[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2264-2276]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Portman):
  S. 478. A bill to promote career readiness indicators and career 
counseling for students; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, preparing all students to be college and 
career-ready upon graduating high school is one of the central promises 
that public education and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
ESEA, should fulfill. However, career readiness has all too often taken 
a back seat to a focus on traditional college preparation. Strong 
academic skills are essential to college preparation, but it takes much 
more to be truly ready for a career.
  Today many students graduate high schools with little knowledge of 
the careers available to them and the technical skills needed to meet 
the demands of the 2lst century job market. ``Career readiness 
indicators'' are factors that demonstrate a student's preparedness, 
including both academic and technical knowledge and skills, for 
postsecondary education and the workforce. By encouraging school 
districts to track and report on career readiness indicators, States 
can send a signal to schools, communities, parents, and students that 
it is critical to be prepared for the workforce regardless of 
postsecondary education plans. Additionally, it provides public data 
for employers to help locate their operations in regions with a high-
skilled workforce.
  This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator 
Portman and Senator Baldwin, the Career Ready Act, which will amend the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act to expand on these efforts by 
encouraging more states to report on courses in their school systems. 
This includes utilizing multiple indicators of career readiness when 
states report data to the federal government such as student 
participation in career and technical education courses or attainment 
of recognized postsecondary credentials or academic and technical 
skills including industry-recognized credentials, certifications, 
licenses, and postsecondary degrees. Tracking and publishing this data 
provides much-needed information for businesses and workforce leaders 
that is not provided under current law.
  This bipartisan legislation also strengthens the Elementary and 
Secondary School Counseling grant program in current law by placing an 
emphasis on career guidance and providing professional development for 
school counselors to use labor market information and partnerships with 
community groups such as local workforce investment boards, businesses, 
industries, and regional economic development agencies to educate 
students on postsecondary opportunities. The Career Ready Act 
encourages schools to align career exploration course offerings and 
counseling to the workforce needs of the local community and coordinate 
with the requirements of the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act 
and the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act.
  I am proud to introduce this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to 
improve career readiness and career guidance to ensure students are 
prepared for the 21st century workforce. I strongly encourage my 
colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee to 
consider this legislation in any ESEA reauthorization.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 487. A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to 
allow the rebuilding, without elevation, of certain structures that are 
located in areas having special flood hazards and are substantially 
damaged by fire, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire-
Damaged Home Rebuilding Act.
  This legislation is simple. It allows families living in federally-
designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is 
destroyed by a fire.
  The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to 
block reconstruction after floods, but which have been applied to block 
reconstruction of homes after fires and other natural disasters as 
well.
  I was first made aware of this issue by a constituent from 
Sacramento, Jennifer Taylor. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood 
burned down, and she was denied when she applied for a permit to 
rebuild it. The county informed her that Federal floodplain regulations 
required her to elevate the home 20 feet above ground level because of 
existing deficiencies in the levee protecting her neighborhood.
  Can you imagine what that would look like? Every house in the 
neighborhood at ground level, and one home towering 20 feet above the 
rest?
  More importantly though, the cost would be exorbitant, and would not 
be covered by her insurance. Instead, the cost would be imposed on a 
family trying to get back on its feet after a personal tragedy.
  When the home burned down, the family collected $71,000 from their 
insurance company. Contractors estimated the cost to restore the home 
to its original condition was $170,000--a significant burden, but one 
the family was willing to bear.
  But when the family factored in the cost of elevating their home 20 
feet, the cost skyrocketed. Contractors estimated the elevation project 
would cost an additional $200,000.
  Just to restore their home to its previous size and condition, the 
family would owe $300,000 more than what they received from their 
insurance.
  There is a fundamental issue of fairness at stake.
  This family tragically lost their home and many of their personal 
belongings. But instead of helping the family during this difficult 
time, the Federal Government is instead blocking them from rebuilding. 
Why? Because the Federal Government has failed to maintain adequate 
flood protection.
  It just doesn't seem fair.
  The Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act addresses this issue by allowing 
local communities to grant variances to federal flood plain regulations 
without jeopardizing their participation in the program.
  The legislation allows waivers to be granted only if all of the 
following conditions are met: communities must already have taken steps 
to repair damaged levees, such as seeking Federal authorization of a 
levee project, and there must be previously existing plans to obtain 
the requisite 100-year flood protection in the near future.
  The destroyed house must be within a deep floodplain where it would 
be too expensive and unsightly to elevate the home.

[[Page 2265]]

