponsored big climate change 
bills. Republican Congressmen voted for the Waxman-Markey bill in the 
House or wrote articles favoring a carbon tax and then came over and 
became Senators.
  But after Citizens United, there was virtual silence. The polluters 
used Citizens United's new political artillery to shut debate down.
  Money can be speech, but it isn't always. Money can also be bribery, 
bullying, intimidation, harassment, shouting down, and drowning out. 
The legendary turn-of-the-century political fixer Mark Hanna once said:

       There are two things that are important in politics. The 
     first is money, and I can't remember what the second one is.

  He didn't say that because money is free speech. Money is political 
artillery. Look at the munitions. My gosh, most dark money political 
ads in the last election were negative ads. At times, virtually all on 
the air have been negative ads. Many ads have been reviewed and deemed 
false or misleading. At times, a majority of the ads running were 
deemed false or misleading. That is not debate; that is artillery.
  The power to fire that artillery opens the way for secret threats and 
promises to use or not use that artillery. It does cause corruption 
when a politician will not vote his conscience because he hears those 
whispered threats and fears that new artillery. But even with all this 
new political artillery, the Denier Castle is not as secure as it 
looks. It is built on a foundation of lies--lies that the science of 
climate change is unsettled, lies that there is no urgency to this, 
lies that there will be economic harm if we fix the problem. The truth 
is exactly the opposite. The effects of carbon pollution are deadly 
real in our atmosphere and oceans. Time is running out to avoid the 
worst of the peril, and a sensible political response to climate change 
actually yields broad economic gains.
  The Denier Castle's foundation of lies is slowly crumbling. The 
cracks are already beginning to appear. Twelve Republican House Members 
escaped from the castle--far enough to sponsor a climate resolution. 
Young Republicans--under 35--by a majority think climate denial is 
ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. Conservative heartland farmers see 
unprecedented weather in their fields and coastal fishermen see 
unfamiliar fish in their nets. Corporate climate leadership grows, from 
Walmart, Coke and Pepsi, Ford and GM, Mars and Unilever, General Mills 
and many others, and whole industries like the property casualty 
insurance industry. Of course, well-respected military leaders warn of 
climate change as danger, a catalyst of conflict. With all that comes 
the economic tide of lower and lower cost clean energy--energy which is 
probably cheaper already than fossil fuel, if the energy market weren't 
rigged by the polluters to favor their dirty product.
  The blocks of the Denier Castle are loosening and beginning to fall. 
Mortar sifts down. The whole structure of deceit and denial is creaking 
and crumbling. Fear is starting to spread within the castle about what 
will happen when the lies are exposed and all the bullying revealed. 
Will there really be no price to pay for all that deceit and denial in 
a world of justice and consequences?
  The Wall Street Journal editorial page has gotten so anxious that it 
accuses me of ``treat[ing] [climate] heretics like Cromwell did 
Catholics,'' all because I, the junior Senator of the smallest State, 
had the temerity to say that mighty ExxonMobil, one of the biggest 
corporations in the history of the world and a Goliath if there ever 
were one, should maybe have to tell the truth in the place we trust in 
America to find the truth--an American courtroom. Exxon has gotten so 
frantic that their public relations people are starting to use bad 
language, things I can't even say on the Senate floor.
  Even this week's Clean Power Plan challenge has an air of 
desperation--a last-ditch effort to show the fossil fuel industry that 
folks have done all they could before they stand down and evacuate the 
castle. The dark castle will fall, and it will fall abruptly. It will 
collapse. More hostages will break free, and a torrent will follow. 
When the lies and political influence are all exposed, there will come 
a day of reckoning. For all faithful stewards of God's Earth, and for 
our American democracy, that will be a day of joy, a day of honor, and 
a day of liberation. Each one of us can push a little harder to make 
that day come a little sooner. Let us lean into our tasks and to our 
duty.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Collins and 
Reed for their hard work on this bill. The Senators worked closely 
together, continuing a great tradition of the Appropriations Committee.
  The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Related 
Agencies bill has two critical missions. It is Congress' annual 
infrastructure bill, creating jobs in construction, and it meets 
compelling human needs by strengthening communities. While I support 
this bill, I also reaffirm my continued commitment to getting a 12-bill 
omnibus done by December 11--leaving no bill behind and no Christmas 
crisis.
  This bill keeps Americans on the move, delivering Federal formula 
funding to every State for highways, byways, and mass transit. Thanks 
to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which increased the discretionary 
caps by $50 billion, we are here today to take up the Collins and Reed 
amendment, adding nearly $1.6 billion to the Senate Committee bill.
  The Collins-Reed amendment increases funding for the Federal Aviation 
Administration, the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts 
program, and competitive TIGER grants. It recognizes the importance of 
the U.S. flag fleet and merchant marines to our national security by 
increasing funding for the Maritime Security Program. The amendment 
also restores funding to HUD's Community Development Block Grant and 
HOME programs. These are programs that every county executive and mayor 
talk to me about.
  For my home State of Maryland, this bill fully funds the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. I am beyond frustrated with Metro, 
but will not waver in my support for Federal funding to improve the 
safety and operational reliability of the system because many of my 
constituents rely upon Metro every day. I included bill and report 
language requiring strict U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT, 
oversight of how these taxpayer dollars are spent. And I appreciate the 
support of Senators Collins and Reed for my amendment to give DOT the 
power to appoint and oversee Metro's Federal board members, instead of 
the General Services Administration.
  The bill provides funding for an important Maryland jobs corridor--
the Purple Line, which is a new light rail system to be constructed in 
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. HUD's Office of Healthy Homes 
and Lead Hazard Control also receives strong funding, which is 
critically important to my hometown of Baltimore.

[[Page 18358]]

Like many older cities in the Northeast, Baltimore has a significant 
lead paint problem.
  This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to offer only germane 
amendments, so we can complete our work before Thanksgiving and keep 
momentum going to complete a 12-bill omnibus before December 11.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to report that the ranking 
member and I have two amendments that have been cleared by both sides.
  Mr. President, it appears that I am premature by a couple of moments, 
so I will 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Epilepsy Awareness Month

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to speak for 5 minutes on 
Epilepsy Awareness Month. If the matter for which Senator Wicker is 
waiting comes to the floor, I will interrupt my speech immediately so I 
don't slow down his business at all. I know he has been waiting here 
for a while, but as long as we were in a quorum call, I will speak in 
recognition of November as Epilepsy Awareness Month.
  Epilepsy is a chronic, debilitating condition that can produce 
violent, unpredictable seizures. It can be caused by traumatic events 
such as strokes, tumors, or brain injuries, but for a lot of patients 
the cause remains unknown. It is no easy thing to live with epilepsy. 
Yet millions of Americans do so every day, including an estimated 
10,000 Rhode Islanders. They include Sawyer, a 12-year-old Warwick 
resident who recently started seventh grade. I think we all remember 
what it was like to be a young person in school. I am sure we all know 
someone who for one reason or another was labeled as different and had 
a harder time than most. Well, imagine how hard it must be to navigate 
that world while also struggling with the daily symptoms of epilepsy. 
It takes a brave person to confront that challenge head-on, and I think 
we can all admire Sawyer's courage every day as he goes to school and 
pursues his education amid challenging circumstances.
  One reason Sawyer and his mom moved to Rhode Island was to take 
advantage of the support services provided by the Matty Fund, a local 
organization dedicated to helping those living with epilepsy and 
raising awareness of the condition. The organization was founded in 
2003 by Richard and Deb Siravo in honor of their son Matty, whom they 
lost to epilepsy that same year. The group provides services to local 
families, including Camp Matty, a day camp designed for kids with 
epilepsy.
  Sawyer recently attended Camp Matty and spent time with other kids 
like him, as well as older camp counselors, who are living with 
epilepsy and thriving. According to the Matty Fund, Sawyer flourished 
during his time at the camp. The group's executive director, Marisol 
Garcies, tells me that Sawyer ``could see in these teenagers and 
volunteers a glimpse of himself in a few short years, and it comforted 
him.''
  I am proud of the work the Matty Fund is doing to support Rhode 
Island kids like Sawyer, and I would also like to see us in Congress do 
more to give hope to him and millions of other Americans living with 
epilepsy.
  Federal funding for epilepsy research through the National Institutes 
of Health was cut $27 million from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013 
as a result of the recent budget battles. Funding has been restored in 
the years since, but until we provide the kind of year-to-year funding 
certainty that big research initiatives need, there will continue to be 
trouble.
  The researchers developing the next generation of medical treatments 
for epilepsy and countless other conditions shouldn't have to worry 
that their funding is at risk because Congress is having another 
political fight. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator 
Durbin's American Cures Act, which would create a trust fund dedicated 
to sustaining and expanding funding for health research at the NIH, 
CDC, Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans Affairs. In 
addition, I am currently working with my colleagues on the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to make NIH funding a mandatory 
part of our annual budget, ensuring that a baseline of Federal research 
dollars will be available year in and year out. I hope we can get it 
done.
  In the meantime, let's all keep sending our thoughts and prayers to 
people like Sawyer, and to help to lift the stigma that is too often 
associated with epilepsy. These brave individuals fight every day to 
live a normal life against some very real obstacles, and we can help by 
giving them our admiration and encouragement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the ranking member and I have two 
amendments that have been cleared by both sides.


          Amendments Nos. 2809 and 2817 to Amendment No. 2812

  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up 
and agreed to en bloc: Senator McCain's amendment No. 2809 and Senator 
Mikulski's amendment No. 2817.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2809 to amendment No. 2812.
       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Ms. Mikulski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2817 to amendment No. 2812.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2809

    (Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
    Administration to review certain decisions to grant categorical 
 exclusions for Next Generation flight procedures and to consult with 
       the airports at which such procedures will be implemented)

       After section 119C, insert the following:
       Sec. 119D.  Section 213(c) of the FAA Modernization and 
     Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Notifications and consultations.--Not less than 90 
     days before applying a categorical exclusion under this 
     subsection to a new procedure at an OEP airport, the 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(A) notify and consult with the operator of the airport 
     at which the procedure would be implemented; and
       ``(B) consider consultations or other engagement with the 
     community in the which the airport is located to inform the 
     public of the procedure.
       ``(4) Review of certain categorical exclusions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall review a 
     decision of the Administrator made on or after February 14, 
     2012, and before the date of the enactment of this paragraph 
     to grant a categorical exclusion under this subsection with 
     respect to a procedure to be implemented at an OEP airport 
     that was a material change from procedures previously in 
     effect at the airport to determine if the implementation of 
     the procedure had a significant effect on the human 
     environment in the community in which the airport is located 
     if the operator of that airport requests such a review and 
     demonstrates that there is good cause to believe that the 
     implementation of the procedure had such an effect.
       ``(B) Content of review.--If, in conducting a review under 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to a procedure implemented at 
     an OEP airport, the Administrator, in consultation with the 
     operator of the airport, determines that implementing the 
     procedure had a significant effect on the human environment 
     in the community in which the airport is located, the 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(i) consult with the operator of the airport to identify 
     measures to mitigate the effect of the procedure on the human 
     environment; and
       ``(ii) in conducting such consultations, consider the use 
     of alternative flight paths.
       ``(C) Human environment defined.--In this paragraph, the 
     term `human environment' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 1508.14 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as 
     in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph).''.