  The new home must be built within the footprint of the destroyed 
structure.
  The homeowner cannot qualify for new insurance discounts; and the 
property has never been associated with a claim to the National Flood 
Insurance Program.
  These limitations will only allow families to rebuild very limited 
circumstances after tragedy strikes that is unrelated to a flooding 
event. The number of waivers local governments can approve is capped at 
ten per year so that this authority is not subject to abuse. This limit 
will ensure that waivers are used prudently and sparingly.
  I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is 
irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses to be constructed 
without adequate mitigation in an area where you know that flooding is 
likely.
  The Federal floodplain regulations were put in place to block 
individual homeowners from voluntarily renovating and improving their 
homes. They were also designed to block homeowners from rebuilding 
after a flood. By doing so, the Federal Government limits its liability 
for future flood insurance claims.
  Fire-damaged homes clearly represent an exception to these 
circumstances, however. So we need to adjust the law to eliminate an 
unfortunate and unintended consequence of an otherwise good policy.
  City and county governments must be empowered to make case by case 
judgments about whether it makes sense to elevate damaged structures by 
10, 15, or 20 feet when the rest of the neighborhood remains at ground 
level.
  That is exactly what the Fire-Damaged Home Reconstruction Act does. 
It provides limited authority to local governments, which will allow 
them to do what makes sense for their communities and will allow 
families to rebuild after a fire or other non-flood disaster.
  This is a commonsense piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues 
will work to quickly adopt the bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Flake, 
        Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 491. A bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss our country's 
relationship with Cuba. I have long advocated modernizing our 
relationship with Cuba. The current embargo has been in place for 50 
years, and it has greatly constrained opportunities for American 
businesses by restricting commerce, by restricting our exports--things 
that are made in America--from going to a place that is only 90 miles 
off our shores and has 11 million people.
  That is why today I introduce the bipartisan Freedom to Export to 
Cuba Act with Senators Enzi, Stabenow, Flake, Leahy, and Durbin. This 
bill lifts the trade embargo on Cuba and knocks down the legal barriers 
to Americans doing business in Cuba. This bill will help open up new 
economic opportunities for American businesses, which will mean more 
jobs. It will also boost opportunities for farmers--something the Chair 
knows well coming from the State of North Dakota, as we know well in 
the State of Minnesota. This will also allow Cubans to have access to 
these products, which we believe is good for their country, good for 
their people so that they can become a different country.
  Freeing our businesses to pursue opportunities for development could 
greatly help the people of Cuba. Consider for example that Cuba only 
has a 2G cellular network and that only about one-fourth of the 
population has Internet access. Ultimately, I believe this legislation 
will help usher in a new era for Americans and Cubans shaped by 
opportunities for the future rather than simply a story of the past.
  The process the President has jump-started to normalize our ties with 
Cuba is a positive step forward. My home State of Minnesota exported 
about $20 million in agricultural products to Cuba in 2013. I think 
people are surprised by that, but as many of us know, there are 
humanitarian exceptions to the current embargo. So our country is 
already exporting, and my State alone exported $20 million in products. 
With the President's action alone, the Minnesota Department of 
Agriculture estimates that exports could increase by another $20 
million. The United States is already the fourth largest source of 
imports to Cuba based solely on authorized shipments of agriculture and 
medical supplies. Over the past decade we have been one of Cuba's top 
suppliers of food products. So it is not as if we don't already do 
business there, but unlike every other country, including our own 
neighbor to the north, Canada, we hamstring our businesses seeking to 
export their products there. Export and travel restrictions have 
continued to prevent Americans from seeking opportunities in Cuba, and 
the embargo prevents Cubans from obtaining food and other goods we take 
for granted in our country.
  Cuban human rights activist Yoani Sanchez wrote:

       It is impossible for Cubans to buy staples like eggs or 
     cooking oil without turning to the underground market. 
     Rationing forces people to stand in line for hours for 
     poultry and fish. On the Cuban government's 50th anniversary 
     in 2009, it provided families with an extra half pound of 
     ground beef, but that beef was not from the U.S. It was 
     sponsored by the Venezuelan government . . . a meager gift 
     nicknamed ``Hugo Chavez's Hamburger'' by everyday Cubans.

  I say it is time for America to stop ceding credit for the hamburger 
to Venezuela. It is time that we made our hamburger accessible in Cuba. 
The Freedom to Export to Cuba Act will help us do that. It is simply a 
targeted repeal of the provisions in current law that keep the embargo 
in place, including restrictions that prevent American businesses from 
financing their own exports to the island and requirements for American 
farms to seek special licenses for any transaction with Cuba.
  It is also important to emphasize what this bill does not do. There 
are many outstanding issues that many of my colleagues have discussed 
between our two countries that must be dealt with, especially our 
concerns about the Cuban Government's repressive policies. That is why 
this bill does not repeal provisions of current law that address human 
rights in Cuba or that allow individuals and businesses to pursue 
claims against the Cuban Government for property.
  None of us is under any illusion about the nature of the Cuban 
Government. The Cuban Government must take serious steps to reform 
politically and economically. It must free political prisoners and stop 
arbitrarily arresting people for political speech. It must also take 
steps to liberalize its state-centric economic system if it truly hopes 
to allow its people to prosper and to benefit from growing commerce 
with the United States.
  We do not minimize the importance of those issues, but we also know 
the embargo has not helped to solve them. Members on both sides of the 
aisle recognize that continuing along the same path with respect to 
Cuba has not achieved our objectives and in fact has constrained 
Americans' freedom to pursue business opportunities abroad. It has 
hindered our freedom to travel, which is why I also cosponsored the 
Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act recently introduced by Senator Flake.
  Both that bill and the Freedom to Export to Cuba Act that I have 
introduced today with a bipartisan group of Senators shows that we can 
work together in this new Congress to support a commonsense 
relationship between the United States and Cuba.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It is 
a chance to build on our current progress and take additional actions 
to forge a practical and positive relationship with the people of Cuba 
and the people of America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Whitehouse, 
        Mr. Heinrich, and Mr. Bennet):
  S. 492. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 in order to improve environmental literacy to better prepare 
students for postsecondary education and careers, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[[Page 2266]]