[[Page 18359]]




                           amendment no. 2817

 (Purpose: To provide that the Secretary of Transportation shall have 
 sole authority to appoint Federal Directors to the Board of Directors 
         of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In this section--
       (1) the term ``Compact'' means the Washington Metropolitan 
     Area Transit Authority Compact (Public Law 89-774; 80 Stat 
     1324);
       (2) the term ``Federal Director'' means--
       (A) a voting member of the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority who represents the Federal Government; and
       (B) a nonvoting member of the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority who serves as an alternate for a member 
     described in subparagraph (A); and
       (3) the term ``Transit Authority'' means the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority established under Article 
     III of the Compact.
       (b)(1) Notwithstanding section 601(d)(3) of the Passenger 
     Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (division B of 
     Public Law 110-432; 122 Stat. 4969) and section 1(b)(1) of 
     Public Law 111-62 (123 Stat. 1998), hereafter the Secretary 
     of Transportation shall have sole authority to appoint 
     Federal Directors to the Board of Directors of the Transit 
     Authority.
       (2) The signatory parties to the Compact shall amend the 
     Compact as necessary in accordance with paragraph (1).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendments (Nos. 
2809 and 2817) are agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, just a very brief explanation on both of these 
amendments. Senator Mikulski's amendment simply allows the Secretary of 
Transportation to select the Federal appointees for the Washington 
metro system. That is done by the head of GSA right now, and obviously 
GSA is an agency with no transportation policy expertise, so this 
simply makes sense. It is noncontroversial and has already been passed 
out of the Senate committee of jurisdiction.
  Senator Mikulski has been very concerned, as have many of us, about 
the safety and operational issues with Metro, and I believe this 
amendment is an excellent one, and I am proud to lend my support.
  Senator McCain's amendment ensures that the Federal Aviation 
Administration reviews its procedures when there are complaints from a 
community about the noise of airplanes that are landing in a particular 
area and that they do a report.
  I think both of these amendments make a great deal of sense, and I am 
pleased that we were able to clear them and get them adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                Amendment No. 2815 to Amendment No. 2812

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 2815.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2815 to amendment No. 2812.

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to increase the 
   minimum length limitation for a truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer 
  combination from 28 to 33 feet if such change would not negatively 
                         impact public safety)

       Beginning on page 45, strike line 16 and all that follows 
     through line a on page 46 and insert the following:
       Sec. 137.  The Secretary of Transportation may promulgate a 
     rulemaking to increase the minimum length limitation that a 
     State may prescribe for a truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer 
     combination under section 31111(b)(1)(A) of title 49, United 
     States Code, from 28 feet to 33 feet if the Secretary makes a 
     statistically significant finding, based on the final 
     Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study required 
     under section 32801 of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 
     Enhancement Act of 2012 (title II of division C of Public Law 
     112-141), that such change would not have a net negative 
     impact on public safety.

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I thank the chair and ranking member of 
the committee and, of course, the staff for working with us on this 
issue. This is an amendment that should be familiar to Members because 
essentially the same language was voted on in the form of a motion to 
instruct conferees last week. The essence of both that motion, which 
was adopted on a vote of 56 to 31, and this amendment today is to 
prevent a Federal mandate which has been contained in the committee 
version of this bill. That mandate would have required all 50 States to 
allow twin 33 tandem tractor-trailer rigs in each State. Some 12 States 
allow these twin 33 tandem tractor-trailer trucks and some 38 States 
prevent them. If the language were to remain in the appropriations 
bill, all 50 States, including the 38 States that have chosen not to 
accept these trucks, would be mandated.
  I think the vote of the Senate was clear last week. I will simply 
point out that this will remove a Federal mandate and will assist small 
business truckers who don't have the capital to move to these new 
longer double trucks. It will promote public safety and, I would 
submit, save lives and save $1.2 to $1.8 billion every year in 
maintenance and repair because of the damage caused by these twin 33 
trailers.
  I appreciate the committee working with me to get a vote, and at this 
point I ask that the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we are now prepared to have a voice vote 
on Senator Wicker's amendment; therefore, I know of no further debate 
on the Wicker amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2815) was agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that we are making progress, and I 
encourage other Members to come to the floor and share their proposals 
with us so we can continue to dispense with amendments.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  ISIS

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the horrific 
terror attacks in Paris last week and why they were a stark reminder of 
two things: first, that the threat of ISIS stretches well beyond Syria 
and Iraq, and, second, that this terror army has grown in power. It has 
grown in influence and certainly has grown in territory.
  Unfortunately, the administration and the Commander in Chief, in 
particular, have effectively stood by as spectators without developing 
an effective strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS as the President 
claims is his goal. Instead, we have seen airstrikes, which are 
necessary but not sufficient to deal with the threat of ISIS in Syria 
and in Iraq.
  So more than a year ago, I, among others, called on the President to 
discuss with the Congress his strategy. My thought is that anytime 
Americans are sent into harm's way--and there are Americans in harm's 
way both in Iraq and perhaps throughout the region--there ought to be a 
clear purpose articulated by the Commander in Chief. It ought to be a 
joint undertaking between the Congress and the Executive because our 
men and women in uniform deserve the unqualified support of all 
Americans, and I think that can best be demonstrated and accomplished 
by building consensus for this action in Congress.
  But what we have seen instead are speeches, interviews, and 
assurances that have really attempted to hide the fact that the 
President's so-called strategy against ISIS has been nothing more and 
nothing less than an abject

[[Page 18360]]

failure. The picture painted by the administration on the perceived 
success of this strategy has been overstated at best and disingenuous 
at worst. Between referring to ISIS, now numbering as many as 30,000 
strong, as the ``JV team'' and just hours before the Paris attacks 
proclaiming in an interview with ABC that they were ``contained,'' the 
President has simply not shot straight with the American people.
  The American people can take the truth; they just haven't heard it 
yet about the nature of the threat and about an effective strategy to 
deal with that threat. As we have learned and as the 9/11 Commission 
observed, one of the worst things we could do for our own national 
security is allow safe havens for terrorists to develop in places such 
as Syria and Iraq, places where they can train, arm, and then they can 
export their attacks, and given the unique capability of ISIS, they can 
communicate by social media and over the Internet and radicalize people 
here in the United States, just as they apparently did with people in 
France.
  Criticism of the President's lack of a strategy is not a partisan 
issue. It is not limited to members of my political party. On Monday, 
in an interview on MSNBC, the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, the senior Senator from California, said: ``ISIL is not 
contained,'' adding, ``I have never been more concerned.'' That is 
Senator Feinstein the ranking member--I believe they call them vice 
chair--of the Intelligence Committee. I couldn't agree with my 
Democratic colleague from California more. ISIL, ISIS, Daesh--whatever 
you want to call it--has not been contained. I agree with her. I have 
never been more concerned about a terrorist threat, particularly since 
9/11.
  It is very clear that in the wake of the tragic events in Paris, what 
the administration is doing to combat ISIS is failing. It is not 
working. In Iraq, ISIS has captured city after city over the last 2 
years where Americans have shed their blood, where Americans spent 
their treasure and took years to bring relative peace preceding 
President Obama's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.
  I can only imagine how hard it is for some of our veterans who served 
in Iraq to hear the laundry list of familiar places that have been 
taken by ISIS almost overnight. Sadly, of course, this includes cities 
where the precious lives of American heroes were lost, places such as 
Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi. I can only imagine what an American 
veteran, having lost a limb or suffered other grievous injury, must 
feel, the rage they must have after seeing those hard-fought gains 
squandered. And I can't help but think of the Gold Star Mothers, moms 
who have lost service men and women in combat and in service to our 
country. What a terrible squandering of hard-fought-for gains. But that 
is what laid the predicate and created the vacuum for the threat we see 
today.
  From where we stand today, Iraq is undeniably worse than when 
President Obama took office. He said he wanted to end the war in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, only to see, because of bad judgment and bad strategy, 
the war proliferate and get that much more serious--at least the war 
being conducted against us, our American interests, and our allies. As 
I said, the result of that bad policy and bad judgment is not one less 
war, it is a safe haven for ISIS that has been carved out of Syria and 
Iraq. The border between those two previously separated countries has 
been completely erased, as 30,000 fighters continue to plunge the 
region deeper into chaos.
  I was struck by the comments of the Director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency, who spoke at the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies on Monday. He said that before the current 
administration, there were probably about 700 adherents left. That is 
the origin of this problem today which is known as Al Qaeda--700 or so 
adherents left. And as I have already alluded to, according to news 
reports, there are between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and 
Syria. Those are the numbers of troops ISIS can now muster as a result 
of our failed policies in Iraq and Syria. So according to the CIA 
Director's own estimate, that means there has been an increase, just 
during the seven years of the Obama administration, of between 2,700 
and 4,400 percent.
  Mr. President, your strategy is not working.
  As we all know, this is not just about a fight over there; this is 
about a fight that is coming here, to a neighborhood, to a city near 
you. According to the media reports on Monday, the CIA Director also 
warned that ISIS was likely planning additional attacks. On that same 
day, a new propaganda video popped up online in which ISIS issued a 
fresh threat to target Washington, DC.
  Perhaps most concerning--and it is all concerning--is a serious 
threat we face at home from a jihadist who is already living here on 
U.S. soil. Most of the people who carried out the attacks in France 
were born and grew up in Belgium. Some of them immigrated, one under a 
fake Syrian passport, apparently. But we need to be concerned about 
homegrown radicalized terrorists, radicalized by ISIS or like-minded 
groups via the Internet. In Texas, we have seen this firsthand--the so-
called homegrown threats that occurred at Fort Hood in 2009 and in 
Garland, TX, earlier this year.
  But in the face of all of this--the President's own CIA Director 
talking about the huge increase in the threat over the last 7 years of 
this failed strategy--and given what has happened in Paris, given the 
threat against the United States and Washington, DC, in this propaganda 
video, why in the world would any reasonable person say ``We don't need 
to change a thing; we need to stay the course''--which is apparently 
what the President is saying. No rational person would say ``Hey, this 
is working out just the way I had it planned.'' You would reconsider 
and you would reevaluate in light of the evidence and the experience. 
That is what a reasonable person would do.
  Well, the Washington Post, on November 16--I guess that was 2 days 
ago--issued an editorial called ``President Obama's false choice 
against the Islamic State.'' In the first paragraph, they used a word 
to describe the President that I thought I understood the meaning of 
and I think I did, but I looked it up anyway. It is the word 
``petulant.'' This is what they said:

       Pressed about his strategy for fighting the Islamic State, 
     a petulant-sounding President Obama insisted Monday, as he 
     has before, that his critics have offered no concrete 
     alternatives for action in Syria and Iraq, other than 
     ``putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground.''

  Well, ``petulant''--I did look it up. ``Childishly sulky or bad-
tempered'' is one definition. So apparently the Washington Post wasn't 
impressed with the President's response either.
  They went on to say that the President's claim was faulty in a number 
of respects. First, nobody has proposed putting large numbers of U.S. 
troops on the ground--no one. So this is a straw man the President 
erects just so he can knock it down to try to discredit anybody who 
doesn't drink the same Kool-Aid he does on this topic.
  The Washington Post went on to say that a number of military experts 
have proposed a number of constructive ideas that would help us make 
better progress against this enemy, things such as deploying more 
Special Operations forces, including forward air controllers who can 
direct munitions, airstrikes, and bombing raids with much more accuracy 
than without them.
  We could also make sure that we have more Americans to advise the 
Iraqis' moderate Syrian forces and other people with similar interests 
on battlefield tactics to make them more effective. The President could 
send in more advisers to Iraqi battalions and more U.S. specialized 
assets. There is no one in the world who has a technological advantage 
on the United States when it comes to our military and our specialized 
assets, such as drones, for example, among other things.
  Then there is the issue of the Kurds. The Peshmerga have been an 
impressive fighting force. They have been boots-on-the-ground in a 
large portion of Iraq, and they have been crying out for the sorts of 
weapons that they need

[[Page 18361]]

in order to be more effective. The administration has decided: Well, 
let's send everything through Baghdad. Sadly, most of those weapons 
don't end up making their way into the hands of the Kurds and the 
Peshmerga because of political differences between them.
  So there is a lot we could do, and the President's straw man that he 
continually erects so he can just knock it down as he tries to ridicule 
and criticize anybody who has the temerity to question this failed 
strategy--it is just not working. It is not working for him, and people 
increasingly are losing confidence in his judgment.
  To eradicate ISIS abroad and neutralize the threat this terror army 
poses at home, we need a proactive, multifaceted strategy. The 
President's approach, characterized by ineffectual airstrikes and half 
measures, has resulted in a tactical stalemate that has kept ISIS's 
morale high and recruitment steady.
  We are blessed with some of the most elite military forces in the 
world, incredible human beings and great patriots. But not even they 
can hold on to territory after it is bombed because there simply are 
not enough of them. That is why, as the Washington Post suggested, it 
is so important to send in American advisers on tactics and people who 
will allow the boots on the ground, such as the Kurds, the Peshmerga, 
to be more effective. They can be the boots on the ground. They are the 
ones with the most direct interest in the outcome.
  It doesn't take an expert military strategist to see that airpower 
alone will not defeat ISIS. Perhaps the greatest military leader we 
have had, and certainly in my adult lifetime, GEN David Petraeus, has 
said that. The President's own military advisers have told him that, 
but he simply won't listen to them--preferring, it seems to me, to sort 
of run out the clock on his administration and then have to hand off 
this terrible mess to his successor. But Heaven help us if in the 
meantime, as a result of this ineffective strategy and an emboldened 
ISIS, we see more attacks not over there but over here.
  We already have U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. I would 
just remind everyone that there are about 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq and 
about 50 U.S. special operators in Syria, as the Obama administration 
has publicly stated. So if the President is going to put American boots 
on the ground, why not come up with a strategy, working together with 
our allies and those with aligned interests, to make them more 
effective and actually crush ISIS before ISIS hits us here in the 
homeland?
  We know the White House has sought to micromanage the military 
campaign and impose unreasonable restrictions on what the troops who 
are there are allowed to do--so-called caveats. Our warfighters 
literally have had one arm tied behind their back. This is simply just 
another recipe for continued failure, and it has to stop, it has to 
change.
  We know that ISIS cannot be dislodged from territory it now holds 
unless we have effective partners on the ground. That means working 
closely, as I indicated, with partners such as Iraqi security forces, 
the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Sunni tribal forces, and supporting them 
with U.S. airpower and intelligence. To further bolster these ground 
partners, the President needs to consider embedding American troops as 
military advisers, as I just said. By employing U.S. troops as joint 
tactical air controllers, as I mentioned earlier from the Washington 
Post editorial--that was one of their suggestions--in support of those 
ground partners, we would make our airstrikes more precise and more 
lethal.
  This is the type of thing that will be needed to clear and to hold 
territory after recapturing it from ISIS. It doesn't accomplish very 
much to bomb the living daylights out of some ISIS stronghold and not 
follow on with troops to hold that territory. We end up doing the same 
thing over and over again--bombing the same territory, they leave, and 
then they come back--because there is nothing there to hold that 
territory.
  In the long run, the overall effort to dislodge ISIS from key tribal 
areas and population centers has to be undergirded by a political 
framework as well that will sustain the lasting rejection of ISIS's 
bankrupt ideology. No one is suggesting that military combat alone is 
going to solve this problem, but in order to bring the people who can--
the so-called reconcilables, the people who are willing to try and work 
toward a long-lasting solution and eradicate the ones who will not--it 
will take a military strategy and a political framework.
  I will just close on this. There has been a lot of concern about 
refugees. I have heard it in my office and we have all heard it from 
our constituents back home. Whose heart doesn't break for people who 
have been run out of their own homeland, who have seen family members 
murdered by a butcher like Assad in Syria? But this is not a new 
phenomenon. We have known since the Syrian civil war started, following 
the Arab Spring in 2011, that hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of 
Syrians have fled their country, have been dislocated within the 
country, have moved into refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan, in 
Lebanon, and now they are going to Europe and some of them are showing 
up here in the United States.
  I would bet, if you ask every single one of them or most of the 
refugees, would you prefer to live in safety and security in your own 
land or do you want to go somewhere else, they would say: I want to 
stay here. So we need a policy that will actually allow Syrians to stay 
in Syria and Iraqis to stay in Iraq, but in the absence of any kind of 
military strategy, no political framework, and no solution from the 
Commander in Chief, these poor people have nowhere else to go. So we 
need to create safe zones in Syria.
  We can do that. We can create a no-fly zone in cooperation with our 
partners there in the Middle East. We need to create safe zones in 
Syria, where tens of thousands of refugees who are now trying to flee 
Syria could actually live, with our help. This means areas where 
innocent men, women, and children can be protected from attacks both 
from the air and from the ground, zones where they don't have to worry 
about being murdered 24 hours a day by ISIS or by the bloodthirsty 
regime of Bashar al-Assad.
  Congress should not have to tell the Commander in Chief how to 
conduct a successful military campaign or what a strategy looks like. 
But you know what. It takes the Washington Post editorial to tell the 
President that what he is saying is the alternative is just not true 
and that there are constructive ways we can turn the tide against ISIS 
and provide more stability and safety to people who prefer to stay home 
and not flee to distant shores and create consternation here in the 
United States about whether we are adequately screening these refugees 
to make sure they are not a threat to us here.
  It is my hope the President will consider thoughtful options that are 
being proposed by Members of Congress. I will bet there are thoughtful 
options being proposed by the President's own military advisers, but he 
is just simply not listening to them and stubbornly resisting 
reconsidering his failed strategy--petulant is what the Washington Post 
called it. Childishly sulky or bad temper, that is what they called the 
President's attitude.
  The American people have seen some of their own countrymen and 
countrywomen murdered by ISIS in barbaric and horrific fashion in 
images transmitted around the globe. They are understandably 
apprehensive about our security as a nation and our receding leadership 
role in the world. What is basically happening is, as America retreats, 
the tyrants, the thugs, the terrorists, the bullies fill that void. In 
this case, just like before 9/11, that void is filled by bad people who 
want to not only harm the people nearby but the West--meaning the 
United States and our allies over here.
  So the American people deserve a clear, credible strategy from the 
President, one that will combat this terror threat before the violence 
we saw last week in Paris shows up here on our own doorstep. More than 
ever our Nation needs strong leadership, and I

[[Page 18362]]

hope the President will finally rise to the challenge.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              NIH Research