  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan 
legislation to provide support for environmental education in our 
Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Durbin, Whitehouse, 
Heinrich, and Bennet for joining as original cosponsors of the No Child 
Left Inside Act of 2015.
  Given the major environmental challenges we face today, it is 
important to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural 
world. Preparing the next generation to be stewards of our natural 
environment not only equips them with important skills and knowledge 
but also, as studies have shown, enhances achievement levels in science 
and other core subjects and increases student engagement. Another key 
benefit is that it promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to 
spend more time outside.
  For more than 3 decades, environmental education has been a growing 
part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the 
need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st 
century economy, many states and schools throughout the Nation now 
offer some form of environmental education.
  Indeed, according to the National Association for Environmental 
Education, 47 States and the District of Columbia have taken steps 
towards developing plans to integrate environmental literacy into their 
statewide educational initiatives. In Rhode Island, organizations such 
as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams 
Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon 
Society, as well as countless schools and teachers, are offering 
educational and outdoor experiences that many children may never 
otherwise have, helping inspire them to learn. In partnership with the 
Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have 
developed a statewide environmental literacy plan that is now being put 
into action.
  Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge, and 
remains out of reach for too many children. With many schools being 
forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs, fewer and 
fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction 
and field investigations, however effective or in demand these programs 
are.
  The No Child Left Inside Act would increase environmental literacy 
among elementary and secondary students by encouraging and providing 
assistance to States for the development and implementation of 
environmental literacy plans and promoting professional development for 
teachers on how to integrate environmental literacy and field 
experiences into their instruction.
  The legislation would also support partnerships with high-need school 
districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education 
curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective 
practices. Finally, the legislation would support interagency 
coordination and reporting on environmental education opportunities 
across the Federal Government. This legislation has broad support among 
national and state environmental and educational groups.
  In addition to the benefits that accrue to students, business leaders 
also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is 
critical for long-term success. Indeed, according to a 2011 survey by 
the GreenBiz Group and the National Environmental Education Foundation, 
65 percent of respondents valued environmental and sustainability 
knowledge as a factor in making hiring decisions, and 68 percent 
believed that the importance of this knowledge would continue to grow 
in the future. We must ensure that our students are prepared with the 
knowledge that employers are looking for, and that increasingly 
includes environmental literacy.
  For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the 
bipartisan No Child Left Inside Act and to work together to include its 
provisions into the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. 
        Cotton):
  S. 493. A bill to reduce a portion of the annual pay of Members of 
Congress for the failure to adopt a concurrent resolution on the budget 
which does not provide for a balanced budget, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I join Senator Cassidy of Louisiana, 
Senator Gardner of Colorado, and Senator Cotton of Arkansas in 
introducing the Balanced Budget Accountability Act. By establishing the 
principle No Balanced Budget, No Pay, this legislation will bring 
fiscal responsibility to Washington. The American people deserve a 
balanced budget. Unfortunately, Washington remains unwilling to take 
the steps needed to get our country back on solid fiscal ground. The 
Balanced Budget Accountability Act reflects core principles that work: 
common sense business practices that protect hardworking taxpayers and 
making elected officials accountable for delivering results to the 
people they serve. It is what Washington needs to finally balance the 
budget.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 493

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Balanced 
     Budget Accountability Act''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Federal debt exceeds $18,000,000,000,000, continues 
     to grow rapidly, and is larger than the size of the United 
     States economy.
       (2) The Federal budget has shown an annual deficit in 45 of 
     the last 50 years.
       (3) Deficits and the Federal debt threaten to shatter 
     confidence in the Nation's economy, suppress job creation and 
     economic growth, and leave future generations of Americans 
     with a lower standard of living and fewer opportunities.
       (4) It is the duty of Members of Congress to develop and 
     implement policies, including balancing the Federal budget, 
     that encourage robust job creation and economic growth in the 
     United States.
       (5) Members of Congress should be held accountable for 
     failing to pass annual budgets that result in a balanced 
     budget.

     SEC. 2. REQUIRING ADOPTION OF BUDGET RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR 
                   BALANCED BUDGETS.

       (a) Adoption of Budget Resolution.--Each House of Congress 
     shall adopt a concurrent resolution on the budget for a 
     fiscal year which provides that, for each fiscal year for 
     which a budget is provided under the resolution (beginning 
     not later than with the budget for fiscal year 2025)--
       (1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
       (2) total outlays are not more than 18 percent of the gross 
     domestic product of the United States (as determined by the 
     Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce) 
     for such fiscal year
       (b) Certification by Congressional Budget Office.--Upon the 
     adoption by a House of Congress of a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for a fiscal year, the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall transmit to the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives or the President pro Tempore of 
     the Senate (as the case may be) a certification as to whether 
     or not that House of Congress has met the requirements of 
     subsection (a) with respect to the resolution.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2016 and each succeeding fiscal year.

     SEC. 3. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION.