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, we are in the 
process of discussing an appropriations bill--called an omnibus bill. 
For the first time in a long time we have passed an appropriations bill 
in the Senate. That is progress. We are working on a second one today 
as well. As we debate the priorities and spending levels for this final 
appropriations bill for this year, I want to highlight an opportunity 
we have to deliver on a promise to provide strong support for the 
National Institutes of Health and for the lifesaving biomedical 
research that results in that spending.
  I would also mention that we have the opportunity to assist in 
financial support, in providing resources to advance the efforts of a 
couple of agencies that are greatly allied with NIH; that being the 
Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Defense and its medical 
research as it finds cures and treatments for our military men and 
women and the consequences of their service, as well as the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
  What I want to highlight is that if we fulfill a promise in regard to 
medical and biomedical research, we can position our country to provide 
steady, predictable growth to NIH, the largest supporter of medical 
research in the world. This sustained commitment, which has been absent 
for so long, will benefit our Nation many times over and bring hope to 
many patients in today's generation and those that follow.
  Unfortunately, we have not adequately and we have not always upheld 
our responsibility in this regard. The purchasing power of the National 
Institutes of Health has diminished dramatically. If you account for 
inflation, NIH receives 22 percent less funding than it did in 2003. 
This has negatively impacted our research capacity.
  In the best of times, NIH research proposals were funded one out of 
three times. So if there were three proposals, one of them was accepted 
for funding. That ratio has now fallen to one in six, the lowest level 
in history.
  The challenge is ours, and the moment to act is now for our moms, our 
dads, our family members, our friends, for people we don't even know, 
and for the fiscal condition of our country. If you care about people, 
you will be supportive of medical research; and if you care about the 
fiscal condition of our country, you will be caring about medical 
research.
  I am a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations, which is responsible for the funding of NIH and these 
other agencies. Earlier this year, under the leadership of my colleague 
and friend from Missouri, the chairman, Senator Blunt, my Senate 
appropriations colleagues and I were successful in significantly 
boosting NIH's budget in the Senate's fiscal year 2016 appropriations 
bill. We achieved more than a $2 billion increase in NIH. This is an 
amount around $1.95 billion more than the President's request and more 
than $880 million above the number contained in the House's version of 
this legislation. This $2 billion increase would be the greatest 
baseline boost to NIH since 2003. It bothers me when I say it is a 
boost to NIH because what it is a boost to is not a Federal agency but 
rather a boost to the results, the consequences of that investment in 
research.
  With the recent 2-year budget deal that became law recently, it 
presents a path by which we are able to deliver a much needed budget 
increase to NIH and to prioritize important research that saves and 
improves lives, reduces health care costs, and fuels economic growth. 
This boost would be a tremendous step in putting NIH back on a sound 
path of predictable, sustainable growth, demonstrating to our Nation's 
best and brightest researchers, medical doctors, scientists, and 
students that Congress supports their work and will make sure they have 
the resources needed to carry out their important research.
  The time to achieve this objective is now. If the United States is to 
continue providing leadership in medical breakthroughs, to develop 
cures and treat disease, we must commit significantly to supporting 
this effort. If we fail to lead, researchers will not be able to rely 
upon that consistency, we will jeopardize our current progress, stunt 
our Nation's competitiveness, and lose a generation of young 
researchers to other careers or to other countries' research.
  Whenever Congress crafts appropriations bills we face a challenge. We 
all face this issue of balancing our priorities with the concern about 
making certain our Nation's fiscal course is on a better path than it 
has been. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to find those 
programs that are worthy of funding, that actually work, that are 
effective, that serve the American people and demonstrate a significant 
return to the taxpayer who actually pays the bill. Congress should set 
spending priorities and focus our resources on initiatives that have 
proven outcomes.
  No initiative I know meets these criteria better than biomedical 
research conducted at the National Institutes of Health and our other 
Federal allied agencies. NIH-supported research has raised life 
expectancy, improved quality of life, lowered overall health care 
costs, and is that economic engine our country so desperately needs as 
we try to compete in a global economy.
  Today we are living longer and we are living healthier lives thanks 
to NIH research. Deaths from heart disease and stroke have dropped 70 
percent in the last half century. U.S. cancer death rates are following 
about 1 percent each year, but as we know, much work remains. Diseases 
such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and mental illness touch 
all of us, touch all of our communities, touch all of our States, and 
dramatically affect our country.
  Half of the men and one-third of all women in the United States will 
develop cancer in their lifetime. One in three Medicare dollars is 
spent caring for an individual with diabetes. Nearly one in five 
Medicare dollars is spent on people with Alzheimer's or other 
dementias. In 2050, it will be one in every three dollars. In other 
words, the cost of dementia and Alzheimer's grows dramatically over 
time.
  New scientific findings are what yield the breakthroughs that enable 
us to confront these staggering financial challenges of these diseases 
and others. Therefore, in order to advance lifesaving medical research 
for patients around the world, balance our Federal budget, control 
Medicare and Medicaid spending, let's prioritize biomedical research 
and lead in science and in discovery.
  I appreciate the opportunity, as we work to fashion this final 
appropriations bill before the deadline of December 11, to work with my 
colleagues across the Senate to make sure that biomedical research, 
NIH, and its allied agencies receive the necessary financial support 
that benefits all Americans today and in the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Global Security Crisis

  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our persistent 
global security crisis, but I also want to connect how our national 
debt crisis affects that.
  Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of 
these tragic events of the last 3 weeks. This week the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee hosted the French Ambassador to the United States. 
In that meeting we shared that our thoughts and prayers are with them 
and with the people of France. But, more than that, we stand in 
solidarity with them against these evil forces that manifested 
themselves in the streets of

[[Page 18363]]

Paris this past week. The horrific ISIS attacks in Paris--killing more 
than 130 and injuring more than 350 men, women, and some children--
serve as a chilling reminder of the threat we continue to face from 
international terrorism every day.
  Earlier this week, Russia confirmed that it was indeed a terrorist 
bomb that took down a Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, 
killing all 224 people onboard. Just last night, we saw two aircraft--
thank God, under a false alarm--grounded because of fear of a terrorist 
attack. In addition, ISIS claimed responsibility for twin suicide 
attacks in Beirut last week, killing 43 more people. This makes three 
international attacks in three short weeks.
  ISIS continues to be a persistent threat to the West and to the 
security and stability of the Middle East. Unfortunately, as they have 
already said several times, these attacks only confirm what ISIS has in 
mind for the future. ISIS has been very clear about their intention to 
bring their version of terrorism to our own backyard, here in America. 
Indeed, ISIS even threatened Paris-styled attacks on our Nation's 
Capital in a recent video this week.
  Earlier this week, CIA Director John Brennan said he would not 
consider the Paris attacks a one-off event. Director Brennan went on to 
say:

       It's clear to me that ISIL has an external agenda, that 
     they are determined to carry out these types of attacks. I 
     would anticipate that this is not the only operation that 
     ISIL has in the pipeline.

  In light of the latest attacks by ISIS--beyond Iraq and Syria--I 
could not disagree more with our President, who says that his policies 
are indeed containing ISIS. The President and his administration 
continue to underestimate this threat. He even called them the JV team 
not too long ago. Despite the fact that ISIS has demonstrated its 
ability to perpetrate large-scale attacks beyond the borders of its so-
called Caliphate, President Obama refuses to change his failed 
strategy.
  Beyond the fault of the President, however, fault lies here in 
Congress as well. Washington is entirely too often focused on the 
crisis of the day instead of getting at the true underlying problems 
and solving them directly. It shouldn't take a tragedy like this for 
Washington to pay attention. Again, the latest terrorist attacks only 
underscore that we are facing a global security crisis of increasing 
magnitude, and this is inextricably linked to our own national debt 
crisis.
  As a matter of fact, the biggest threat to our global security is 
still our Nation's own Federal debt. This is as true today as it was 
when Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2012, 
said the same thing.
  In the past 6 years, Washington has spent $21.5 trillion running the 
Federal Government. That is so large, I have a hard time even grasping 
how significant that is. But what I can understand is this: Of that 
$21.5 trillion we spent running the Federal Government, we have 
actually borrowed $8 trillion of that $21.5 trillion. With over $100 
trillion of future unfunded liabilities, on top of the $18.5 trillion 
we have already built up, this is about $1 million for every household 
in America. Every family in America today shares in this responsibility 
of about $1 million per family.
  We are so far past the tipping point, it may be at a point of being 
unmanageable. If interest rates alone were at their 30-year average of 
5.5 percent, we would already be paying over $1 trillion in interest. 
That is unmanageable. That is twice what we spend on our defense 
investment, and it is twice what we spend on our discretionary 
nondefense investment. It is unmanageable, and we are well past that 
tipping point.
  Yet, Washington's own dysfunction and gridlock is keeping us from 
completing the budget process, as I speak today, and passing 
appropriations bills in the Senate. I might even argue, we may have 
seen the last truly voted-upon and approved appropriations in the 
Senate because of the abuses of the rules that we have seen both sides 
play in recent years. Shockingly, in the last 40 years, only 4 times 
has the budget process worked the way it was designed, as it was 
written into law in 1974.
  For example, this year we have tried to get onto the defense 
appropriations bill. That means we are trying to take the 
appropriations bill that would fund the defense so we can defend 
Americans abroad and we can defend our interests here at home against 
threats like ISIS, and we are being blocked from even getting that 
bill--which passed with a vast majority of votes in committee--from 
getting to the floor for a vote. No less than three times have the 
people on the other side of the aisle blocked it from going to the 
floor for debate, amendment process, and a vote; and three times the 
Democrats have voted against allowing us to get the defense 
appropriations bill on the floor, thus making it a political football. 
It is something I don't understand, not being of the political process 
here. We have recent attacks from ISIS, and yet we can't even find 
consensus here in this body to fund our Defense Department. William 
Few, the very first Senator from Georgia, in whose seat I serve today, 
would absolutely be appalled. He would remind us of the United States 
Constitution. There are only 6 reasons why 13 colonies, of which 
Georgia was one, came together to form this miracle called the United 
States. One of those was to ``provide for the common defense.'' And 
here we are, through dysfunction and partisan politics, not acting 
appropriately to fund the ability to provide for the common defense.
  I hope we can learn from recent events and get serious about tackling 
this debt problem so we can use that resource to fund our strong 
foreign policy. We need a strong foreign policy to fight these threats 
abroad. But to have a strong foreign policy, we have to have a strong 
military. We proved that in the 1980s, when we brought down the Soviet 
Union with the strength of our economy and the power of our ideas. We 
are at risk today because of our own intransigence and national debt. 
To have a strong military, as we proved, we have to have a strong 
economy. That is in jeopardy because of this growing debt crisis.
  To confront this global debt crisis, we have to get serious today. We 
have to break through. We have to get shoulder to shoulder and defend 
our country, which means we have to do the hard work on the floor of 
the Senate and pass the funding so we can defend ourselves against 
these new threats. Now is the time to solve this debt crisis so we can 
lead as a country again, to deal with this global security crisis, and 
to provide for the safety of Americans, wherever they are in the world.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Transportation Funding

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, let me start by congratulating our 
colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I 
serve, as well as the banking, commerce, and finance committees, where 
I also serve, on the recent appointment of a House-Senate conference to 
attempt to produce a final product for a multiyear transportation plan 
for our country.
  I am a strong supporter, as are many of my colleagues, of investments 
in our Nation's roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems. I have 
been so for 15 years as a Senator, for 8 years before that as a 
Governor, and for years before that as someone who focused an economic 
development and job creation within the State of Delaware.
  I am pleased on one hand that after too many years of short-term 
extensions in transportation funding, we are set to make rebuilding and 
modernizing our country's transportation system a long-term national 
priority again, and God knows we need to. However, I regret that I 
still have deep concerns for how Congress has decided to pay for these 
investments. For decades