       (a) Rule for Fiscal Year 2016 and 2017.--
       (1) Fiscal year 2016.--
       (A)  Holding salaries in escrow.--If the Director does not 
     certify that a House of Congress has met the requirements of 
     section 2(a) with respect to fiscal year 2016 before April 
     16, 2015, during the period described in subparagraph (B) the 
     payroll administrator of that House of Congress shall deposit 
     in an escrow account all payments otherwise required to be 
     made during such period for the compensation of Members of 
     Congress who serve in that House of Congress, and shall 
     release such payments to such Members only upon the 
     expiration of such period.
       (B) Period described.--With respect to a House of Congress, 
     the period described in this subparagraph is the period that 
     begins on April 16, 2015 and ends on the earlier of--
       (i) the date on which the Director certifies that the House 
     of Congress has met the requirements of section 2(a) with 
     respect to fiscal year 2016; or
       (ii) the last day of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

[[Page 2267]]

       (2) Fiscal year 2017.--
       (A)  Holding salaries in escrow.--If the Director does not 
     certify that a House of Congress has met the requirements of 
     section 2(a) with respect to fiscal year 2017 before April 
     16, 2016, during the period described in subparagraph (B) the 
     payroll administrator of that House of Congress shall deposit 
     in an escrow account all payments otherwise required to be 
     made during such period for the compensation of Members of 
     Congress who serve in that House of Congress, and shall 
     release such payments to such Members only upon the 
     expiration of such period.
       (B) Period described.--With respect to a House of Congress, 
     the period described in this subparagraph is the period that 
     begins on April 16, 2016 and ends on the earlier of--
       (i) the date on which the Director certifies that the House 
     of Congress has met the requirements of section 2(a) with 
     respect to fiscal year 2017; or
       (ii) the last day of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.
       (3) Withholding and remittance of amounts from payments 
     held in escrow.--The payroll administrator shall provide for 
     the same withholding and remittance with respect to a payment 
     deposited in an escrow account under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     that would apply to the payment if the payment were not 
     subject to paragraph (1) or (2).
       (4) Release of amounts at end of the congress.--In order to 
     ensure that this subsection is carried out in a manner that 
     shall not vary the compensation of Senators or 
     Representatives in violation of the twenty-seventh article of 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the 
     payroll administrator of a House of Congress shall release 
     for payments to Members of that House of Congress any amounts 
     remaining in any escrow account under this section on the 
     last day of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.
       (5) Role of secretary of the treasury.--The Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall provide the payroll administrators of the 
     Houses of Congress with such assistance as may be necessary 
     to enable the payroll administrators to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (6) Payroll administrator defined.--In this subsection, the 
     ``payroll administrator'' of a House of Congress means--
       (A) in the case of the House of Representatives, the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, or an 
     employee of the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer 
     who is designated by the Chief Administrative Officer to 
     carry out this section; and
       (B) in the case of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate, 
     or an employee of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate 
     who is designated by the Secretary to carry out this section.
       (b) Rule for Fiscal Year 2018 and Subsequent Fiscal 
     Years.--If the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     does not certify that a House of Congress has met the 
     requirements of section 2(a) with respect to fiscal year 
     2018, or any fiscal year thereafter, before April 16 of the 
     fiscal year before such fiscal year, during pay periods which 
     occur in the same calendar year after that date each Member 
     of that House shall be paid at an annual rate of pay equal to 
     $1.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office; and
       (2) the term ``Member'' includes a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to Congress.

     SEC. 4. SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR INCREASING REVENUE.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, a bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     conference report, or amendment between the Houses that 
     increases revenue shall only be agreed to upon an affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of that House of Congress 
     duly chosen and sworn.
       (b) Rules of Senate and the House of Representatives.--
     Subsection (a) is enacted by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, conference report, or amendment between the Houses 
     that increases revenue, and it supersedes other rules only to 
     the extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Sullivan):
  S. 494. A bill to authorize the exploration, leasing, development, 
production, and economically feasible and prudent transportation of oil 
and gas in and from the Coastal Plain in Alaska; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague Senator 
Sullivan, to introduce a bill to open a small portion of the arctic 
coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. 
I am introducing this bill today because I strongly believe that 
whether oil and gas exploration should be conducted on a small portion 
of the coastal plain is a question for Congress; not one for unilateral 
action by Federal agency.
  The 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie within the 
non-wilderness portion of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge are North America's greatest prospect for conventional onshore 
production. When Prudhoe Bay, the largest conventional oil field in 
North America and one of the 20 largest fields in the world was 
discovered in 1968, estimates at the time projected 9.6 billion barrels 
of oil would be recovered. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to 
estimate that this part of the coastal plain has a mean likelihood of 
containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 
16 billion barrels of oil. With potential comparable to Prudhoe Bay, 
the coastal plain represents an opportunity to ensure the American 
energy renaissance continues and our domestic energy security is 
bolstered for decades to come.
  Alaska used to provide that foundation for our country. At its peak 
in 1988, Alaska provided nearly 25 percent of America's domestic 
production. Today it represents barely 6 percent. Importantly, despite 
the Federal government owning almost 70 percent of the lands in Alaska, 
almost all of our oil production is from State lands. The people of 
Alaska are doing everything they can to contribute to America's energy 
security by promoting production from State lands. In the past two 
years the State of Alaska has passed oil tax reforms, improved State 
permitting and provided more than $1.2 billion in State tax credits to 
support the exploration and development of oil from State lands. The 
only production on federal estate comes from the Northstar project, a 
small man-made island that straddles state and federal waters in the 
Beaufort Sea.
  For more than 30 years, my State has successfully balanced resource 
development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over 
and over again, that these endeavors are not mutually exclusive, and 
with advances in technology, the footprint of development projects is 
only getting smaller. Yet at the Federal level, there is an astonishing 
refusal to acknowledge the record.
  With new exploration and development projects on Federal lands 
stalled or outright blocked, Alaska faces a tipping point. The Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System, an engineering marvel that has served as one of 
America's great energy arteries for decades is facing more and more 
challenges from lower throughput. A closure of TAPS would shut down all 
northern Alaska oil production, devastating Alaska's economy and 
deepening our dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world. 
Exploration and development in the Arctic offshore and National 
Petroleum Reserve Alaska depend on the long-term viability of the 
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.
  The bill I introduce today, would disturb no more than 2,000 acres of 
the vast coastal plain. To put this in perspective, 2,000 acres is less 
than \1/6\ the size of the local Dulles Airport, or about \1/10\ of 1 
percent of the refuge. Since these areas are less than 60 miles from 
TAPS, development in the Coastal Plain is the quickest, most 
environmentally sound way to increase oil production in Alaska and 
ensure the pipeline will operate well into the future, providing jobs 
and supporting the economies of both Alaska and the United States.
  The bill includes strong protection for fish and wildlife, fish and 
wildlife habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment. 
Development would not move forward if it would cause significant 
adverse impacts to the coastal plain. The bill also ensures these 
protections are strong because it provides for strict consultation with 
the residents of the coastal plain; the City of