[[Page 18364]]

we have paid for our transportation systems--roads, highways, bridges, 
and transit systems--through the use of user fees in the form of 
Federal excise taxes and, in some cases, on gasoline and diesel fuel to 
support the funding of our Nation's transportation system for over a 
half century--over 50 years. I believe that approach remains the 
fairest and most efficient way to fund transportation projects. 
However, since 2008, we have strayed from a user-pays approach. 
Instead, we rely on $75 billion worth of budget gimmicks, unrelated 
offsets, and debt to prop up our transportation trust fund to pay for 
transportation investments. Rather than right our course, both the 
House and Senate transportation proposals rely on tens of billions of 
dollars in additional budget gimmicks and unrelated offsets to fund 
this bill over the next 6 years. That is not the right way to pay for 
our infrastructure. I think it is the wrong way. It is not unfair, in 
my view, to ask the businesses and people who use our roads, highways, 
and bridges to help pay for them. We have done that for 50 years, we 
know how to do it, it is a reasonably simple system, and I think it is 
a fair system. We can adjust the earned-income tax credit in order to 
offset any increase in the user-fee cost that would have an impact on 
lower income families because this kind of increase in the tax could be 
seen as not progressive. Having said that, that is not what we are 
going to do, and what we are going to do instead is do what we have 
done for the last 7 years and use gimmicks and things that have nothing 
to do with transportation to ostensibly pay for transportation funding.
  All that being said, this is a course that Congress has voted for, 
and despite my misgivings over the funding, there is still much to 
commend in both the House and Senate legislation, particularly on the 
authorization side that comes out of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and out of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee in the 
House.
  Among the areas that I believe should be supported and should 
certainly be preserved in Congress is a robustly funded freight 
program, competitive grants for major projects, funding to reduce 
dangerous diesel pollution, and research grants to explore alternatives 
to user fees--the gas and diesel tax. I hope these provisions are 
retained in whatever bill emerges from the conference committee. Other 
provisions, such as caps on investment of freight funding in rail, 
port, and water transportation projects and cuts to public transit 
funding in Northeastern States should also be dropped.
  Finally, Congress will face the question of how to balance the 
benefits of long-term investment predictability with the urgent project 
investment needs around our country. While the long-term predictability 
is certainly important, we must consider the significant unmet 
investment needs around our country and the huge economic benefits that 
transportation investments offer to America's businesses and families.
  This legislation would best serve our country by maximizing annual 
investment levels for all service transportation programs over a 
shorter authorization period, and instead of having an inadequate 
amount of money to go to pay for transportation improvements over 6 
years, I would hope our conferees would consider maybe using that same 
amount of money and just spread it over 5 years or even 4 years. We 
could use every dime of it, and then some, for the transportation needs 
of our country.
  This may be the last talk I give on the Senate floor. I have given a 
bunch of speeches on transportation, not so much on the authorization 
side of it, but mostly about finding a way to pay for it. Writing the 
transportation authorization legislation--while not easy--is the easy 
part of the job. The hard part is figuring out how to pay for stuff. 
For a long time we have used a user-fee approach, such as the gas and 
diesel tax. We have done that since Dwight Eisenhower was President and 
when we were building the Interstate Highway System.
  We last raised the gas and diesel taxes in 1993, so it has been 22 
years. The gas tax today is 18 cents, and after inflation it is worth 
about a dime. The diesel tax was raised about 22 years ago and is about 
23 cents, and today it is worth less than 15 cents.
  A couple of days ago, I bought gasoline in Dover, and I think we paid 
just a tad over $2 a gallon. Last week I was told there are 30,000 gas 
stations across America where people filled up and paid less than $2 a 
gallon for gasoline.
  Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, and I in the Senate, and others in 
the House, have offered legislation to restore the purchasing power of 
the gas and diesel tax. We are not looking to increase it by 25 cents, 
50 cents or $1, as some have suggested, but to simply raise it 4 cents 
a year for 4 years, and at the end of 4 years in 2020, index it to the 
rate of inflation. If we did that, we would generate something like 
$220 billion that would be used for our roads, highways, bridges, and 
transit systems over the next 10 years.
  Instead, we are not going to do that. We are going to take money from 
the increase in TSA fees, which ostensibly was to be used to protect 
people when they fly on airplanes, and instead we will use it for 
roads, highways, and bridges. We are taking the money that should go to 
bolster the strength of our borders so we can make sure we are able to 
detect drugs and other things that shouldn't be going across our 
borders--particularly the border crossings where we have huge amounts 
of commerce moving in and out of our country into Mexico or into 
Canada--and instead we are going to take that money and ostensibly put 
it in roads, highways, and bridges.
  I found a new way to avoid paying for roads, highways, bridges, and 
transit systems, and it is kind of a novel way, by saying to the 
Federal Reserve that we are going to reduce their reserves by $60 
billion. The Federal Reserve, or central bank, turns out to have a 
large portfolio of investments, and a lot of the investments they have 
are actually Treasury security. During the course of the year, the 
Federal Reserve, from all of their investments, earns a lot of money, 
and after they deduct their expenses from all the money they earned--
through the interest income that they earn--they turn what is left over 
to Treasury. They actually remit money during the course of the year--
not all at once but during the course of the year.
  Last year, the Federal Reserve remitted something like a one-half 
trillion dollars in net interest and income to the Treasury. That is 
revenue that enables the Treasury to reduce our deficit. The House came 
up with the idea of just reaching in and taking $60 billion out of the 
Federal Reserve and use that for roads, highways, and bridges instead 
of it being taken and turned over in due course to the Treasury to 
reduce the deficit.
  Some people ask: What is wrong with doing this for transportation? 
What is wrong with doing this for homeland security? What is wrong with 
doing this for defense? What is wrong with doing this for agriculture 
or doing it for anything? I think this sets a terrible precedent and 
invites future Congresses to do the same thing. Instead of adhering to 
a policy that has served us well for many years and having those who 
use our roads, highways, and bridges pay for them, we are resorting to 
gimmicks and the kind of things we should not deign to do.
  Having said that, there is a good deal to like, especially in the 
authorization language. I applaud those who have worked on this 
legislation, and I appreciate the chance to help shape and reform some 
of it, but I wish we had taken a different course with respect to 
actually paying for this work that needs to be done.
  The last thing I will say is this: Our friends at McKinsey consulting 
firm, an international consulting firm, have an arm of McKinsey 
consulting called Global Institute. That arm of McKinsey reached out a 
year or so ago, and they tried to figure out if we were to invest 
robustly in our roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems, what 
kind of effect it would have on the unemployment in this country. What 
kind of effect it would have on the gross domestic product in this

[[Page 18365]]

country. If we were to truly make the kind of robust investments that 
are needed--not just the limp-along-level funding, which is woefully 
inadequate--they calculated that we would add 1.8 million jobs in 
America.
  A lot of the long-term unemployed folks wish they could be hired back 
again to do construction projects and build roads, highways, bridges, 
and transit systems. Instead, they are sitting on the sidelines because 
we don't have the money to pay to hire them to build these projects.
  The Global Institute of McKinsey also tells us that robust 
transportation investments would enable us to grow GDP annually by 1.5 
percent. Think about that. We are lucky if we can get GDP up 3 percent 
per year in this country and so are most developed nations. Simply by 
making robust investments in our transportation systems--rebuilding 
America's transportation systems again--we could expect to grow GDP by 
as much as 1.5 percent per year. The level of funding that is in the 
legislation before us doesn't come even close to that. I think we 
missed an opportunity here.
  At one of my hearings today, Patty, one of our witnesses, had a funny 
quote by Yogi Berra, who died earlier this year. She said one of my 
favorite Yogi Berra quotes: ``When you come to the fork in the road, 
take it.'' We have come to the fork in the road with respect to 
transportation funding, and with apologies to Yogi Berra, I think we 
have taken the wrong fork in that road.
  With that, I will call it a day and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  ISIL

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, the attacks in Paris were an 
unconscionable act of terrorism. America stands with the people of 
France and people of Paris, as we support those grieving and those 
working to deliver justice to the people involved. Make no mistake; the 
heinous terrorist attacks in Paris were an act of war. ISIL has 
barbarically killed and tortured innocent civilians, including 
Americans, not just in Paris but also recently in Beirut and routinely 
in Iraq. They operate around the globe, are well funded, well armed, 
and have no intention of stopping until their radical goals are 
realized. They continue to prey upon the innocent and manipulate the 
vulnerable. In some areas ISIL operates freely because of the 
instability created by persistent ethnic, sectarian, and religious 
conflicts in Iraq and Syria. But this crisis is not limited to Iraq and 
Syria, and the world's powers and their interests are quickly aligning 
in the urgent need to wipe the map clean of ISIL and its affiliates.
  To be clear, there are smart ways that we can destroy this barbaric 
terrorist organization without entangling American troops in another 
endless and bloody ground war in the Middle East. America has a 
critical role to play in that effort, but it must be part of a larger 
strategy and coalition, employing a full range of military might, as 
well as economic and diplomatic power.
  We can further engage in this fight in the following ways. First, we 
must relentlessly target ISIL headquarters in Raqqa and Mosul through 
air power and destroy ISIL's large oil infrastructure and refineries. 
Second, we must strangle the flow of foreign fighters on Syria's 
northern border. Third, we must compel Russia and other governments to 
reach a political end to the Syrian civil war so that we can unify and 
focus on fighting the Islamic State. Fourth, we need new measures to 
crack down on those who finance this terrorism and this extremism. 
Finally, it is time to drive a much harder bargain with an Iraqi 
leadership that still refuses to build a state that is politically 
inclusive and decentralized.
  Defeating ISIL cannot be solely an American solution nor should 
American ground troops be on the frontlines. It is past time that our 
Arab allies began focusing their efforts, with our support, on ISIL, 
militarily and economically. Ultimately, local Arab ground forces are 
the only lasting solution to defeating ISIL because they will be the 
ones left to ensure peace and stability once the more immediate 
military operations are concluded.
  Some say that we should deploy 10,000 American troops to Syria. 
However, we know that this strategy would require significantly more 
troops and would not permanently eliminate ISIL or kill their ideology. 
Instead, doing so may well exacerbate the conflict and further ISIL's 
recruitment efforts. We can say this because we have a historical 
reference, and that historical reference is not from some distant land 
or from another century.
  For nearly a decade, our brave men and women in uniform were deployed 
in Iraq and were asked to clear and hold multiple large cities. At the 
peak, in 2007, nearly 170,000 Americans were deployed on the ground, 
providing security in communities all across Iraq. Nearly 4,500--4,494 
to be exact--gave their lives. More than 32,000 were wounded.
  These tragic losses happened in the very same area where ISIL now 
occupies a major city in Iraq, Mosul, and a major city in Syria across 
the border, Raqqa. The point of my bringing up the Iraq war is not to 
relitigate the past but to keep in mind a very important lesson--that 
even when deploying nearly 200,000 American men and women to stabilize 
one country, the strategy of clearing and holding large territory is 
only a bandaid. It is not the permanent solution.
  This is especially true when the political leadership in these 
countries is unwilling to create an inclusive representative 
government. The calls for sending 10,000 American troops to fight ISIL 
and to provide security both in Iraq and Syria would mean asking our 
sons and daughters to remain in these countries fighting year after 
year for decades into the future.
  We know that when American forces are placed in the heart of these 
regional conflicts, it will only further delay the more lasting 
solution of having local partners on the ground and our allies in the 
Persian Gulf taking responsibility for this region, economically and 
militarily.


                         Syrian Refugee Crisis

  Lastly, I wish to talk a little bit about the issue of the Syrian 
refugee crisis.
  Every single Syrian refugee must be subject to the highest levels of 
vetting and scrutiny, including repeated biometric screenings, before 
ever entering the United States of America. Syria is a war zone, and we 
have a duty to ensure that our own homeland security is intact.
  The real priority, however, should be addressing the real security 
gaps that currently exist under the Visa Waiver Program--something on 
which Democrats and Republicans agree. Currently the Visa Waiver 
Program allows citizens of countries that qualify--38 countries, 
including 31 from Europe--to travel freely and stay in the United 
States for up to 90 days. Individuals who have purposefully traveled to 
Iraq or Syria, who have joined training camps or sympathized with 
ISIL's cause--that is where the real risk to the homeland lies.
  The victims who have suffered at the hands of ISIL are not the 
problem, and we should instead be working to close the loopholes that 
allow dangerous individuals with violent intentions to potentially 
enter our country today.
  In the coming days, I will be calling for reforms to our Visa Waiver 
Program so that we can focus on the real threats to our homeland. There 
is a difference between terrorists and victims of terrorism. The 
implicit assumption that Syrian refugees--many of whom have suffered 
brutally at the hands of ISIL--are a threat because of their country of 
origin is a rejection of American values and represents giving into our 
worst ethnic and religious prejudices.
  I am grateful that when my own father and my grandparents fled 
Germany in the years leading up to World War II, this country chose to 
see them

[[Page 18366]]

for what they were--enthusiastic American immigrants seeking to escape 
the dangerous politics gripping their former nation. Had this brand of 
twisted anti-immigrant logic been applied to them, I can only wonder 
how very different my life would be today.
  Let's remember that the enemy in this current scenario is ISIL, not 
the refugees who flee from their destruction. We simply will not have 
the moral standing as a nation to lead this international scenario if 
we ignore those who have lost everything at the hands of these barbaric 
terrorists.
  ISIL has killed and tortured many innocent civilians and is actively 
plotting to do more harm. We should all agree that ISIL must be 
eliminated from this Earth, but let's learn from our past mistakes and 
set to this work in a way that is both strategic and effective.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Terrorist Attacks Against France

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to 
express my condolences to the people of France for the tragedy they 
have experienced. No words can describe the barbaric and senseless acts 
of terrorism committed against the innocent victims in Paris, people 
who are simply going about their lives, people who are just enjoying a 
meal with their family or attending a concert with friends. These 
barbaric acts were an affront to the people of France and to all 
humanity.
  This is a time for solidarity with France and with all victims of 
terrorism. The world has rightly come together to condemn these 
barbaric acts. Now we have to work together and redouble our efforts to 
defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere.


                         Syrian Refugee Crisis

  As we remember the victims of the attacks in Paris, we cannot forget 
all those who are fleeing the terror in Syria. The ongoing conflict in 
that country has created 4 million refugees. These are people who are 
fleeing Assad's barrel bombs, his brutal assault on them on the ground, 
and they are fleeing murderous terrorist attacks committed by ISIS and 
other groups. Of those 4 million refugees, 1.9 million are in Turkey; 
650,000 are in Jordan, a country of 6.5 million people; and 1.2 million 
are in Lebanon, making up a fifth of Lebanon's entire population.
  The White House has a very modest plan to bring 10,000 Syrian 
refugees into the United States over the next year. It is a tiny number 
compared to what other countries are doing. Even France--the country 
that just suffered the terrorist attacks--is going to honor its 
commitment to take 30,000 refugees over the next 2 years. Each one of 
the 10,000 refugees we are accepting is important because it could be 
the difference between life and death for those individuals. That is 
why I was proud to join Senator Durbin and other Members to urge the 
White House to do more--because we can and we should do more.
  The United States has always been a refuge for the vulnerable, for 
those who are fleeing political repression or those who are persecuted 
simply because of their religion. The Syrian refugees the 
administration is prioritizing for entry are, in fact, the most 
vulnerable. These are survivors of violence and torture, people with 
medical conditions, and women and children.
  The news site BuzzFeed has published a series of images of children, 
of young Syrian refugees. I encourage everyone to look at these images 
because they capture the vulnerability and desperation of the people we 
are trying to help, children like Ahmed, who is sleeping in this 
picture I have in the Chamber. As the BuzzFeed story says, Ahmed is a 
6-year-old who carries his own bag over the long stretches his family 
walks by foot. His uncle says: ``He is brave and only cries sometimes 
in the evenings.'' His uncle has taken care of Ahmed since his father 
was killed in their hometown in northern Syria.
  There are children like Maram. Maram is an 8-year-old, and the story 
describes how her house was hit by a rocket. A piece of the roof landed 
right on top of her, and the head trauma caused her brain hemorrhage. 
She is no longer in a coma but has a broken jaw and cannot speak.
  We can only hope these children won't share the fate of Aylan Kurdi, 
whose image I can't get out of my mind. He is the drowned 3-year-old 
boy whose photograph on that beach galvanized the world. He was part of 
a group of 23 who had set out in two boats to reach the Greek island of 
Kos, but the vessels capsized. Aylan drowned, as did his 5-year-old 
brother Galip, and so did the boys' mother, Rehan.
  In the aftermath of the gruesome terrorist attacks in Paris, some 
have taken the view that we should turn our backs on these people, the 
very people who are fleeing from the terrorists. Some argue that we 
cannot both help these vulnerable men, women, and children and keep our 
country safe, but they paint a false choice. We can do both and we 
should do both.
  I wish to take just a minute to describe the stringent and very 
extensive security screening procedures these individuals go through 
before they can even enter the country, procedures so extensive that it 
can take up to 2 years--usually between 1\1/2\ years and 2 years--for 
them to be cleared to come here.
  These refugees are subject to the highest levels of security checks 
of any category of traveler entering the country. Those screenings 
include the involvement of our security and intelligence agencies, such 
as the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening 
Center, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, 
and the Department of Defense.
  All available biographic and biometric information of these refugees 
is vetted against law enforcement and intelligence community databases 
so that the identity of the individual can be confirmed. Every single 
refugee is interviewed by a trained official from the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Finally, the screening process accounts for the unique conditions of 
the Syria crisis and subjects these refugees to additional security 
screening measures.
  We absolutely need to make sure these security measures are as 
stringent and as thorough as possible, and if there are ways to enhance 
these screening protocols, we should make sure we are doing that.
  Each year the United States accepts tens of thousands of refugees 
from around the world, and there is no reason why some of those can't 
be Syrian refugees who are the most vulnerable. We can strike the right 
balance. We can protect our security and do our part to address the 
largest refugee crisis since World War II. But rather than showing 
compassion and standing up for American values, many of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle want to close the door to people who are 
fleeing the most horrendous forms of persecution. I believe that would 
betray our core values, and it would send a dangerous message to the 
world that we judge people based on the country they come from or from 
their religion, and that would make us less safe by feeding into ISIS's 
own propaganda that we are at war with Islam.
  We are better than this. Remember the closing lines of the poem that 
is inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, the gift from 
France to the United States that is a symbol of freedom and of generous 
welcome to foreigners. The poem, ``The New Colossus,'' was written by 
Emma Lazarus, who was involved in charitable work for refugees and 
deeply moved by the plight of Russian Jews--like my grandfather--who 
had fled to the United States. These are the closing lines of her poem:

     Give me your tired, your poor,
     Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
     The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
     Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
     I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

  There should always be a place in this country for men, women, and 
children who are fleeing horror--the same

[[Page 18367]]