[[Page 2268]]

Kaktovik as well as the regional government, the North Slope Borough. 
The bill also provides important impact aid to the local communities 
from the State's share of revenues due to it under the Mineral Leasing 
Act and Alaska's Statehood Act.
  As we continue to struggle with long-term unemployment, and an 
unsustainable national debt, we need to pursue development 
opportunities more than ever. The shale oil and gas boom on 2 state and 
private lands in the Lower 48 has been the shining light as our economy 
struggles to recover from the recession. My bill offers us a chance to 
produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in 
an environmentally-friendly way and with the meaningful impact of the 
local people.
  For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support 
development of the coastal plain, have been asking permission to 
explore and develop the resources located there. Consistent with the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, the state of 
Alaska recently submitted a plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
to conduct minimal exploration activities in the coastal plain and was 
rejected. Despite the fact that the State was in court presenting its 
case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released an updated Plan for 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that puts areas like the Coastal 
Plain in de facto wilderness status as Wilderness Study Areas.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states that they did not consider 
an oil and gas alternative, as requested by the State of Alaska, North 
Slope Borough, various Alaska Native Regional and Village Corporations 
as well as a broad spectrum of Alaskans, because they stated that the 
decision to conduct oil and gas development is one for Congress to 
make. I hope this Congress will rise to that challenge and have the 
common sense to allow America to help itself by developing a small 
portion of the coastal plain. This is critical to my State and the 
nation as a whole and one more step we can take to push back against 
the unilateral executive actions that are threatening our economy and 
very system of government.
  With this in mind, Senator Sullivan and I will work to educate 
members of this chamber about the opportunity we have and the 
tremendous benefits it would provide. We will show why such development 
should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit all of us and 
help secure our energy security for decades to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter, 
        Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
        Isakson, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Moran, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Risch, Mrs. Fischer, and Mr. Daines):
  S. 498. A bill to allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain 
concealed firearms; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 498

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Constitutional Concealed 
     Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED 
                   FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain 
       concealed firearms

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law 
     of any State or political subdivision thereof to the 
     contrary--
       ``(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law 
     from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a 
     firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic 
     identification document and a valid license or permit which 
     is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits 
     the individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or 
     carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or 
     destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in 
     interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the 
     State of residence of the individual that--
       ``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to 
     obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
       ``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms 
     by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and
       ``(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law 
     from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a 
     firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic 
     identification document and is entitled and not prohibited 
     from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the 
     individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph 
     (1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a 
     machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or 
     transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State 
     other than the State of residence of the individual that--
       ``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to 
     obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
       ``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms 
     by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
       ``(b) Conditions and Limitations.--The possession or 
     carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section 
     shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, 
     except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or 
     under Federal or State law or the law of a political 
     subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or 
     carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or 
     political subdivision who are licensed by the State or 
     political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the 
     State from doing so.
       ``(c) Unrestricted License or Permit.--In a State that 
     allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry 
     concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of 
     firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, 
     an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section 
     shall be permitted to carry a concealed handgun according to 
     the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or 
     permit issued to a resident of the State.
       ``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to preempt any provision of State law with 
     respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry 
     concealed firearms.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 926C the following:

``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.