kind of horror that befell so many innocent people in Paris last week. 
This is not the time to score political points; this is the time when 
we come together and show leadership. This is the time--this is now the 
time--when we uphold the values of the United States of America.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky for 
the purposes of describing an amendment that he has filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, make no mistake, we have been attacked in 
the past by refugees or by people posing as refugees. The two Boston 
bombers were here as refugees. They didn't take very kindly to what we 
gave them--education, food, clothing--and they chose to attack our 
country. In Bowling Green, KY, we had two Iraqi refugees who came 
through the refugee program, posing as refugees, and then promptly 
decided to buy Stinger missiles. Fortunately, they bought them from an 
FBI agent, and we caught them. But when we caught them, we discovered 
their fingerprints were already on bomb fragments in Iraq in our 
database, yet we had no clue and admitted them anyway.
  I think we have an insufficient process for knowing who is here 
legally and illegally. We have 11 million people in our country 
illegally, and 40 percent of them have overstayed their visa. Do we 
know who they are? Do we know where they are? If we extrapolate those 
statistics to those who are visiting our country from the Middle East, 
do we know where the 150,000 students are who say they are going to 
school in our country from the Middle East? I don't think we do.
  I don't think we should continue adding people to the rolls of those 
coming from the Middle East until we absolutely know who is in our 
country and what their intentions are. So my bill says this--my 
amendment says this: We are not going to bring them here and put them 
on government assistance.
  When the poem beneath the Statute of Liberty said give me your tired, 
give me your poor, it didn't say come to our country and we will put 
you on welfare. In those days you came for opportunity. Many Christian 
churches have supported refugees. My church has supported refugees 
coming here. That is charity. But when you put them on welfare, that is 
not charity.
  We borrow $1 million a minute. We don't have enough money to do this; 
it is a threat to our national security. My amendment would end the 
housing assistance for refugees in order to send a message to the 
President: The people have spoken. We are unhappy with your program. If 
you will not listen to the American people, we will take the money from 
the purse.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Senator's 
amendment. All of us recognize that our first obligation as Americans 
is to ensure the security and well-being to the extent we can of our 
citizens. That is our first priority.
  There are many flaws in the system for admitting people to this 
country. Those flaws go beyond the problem of people sneaking into our 
country illegally or overstaying their visas. They extend to the 
process we use under the Visa Waiver Program. Indeed, one of our 
colleagues Senator Coats has introduced a thoughtful bill to have us 
take a better look at that program and whether it is a way for citizens 
who have been radicalized to come from Western European countries into 
our country and to do us harm.
  There are many ways we can improve the process. I am working with 
Senator Cantwell on a bill having to do with biometrics to make sure we 
have more information. I look at the Senator's amendment, and he lists 
34 countries that would be affected by his prohibition--34 countries. 
They include countries such as Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally. Turkey is 
absolutely vital in the war against ISIS. It includes our strong ally 
Jordan. If Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon, countries that have already 
taken in 4 million refugees who are fleeing from Syria, are 
destabilized, what does that mean for the stability of that entire 
region?
  Mr. President, last month I went on an official trip with several of 
my colleagues to get a better understanding of the migrant crisis that 
is engulfing Europe. We traveled to the two countries that are the 
entry points for many of the refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria and 
who also are coming from Afghanistan and Iraq and some countries in 
Africa as well, such as Libya. So we went to Italy, and we went to 
Greece.
  At that time, in the middle of last month, 710,000 individuals had 
come in through Greece and to Italy to go on to other countries in 
Western Europe and in Scandinavia. We talked to the officials there, 
and I was not happy with the responses I received from Greek, Italian, 
and U.N. officials about their screening of refugees. Even though it is 
evident that the vast majority of refugees were people who were fearing 
for their lives and seeking safety, I was worried that ISIS fighters 
would embed themselves in this flood of refugees.
  What the Greeks and the Italians, with help from the U.N. High 
Commissioner for Refugees, were doing was fingerprinting people, taking 
their photographs and then essentially sending them on their way. And I 
asked: Are we comparing these fingerprints, these photos, this other 
information with our--the American--watch list for terrorists? Are we 
matching them up against our no-fly list, our TIDE database, which is 
the larger terrorist watch list? The answer was no, and that needs to 
change.
  I also traveled to a shelter in Athens that was run by Doctors of the 
World, an organization with which I was previously unfamiliar, and 
there I met a very young mother with her adorable little girl. They 
were from Eritrea, and they had been part of the flood of refugees. 
They pose no harm to our country or to any of the countries in which 
they might ultimately settle, yet they might need a little bit of 
assistance, a little bit of help, because the mother was so young and 
her daughter only about age 2.
  I also met two young girls from Afghanistan who both said to me: 
Please don't take our pictures and put them on Facebook, because we 
fear for our relatives back in Afghanistan.
  Look what has happened in Afghanistan, as the Taliban has regained 
strength and now is once again oppressing women and girls, denying them 
an education, forcing them into early marriages.
  Another country on this list is Nigeria--certainly a country we have 
to be very careful about because this is the country where ISIS has a 
stronghold and where Boko Haram is located. But it is also the country 
where hundreds of girls were kidnapped for trying to get an education.
  In other words, we can't just list 34 countries, some of which are 
essential to work with us in the war against terrorism, against ISIS, 
such as Jordan and Turkey. We can't just list all these countries and 
say they are off limits.
  We can't just automatically say no to an Iraqi interpreter who has 
worked with our special forces and now is in danger of losing his life 
and having his family slaughtered because he helped to save Americans' 
lives in Iraq. Are we saying we will not let a single person from 34 
countries into our country no matter how many American lives they have 
saved, no matter whether they pose a threat to us?
  Now, I want to make very clear that I do not think our process for 
screening people to come into this country is good enough. It is not. 
If it were good enough, we would not have people who could cause us 
harm in this country. But, you know, perhaps we should be focusing on 
those Americans--yes, even Americans--who have become radicalized and 
have traveled to Syria and Iraq and been trained to plot attacks here 
in this country: lone-wolf attacks, such as Major Hasan at Fort Hood, 
an American citizen who was radicalized online by an extremist Islamic 
cleric.
  We can't apply a one-size-fits-all to 34 countries that include a 
NATO ally

[[Page 18368]]

and other allies that have been helpful in the war against terrorism or 
countries that include individuals who have helped the cause, who have 
saved American lives or who pose no threats to us, such as those two 
young Afghan girls I met at the shelter or the very young mother with 
her very young little girl.
  We do need to tighten our process. We need to do more. You know, I 
would think that Members of this body who voted just months ago to 
weaken our ability, even under court orders, to provide surveillance of 
those who we suspect would do us harm would think again about what they 
have done in this time when the threats coming at us have never been 
greater. But this is a meat ax approach. It is too broad, and it does 
not really address the problem that we face today. We do need to 
address that problem. Perhaps we need a pause to redo our processes. 
But this is not the answer.
  Finally, as I read this language, the way it is written, it may apply 
to refugees who already have been legally admitted to this country. Do 
we want to do that? We need to think about this. We need to get this 
right, and Senator Paul's amendment is far too broad and is not the 
right answer to what is a real problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I associate myself with the comments of 
Senator Collins, who described the amendment extremely well. I, too, 
rise in opposition to the proposed amendment for all the reasons she 
listed. She was quite vivid and quite concrete in numerous examples: 
individuals in Afghanistan who have assisted us who are in jeopardy if 
they don't get an opportunity to come to the United States and people 
in Jordan who fight with us each day. Who can fail to recall the 
horrific scene of the young Jordanian pilot who was burned by ISIS? 
That was a Jordanian patriot fighting with the United States of America 
against the common enemy, ISIL. Unfortunately, he is deceased. But to 
tell his family members and his fellow countrymen that they can't come 
here as they qualify through rigorous procedures as a refugee and are 
granted asylum--all these reasons have been so well spoken by Senator 
Collins. So I won't go on, but I want to make clear that I, too, oppose 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Crude Oil Export Ban

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to make the case for lifting 
the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil. Lifting the ban is a smart 
move and it is long overdue. It will benefit not only my home State of 
North Dakota but also our Nation and our allies. That is why I am 
proposing to include legislation lifting the ban in the new highway 
bill that Congress is on track to pass this month.
  The highway bill is must-pass legislation, and the benefits of 
allowing crude oil exports are multiple. Taken together, they make a 
powerful case for allowing our producers to market their product on the 
world markets. Doing so would enhance domestic production, increase the 
global supply of crude oil, grow our economy, create good-paying jobs 
for our people, and make our Nation more secure. So let's look at these 
benefits one by one.
  First and foremost, crude oil exports will benefit American 
consumers. The price of oil is based on supply and demand--the more oil 
on the market, the lower the price. The volatility and the global price 
of crude oil are felt right down to the consumer level. More global 
supply means lower prices for gasoline and other fuels and more money 
in consumers' pockets. Those facts are backed up by studies at both the 
U.S. Energy Information Administration and the nonpartisan Brookings 
Institution.
  This spring, EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski confirmed these 
findings in testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, on which I serve, as does the Presiding Officer. In 
September, the EIA released a new report that reaffirms the benefits to 
consumers and businesses that would result from lifting the decades-old 
crude oil export ban.
  Second, in addition to benefiting consumers, crude oil exports will 
benefit the American economy. Crude oil exports will increase revenues 
and boost overall economic growth. It will help increase wages, create 
jobs, and improve our balance of trade.
  The one area of our economy that currently enjoys a favorable balance 
of trade is agriculture. That is because our farmers and ranchers 
successfully market their products around the globe.
  Our crude oil producers should be allowed to do the same. Local 
economies also benefit. Service industries, retail, and other 
businesses in communities centered on oil development would see more 
economic activity and growth if this antiquated ban is lifted.
  Crude oil exports will also benefit the U.S. energy industry. The 
EIA's latest study concluded that lifting the ban will reduce the 
discount for light sweet crude oil produced in States such as my State 
of North Dakota, as well as Texas and other States, and encourage more 
investment in domestic energy production.
  The drop in the price of oil this year has slowed domestic 
production, but we continue to produce oil. Today my State of North 
Dakota produces about 1.16 million barrels of oil a day, only down 
slightly from our peak of more than 1.2 million barrels of oil a day. 
The reason is that our producers are resilient and innovative. They are 
developing new technologies and new techniques to become more cost 
effective and efficient all the time. The American energy industry is 
here to stay.
  The energy sector, moreover, provides high-paying jobs for our 
people. We know that from experience in North Dakota, which has had the 
fastest growing rate of per capita personal income in the country among 
all the States in recent years.
  On a national level, crude oil exports will help to bring our energy 
policy into the 21st century. The crude oil export ban is an economic 
strategy implemented in the 1970s, and the world has changed 
dramatically since then. Back then, conventional wisdom was that there 
was a finite quantity of oil in the world and we pretty much knew where 
it was. Nobody envisioned the kind of energy revolution we are seeing 
in States such as North Dakota, Texas, Colorado, and many others. 
Consequently, the model has shifted from scarcity to abundance, and we 
need to have a comprehensive approach to energy that reflects the new 
reality. That means we need additional investments in technology, 
transportation, and energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, rail, 
roads, and other industry needs. By leveraging our natural resources 
and American innovation, the United States is in a position to 
demonstrate real global energy leadership.
  Last but not least, crude oil exports will strengthen national 
security. U.S. crude oil will provide strategic geopolitical benefits, 
not only for us but also for our friends around the globe. It will 
provide our allies with alternative sources of oil and free them from 
their reliance on energy from Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and other 
unstable parts of the world.
  As a further security advantage, adding more supply would add a 
buffer against volatile events in the Middle East and elsewhere in the 
world. We finally have an opportunity to curb the disproportionate 
influence OPEC has had on the world oil market for 5 decades, and we 
need to do it. The President's deal with Iran lifts sanctions against 
Iranian oil, bringing 1 million barrels a day of their product on to 
global markets. Clearly, it is inconsistent for us to maintain a ban on 
U.S. oil exports while the President lifts a ban on Iranian exports, 
sending jobs, revenues, and economic growth to places such as Iran 
while blocking the same benefits for American citizens.
  The ban on crude oil exports has long outlived its usefulness, and 
repealing it is long overdue. For consumers, jobs, the economy, and 
national security, we

[[Page 18369]]

need to come together and lift the ban. We can do that by including 
legislation lifting the crude oil ban in the bipartisan highway bill 
set to pass Congress this month.
  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. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