       (c) Severability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, if any provision of this Act, or any amendment made 
     by this Act, or the application of such provision or 
     amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be 
     unconstitutional, this Act and amendments made by this Act 
     and the application of such provision or amendment to other 
     persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Flake, Mr. Booker, Mr. Paul, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Coons):
  S. 502. A bill to focus limited Federal resources on the most serious 
offenders; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Smarter 
Sentencing Act, which I believe is a very critical piece of 
legislation.
  I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation in this 
Congress, and I thank the bipartisan coalition of Senators who have 
come together, led by Senator Mike Lee from Utah and Senator Dick 
Durbin from Illinois. Their leadership on this issue has been 
absolutely critical.
  The Smarter Sentencing Act has essential front-end reforms. These are 
reforms for when a person gets to the point of incarceration. What they 
actually do is combat injustices in the Federal sentencing program. 
They address a real plague in our country; that is, mass incarceration.
  Think about this: We are the land of the free. We are a nation that 
believes in liberty and justice. But we are singular in humanity for an 
awful distinction: We have 5 percent of the globe's population but we 
incarcerate 25 percent of the globe's incarcerated people. That is 
unacceptable unless you believe for some reason that Americans have a 
higher proclivity for crime, unless you

[[Page 2269]]

believe we have something in our water that makes us more likely to do 
wrong, and that is not the case.
  The challenge is that we have seen in the past three decades a 
profound over-incarceration driven by a drug war that has created 
unfortunate negative consequences to our society. I thank Members of 
Congress for stepping up in this Congress to speak to this issue. It is 
un-American that we should hold the largest amount of incarcerated 
people per population than any other country. It goes against the very 
strains of our society dedicated to liberty, dedicated to keeping 
government focused on what it should be doing, not overreaching, not 
becoming overly aggressive, not surrendering or taking the liberty 
unnecessarily of other Americans.
  I would like to talk for a few minutes about this broken system. What 
is broken in our criminal justice system? Well, when about three-
quarters of our Federal prisoners are actually nonviolent offenders--I 
am actually one of those people who believe that if you do a violent 
crime, you should pay a very hefty price for that, that we as a society 
should have a place where we take stern action against people who 
promulgate violence, who undermine civil society. But as we look at 
this mass-incarceration problem where 25 percent of the globe's prison 
population is in our country, we realize that three-quarters of those 
people in the Federal prison system are nonviolent offenders.
  This is not our history. This is not our tradition. Over the course 
of all of our Nation's history, we did not have this problem. It has 
really been the last 30 years where we have witnessed the explosion in 
the U.S. Federal prison population. In those 30 years alone--think 
about this--in the last 30 years alone, the prison population at the 
Federal level has expanded by nearly 800 percent. That is a massive and 
unacceptable increase, especially when you realize this was driven by 
the incarceration of nonviolent offenders.
  This expansion of our prison population had a harmful effect when 
those people were released because once someone has a nonviolent felony 
offense, it is hard to get a job, it is hard to get business licenses, 
and they cannot get Pell grants. Often those people get caught up and 
go back to being involved in the drug war. So what happens is that two 
out of three of those people get rearrested within 3 years.
  We are paying for this broken system, this revolving door of 
arresting nonviolent offenders, releasing them, and bringing them back 
into our system. It is plaguing the Federal budget and, frankly, State 
budgets all around our country. Each year more than one-quarter of a 
trillion dollars is being spent on this broken criminal justice 
system--money that could be used to empower people to succeed, to 
repair our infrastructure, or, how about this, it could stay in 
taxpayers' pockets.
  What makes this system worse is that it undermines our American 
ideals. As I look across the way from the Capitol Building where I 
stand now and see the Supreme Court, written above the Supreme Court 
building, at the top, is this ideal of equal justice under law. The 
ideal that everyone will be treated equally under the law. But this 
broken criminal justice system has disproportionately impacted certain 
Americans and not others, which undermines America's core values of 
fairness and equal treatment for all.
  More than 60 percent of our prison system is comprised of racial and 
ethnic minorities. The painful reality is that if somehow African 
Americans or Latinos used drugs at different levels than Whites, that 
might explain the disparate impact. If they dealt drugs at different 
levels, yes, that might explain it. But that is not the case. African 
Americans engage in drug offenses at a lower rate than Whites but are 
incarcerated at a rate 10 times that of Whites.
  What is alarming about the mass incarceration is that people are 
actually not committing more and more crimes. The National Research 
Council recently released a report confirming what numerous other 
studies have actually shown: Incarceration rates are actually not tied 
to crime rates. We have seen incarceration rates going up and up, but 
now crime rates are coming down.
  What is perpetuating this explosion of our prison population? It is 
the war on drugs that has created over the last 30 years alone an over-
criminalization of nonviolent individuals, which stacked our prison 
population full of Americans, disproportionately minority and 
disproportionately poor.
  Please understand that the people paying the highest price for this 
are the poor in our country. The New York Times yesterday published an 
article detailing how our jails have become warehouses made up 
primarily of people too poor to pay bail or to hire lawyers or too ill 
with mental health or drug problems to adequately care for themselves. 
If you look at our prison population, you will see that poverty, race, 
mental illness--those are the folks who are being disproportionately 
incarcerated.
  If we follow our core ideals of fairness, democracy, and justice--
then we know that mass incarceration is not who we are. That is not 
right. That the times demand that we examine this broken system and do 
those commonsense things that are needed to make our justice system 
just, to work first and foremost for our safety, to not be a gross 
waste of taxpayer dollars, and to make sure basic ideas of fairness are 
fulfilled.
  This is not just speculation. And what is so powerful about this 
moment in time, even though all I have said so far is compelling 
enough, is that we as Federal actors--the 100 Senators here, the 435 
Congress men and women, the President and the Vice President--don't 
need to figure out a way forward, make it up, design legislation based 
on our own ideas. We actually only have to look at the pathway forward 
by looking at Governors and legislatures in the States. They are so 
burdened by the costs of this unruly system, a system that is now 
plaguing--the Federal Bureau of Prisons is plaguing our country with 
its cost. What the States are doing to bear that cost is they are 
finding pragmatic, commonsense, bipartisan ways to move forward.
  In fact, what gets me excited as a Democrat is that we just have to 
look at the red States and what the red States are doing to reduce 
their prison populations. Let me give an example. States such as Texas, 
Georgia, and North Carolina are leading on this issue, and the Federal 
Government should follow.
  Texas is a State known for law and order, and known for being tough 
on crime. Yet Texans realize that being smart on crime means saving 
taxpayer dollars, using that money efficiently and effectively, 
lowering crime, and guess what, hey, we can also lower our prison 
population and empower people to be successful in life and not slip 
down that slope back toward recidivism. They have made tremendous 
strides in Texas in adopting policies that are designed to reduce their 
prison population and lower recidivism.
  In 2007, Texas boasted the fourth largest incarceration rate in the 
country. Faced with a budget projection that estimated by 2012 the 
State would need an additional 17,000 prison beds--think about that for 
a second. They saw that they were going to need to build more prisons, 
house 17,000 more prison beds, and it was going to cost them $2 billion 
in Texas. The State's legislature said: Enough of this madness. Enough 
of this craziness.
  They enacted bold reforms that would act as a model for us in the 
Federal legislature. As a result, they passed this broad-based 
legislation. Texas was able to stabilize their prison population and 
avert that budgetary disaster.
  Texas State Representative Jerry Madden, a Republican, noted in a 
recent hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations that the crime rate is 
now at 1968 levels. They were able to close three prisons and six 
juvenile facilities, and remarkably the Texas prison system is now 
operating at a 96-percent capacity. Commonsense reforms.
  Georgia is another State. They have made remarkable progress. They 
are showing that reducing the prison population can lead to dividends 
for taxpayers, and can lower crime. In fact,

[[Page 2270]]

over the past 5 years, in terms of the racial disparities in 
incarceration, Georgia has reduced the number of Black men incarcerated 
in the State by 20 percent. And they haven't seen crime go up--quite 
the contrary. They have seen it go down.
  These States are proving that they don't have to lock up more people 
to create that safety we desire. States such as New Jersey, Texas, 
California, Virginia, Hawaii, Wyoming, Massachusetts, Kentucky, 
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Colorado, New York, South Carolina, Alaska, 
and Georgia have all seen drops in crime rates as they have been 
implementing commonsense criminal justice reform.
  So let's be clear. I am advocating for the Smarter Sentencing Act, 
but we should also be moving for bold, broad-based criminal justice 
reforms, copying the successes of red States with Republican Governors. 
We should be looking at their innovations and following their 
commonsense solutions and mirroring their success at the Federal level.
  I am speaking of reforms at the front end when people get arrested; 
reforms behind the wall--inside the prison system to address what goes 
on in prison and helping these people, and reforms on the back end when 
they come out of prison, to ensure they stay out of prison.
  Front-end reforms going on around our country are exciting, such as 
sentencing reform. What about radical ideas such as letting judges make 
decisions about sentencing and stop trying to legislate it? Judges are 
the experts. They know of the brutality of a person's circumstances. 
They can design sentences.
  These policy initiatives should address the entire system. Behind-
the-wall efforts should focus on initiatives to change the way 
prisoners experience life behind bars. To get treatment and job 
training so they don't commit future crimes. This is commonsense stuff. 
We shouldn't send people to prison and have them become criminalized or 
undermine their ability to be successful adults when they come out.
  We should also focus on that back end, this idea that we need reentry 
policies to help people get jobs, reconnect with their families, and 
become strong, full-fledged American citizens. I am speaking of things 
such as parole reform.
  To move forward we need to think big. This is what I will be 
advocating for. We can tackle this by taking a systemic approach. We 
must look at a broad-based reform agenda.
  I love the fact that we have conservatives and liberals united on 
this issue--Republicans and Democrats, red Staters and blue Staters. 
Criminal justice reform is not a partisan issue, it is an American 
issue.
  In 2010, Senators on both sides of the aisle came together to improve 
our justice system by passing the Fair Sentencing Act, which the 
President signed into law. This was a bipartisan piece of legislation 
that reduced the sentencing disparities between crack and powder 
cocaine--drugs that are pharmacologically indistinguishable. They 
changed it from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1, and I thank Senators Durbin, 
Grassley, Leahy, and Graham for their leadership on this issue.
  Last year I joined with Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. I don't know 
how many sentences are used by people that contain the names Cory 
Booker and Rand Paul in them, but we agree on this issue. We have 
common ground, and we introduced the REDEEM Act. This legislation aims 
to keep juveniles out of the criminal justice system. We looked to stop 
acts that many other countries consider torture, such as taking 
juveniles and routinely putting them into solitary confinement where 
they are traumatized and often come out of those circumstances more 
likely to do harm to themselves or others. We are going to reintroduce 
that bill this year.
  Just last month I sat on a criminal justice reform panel right here 
in the Halls of the Senate, hosted by Van Jones on the left and Newt 
Gingrich on the right. In the last few months I have talked to Grover 
Norquist, I have talked to the Koch brothers' representative, their 
chief counsel, and I have talked to conservative think tanks and 
Christian evangelicals. All of us agree on this issue. This chorus of 
voices, this coalition, this courageous commitment to our country's 
ideals lets us know that whether you consider yourself a liberal or a 
conservative, whether you consider yourself moderate leaning, left or 
right, this is an area we can agree on. It will save taxpayer money, 
uphold our ideals of liberty and freedom, create safer communities, and 
empower individuals to be successful.
  Today I am excited to have joined with Senators Lee, Durbin, Leahy, 
and Cruz to support the Smarter Sentencing Act. We need to have this 
conversation about reducing Federal mandatory minimums. In fact, I love 
that the Urban Institute has stated that mandatory minimums for drug 
offenses is the single largest factor in the growth of the Federal 
prison population.
  Let me repeat that. Mandatory minimums for drug offenses are the 