     James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, 14 years ago on November 17, 2001, 
families across New Jersey were still struggling with the grief of 
empty seats at dinner tables and closets full of clothes never to be 
worn again. It was 14 years ago that the news headlines were reflecting 
on one of the greatest tragedies our country had ever witnessed, which 
were the attacks on 9/11 of the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, 
and in Pennsylvania.
  Today, the trauma for that is no longer as raw as it once was, yet we 
are still affected forever, and much still tries the soul of our 
Nation. While the Sun still rises, the seasons still change, the wounds 
of that day may never heal. There are so many families across New 
Jersey who are still struggling with the aftermath of this terror, with 
the illnesses of loved ones who survived and who served as first 
responders in the 9/11 attacks.
  While the debris has long been cleared and new towers now stand at 
the World Trade Center site, many of the thousands of brave first 
responders who sacrificed their safety for the good of our country are 
still battling very serious health issues. The exposure to debris, to 
dust, to other hazardous materials and chemicals on September 11 and 
the weeks and months that followed have caused countless chronic 
medical problems for tens of thousands of Americans, including many New 
Jerseyans. They and their families are still burdened every single day 
with the physical, emotional, and financial costs of the attacks on 9/
11.
  For too long in the wake of the attacks, there were significant gaps 
in the access and quality of care for survivors. One such survivor, 
James Zadroga, an NYPD officer and former Ocean County, NJ, resident, 
struggled with accessing care to treat his severe and chronic 
respiratory problems after serving as first responder in the wake of 
September 11, where we believe he acquired those serious health 
problems. James passed away just over 4 years after the attacks at the 
age of 34.
  Thanks to the advocacy of the Zadroga family and the State and 
Federal lawmakers--people like Senator Lautenberg and Senator 
Menendez--a bill was passed into law to provide health care, treatment, 
and compensation for survivors like James Zadroga who are dealing with 
the aftermath and effects of the 9/11 attacks. Because of the James 
Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, over 70,000 first 
responders and survivors are now enrolled in the World Trade Center 
Health Program and receiving quality care.
  Over 5,000 survivors and first responders still require medical 
treatment because of their exposure and/or their service as first 
responders and because of the Zadroga act, they have had access. 
Because Congress failed to act, the World Trade Center Health Program 
expired in September 2015, and without congressional action, funding 
for the program will run out by next year. Additionally, funding for 
the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund will likely expire around 
the same time next year as well.
  Earlier this month, the editorial board of one New Jersey newspaper, 
the Star-Ledger, had this to say about this body's failure to act:

       The bill has overwhelming support from both parties. They 
     understand this is an American problem, with victims from all 
     50 states, and they know this legislative solution is not 
     radical. We take care of workers with dangerous jobs . . . 
     especially heroes who risked their lives to help humanity 
     while most of us watched from home, paralyzed by grief.

  We have not just a patriotic responsibility but a moral obligation to 
ensure that the Americans who sacrificed so much for the good of our 
country in the wake of September 11, 2001, are treated with the respect 
and care they deserve. They are our heroes. They are our champions. 
They stood up and worked when many ran.
  It is incumbent upon this Congress to follow the lead of Senator 
Gillibrand and heed the calls coming from our constituents to pass the 
James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act. I am 
proud to stand with Senator Gillibrand and our colleagues in the Senate 
and in the House, advocates, and first responders who are urgently 
calling for the passage of this necessary legislation that reflects our 
values and our ideals.
  I wish to close with the words of a courageous Newark Fire Department 
captain who responded to the 9/11 attacks at great personal risk and 
had the following to share with my office about the renewal of the 
Zadroga act:

       As a member of New Jersey Task Force I, I responded on 9/
     11. This volunteer State Police team, participated in 
     numerous search and rescue operations on that day. The 
     thousands of firefighters that worked that day, developed 
     medical issues thereafter, including myself. I have had three 
     surgeries for thyroid cancer. I also developed the 9/11 
     cough, and have developed side effects from radiation 
     treatment. . . . We are not looking to get rich. We just want 
     to be able to continue serving as firefighters, without 
     worrying about our health because of 9/11.

  Those in this Chamber who somehow, remarkably, oppose this bill need 
to hear this man's words and my own as well. We cannot fail to act. By 
what we do here now, we not only take care of those heroes from 9/11 
but we send a message to all Americans about how we stand up for those 
who stood for us, who fought for us. When the most perilous times came 
to be, they were there for us. This country is a nation that takes care 
of its heroes.
  What we do here with this legislation will forever highlight this 
ideal and celebrate its truth or it will cast a dark shadow over it. I 
hope today and in the coming days that we move this legislation forward 
and be the light upon the great men and women who are so patriotically 
dedicated to our Nation.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I would like to also talk 
briefly about the Transportation appropriations bill this Chamber is 
considering.
  I truly appreciate the hard work that Senator Reed and Senator 
Collins have done to get this bill to a place that makes critical 
investments in transportation and housing and, in particular, for some 
of our most vulnerable citizens. Their work has been tireless, and I am 
happy to see much of the progress they are making.
  However, this appropriations bill as it currently stands includes 
some provisions that would weaken highway safety. At a time when 4,000 
people are losing their lives annually on American highways and 100,000 
are injured due to large truck crashes, it is paramount that Congress 
do more to improve safety, not remove evidence-based safety policies.
  New Jersey alone has some 38,000 miles of public roads that connect 
people of our State and get them where they need to be. It drives much 
of the commerce and economy of our State every day. New Jersey is 
strategically placed, which makes it a very important path through the 
State and for goods up and down the east coast as well. These roads 
also see a tremendous amount of truck traffic at all times of the day 
and night. If you have ever driven on the New Jersey Turnpike, you know 
what I mean.
  I am concerned that we saw an increase in truck accidents from 2009 
to 2012, an increase in crash injuries by 40 percent, and truck crash 
fatalities during this time have increased 16 percent. This is data. 
These are numbers. But they are also human lives; they are fellow 
Americans who have had their lives shattered by horrific accidents.
  Truckdriver fatigue is a leading cause of these major truck 
accidents. These drivers who work extremely long days delivering the 
goods we depend upon deserve basic protections allowing them to get 
sufficient rest to do their job.

[[Page 18370]]

  I filed an amendment on the hours of service rules, which were put in 
place to prevent truckdriver fatigue and ensure that the rules put in 
place after years of study and robust stakeholder feedback would still 
be enforceable. Some people believe we should suspend these rules, 
these commonsense policies, by calling for even more study. My 
amendment ensures the rules will remain enforceable while further study 
is conducted so that we don't see more lives put at risk as a result of 
these delay tactics. What we should be doing is ensuring that safety is 
first. If it proves not necessary, then pull back.
  There are other provisions in this bill that I believe could 
jeopardize highway safety as well. I am pleased, though, that earlier 
today we were able to work together and pass an amendment to further 
study a proposal to allow heavier trucks, longer trucks on the road. 
Heavier trucks could cause greater damage and destruction to human life 
and property when these accidents occur. I am grateful to my colleagues 
for working together on this.
  A final example of a commonsense provision we in Congress should 
address as we work to improve highway safety is the minimum level of 
insurance required by truckdrivers. When truck crashes do occur and the 
insurance doesn't cover the cost of these accidents, taxpayers are left 
to front the bill. We should look to the decades-old minimum levels of 
insurance and assess whether those minimum insurance standards need to 
be raised so that families torn apart by truck crashes aren't then 
thrust into debt because of medical bills.
  I have met with some of these families. I have sat with them and 
heard their stories about how low levels of minimum insurance have left 
them in dire straits. As taxpayers, we should not be left without the 
funding to rebuild damaged roads and bridges in the aftermath of such 
significant crashes. It is time to modernize a minimum level of 
insurance for truckdrivers so that we are all better equipped in the 
aftermath of an accident.
  Again, I have sat with far too many survivors and their family 
members. I have seen, talked, and engaged with them, hearing the truth 
of their stories. We cannot sit silently while truck accidents are 
increasing in our country and allow commonsense safety to be rolled 
back in these spending bills. Where there are meaningful and practical 
solutions to pressing highway safety challenges, these are discussions 
we need to have. This is a fight worth having, and I look forward to 
continuing to work with my colleagues to improve the safety on our 
Nation's highways. We have the capability, we have the know-how, and we 
have the science to help us to begin to reduce these tragic accidents 
and fatalities on our highways.
  I believe we should show greater urgency in protecting human life and 
protecting Americans as they ride along our roads.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, very shortly we are going to be 
adjourning for a very important briefing, but first I feel I should 
just briefly respond to my friend from New Jersey on a few of the 
points he raised. I recognize that he is not a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, and I doubt he was hanging on my every word 
when I described what was in the bill earlier today, but the fact is we 
have some very important truck safety provisions that are in the bill. 
For example, we require the Department to issue long-delayed 
regulations that deal with requiring speed governors that limit the 
speed at which trucks can travel. That rulemaking has been delayed an 
astonishing 22 times. We require the Department to proceed to issue 
those rules within 60 days of the enactment of this bill. That is a 
very important provision.
  If my colleague is worried about truckdrivers exceeding the speed 
limit and causing an accident, he should be applauding this bill, which 
says to the Department, in no uncertain terms: Stop delaying. It is 
past time to issue this regulation.
  Another very important safety provision that is in this bill has to 
do with requiring electronic logs. This is an important safety 
provision because it will prevent those few bad actors in the trucking 
industry from falsifying their paper logs. We will know for certain how 
long they were behind the wheel and on the road, and we will know 
whether they are complying with the hours of service provisions. Those 
are just two of the very important provisions my friend from New Jersey 
may not be aware of given that he does not serve on the committee and 
may not have heard my speech this morning.
  The Senator from New Jersey also mentioned other issues, such as the 
insurance requirements. I want to make it very clear to my colleagues 
that our bill does not prohibit the Department from proceeding with a 
rulemaking that might increase the minimum insurance requirement, but 
what it says, in a very logical way, is it should assess the impact--
the impact on the insurance market, the impact on the truckdrivers, and 
the impact on the insurance industry. The fact is that approximately 
only 1 percent of crashes that occur exceed what is now the minimum 
insurance requirement. I still think it is worth looking at because it 
has been many years since this issue has been reviewed. We don't block 
the rulemaking. We just make sure there is a report that assesses what 
the impact is before the Department imposes what could be a huge and 
unnecessary financial burden.
  I did feel it was important to clarify those three points. There is 
much else I could say about this issue, but I recognize that 
undoubtedly the Presiding Officer and others are eager to get to the 
briefing.

                          ____________________