single largest factor in the growth of the Federal prison population. A 
key factor in that 800-percent growth in the last 30 years has been 
driven by nonviolent drug offenders and mandatory minimums.
  This bill also would do other things. It would expand the Federal 
safety valve, giving judges greater discretion and allowing them to 
hand out their sentences. Those people who believe in separation of 
powers, let the judiciary have more space to hand down fairer sentences 
and not shackle them with laws made by legislators who don't know the 
particulars of a case. Many Federal judges have spoken out about 
mandatory minimums being unnecessarily restrictive for them in doing 
their job.
  The bill would also make the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, which 
would allow persons convicted under the old crack-powder cocaine 
disparity to now receive a fairer sentence. With the crack-cocaine law 
changed in 2010, an individual arrested today would receive a lesser 
sentence. So making this law retroactive to impact people sentenced for 
crack cocaine offenses prior to 2010 is only fair.
  This bill could save a lot of money--hundreds of millions of dollars. 
It would give us some freedom not only to return some toward debt 
relief for this country--Lord knows we need to focus on that--but also 
to invest in other programs many people on both sides of the aisle 
support, such as reentry programs to help people stay out of prison and 
get back to a productive lifestyle. If enacted into law as the bill is 
currently scored, it would save $3 billion over the next decade alone. 
This is critically important.
  So this is a call to the conscience of the Congress. Every single day 
we pledge allegiance to our flag. That is not something anybody in this 
Chamber does as sort of a routine, perfunctory salute. We say those 
words because they mean something, and we end with this ideal that is a 
light to all of humanity--this ideal of liberty and justice for all.
  If we mean those words, then that, across the board, is what we 
should be pursuing in this body. We know in our country States are 
doing things to further uphold these ideals, that they are making 
commonsense reforms that are keeping people safe and lowering crime, 
commonsense reforms that are saving taxpayer dollars and relieving the 
burden on taxpayers and budgets, that they are passing reforms that 
liberate people from the shackles of an imprisonment that is 
unnecessary, that is directly addressing the painful disparities of 
race and poverty, and that it is empowering Americans, our brothers and 
sisters. In all of our holy texts it talks about the dignity of all 
people, whether they are behind bars or on our streets, the dignity of 
worth that empowers people to be successful, to have life and liberty 
and to pursue their happiness.
  So I say I support reforming our criminal justice system. More 
importantly, I say let's support our ideals. Let's be a nation of 
liberty and justice for all. Let's follow the lead of courageous 
governors and legislatures and let's make this Nation even better than 
it is today. I urge all Senators to promptly pass the Smarter 
Sentencing Act through the Senate.

[[Page 2271]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch, Mr. Merkley, Mr. 
        Udall, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mr. Tester):
  S. 517. A bill to extend the secure rural schools and community self-
determination program, to restore mandatory funding status to the 
payment in lieu of taxes program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Secure 
Rural Schools and Payment in Lieu of Taxes Repair Act with my colleague 
Senator Crapo. The bill will ensure that counties across the nation 
will have three more years of Secure Rural Schools, SRS, payments. 
Additionally, the bill would restore mandatory funding for Payment in 
Lieu of Taxes, PILT.
  Because Congress failed to take action to reauthorize SRS before the 
end of the 113th Congress, counties across the country received SRS 
payments this week that represent a fraction of last year's payment, 
leaving counties struggling to find ways to fund schools, roads, and 
emergency services this year. Without certainty and stability, counties 
will be forced to make cuts to essential services, leaving residents 
and communities reeling. County payments are a lifeline for cash-
strapped rural communities that are already facing shortfalls to pave 
roads, keep teachers in schools and firefighters on call. This 
bipartisan bill keeps up the commitment the government made to support 
rural counties in Oregon and across the country. I am glad to once 
again partner with Senator Crapo to get this vital legislation across 
the finish line.
  Right now, this bill is not funded. It will be. Senator Crapo and I 
will work with our colleagues to find funding for these important 
programs that is satisfactory to the left and to the right.
  Funding for counties is an issue that impacts almost every State in 
the country. As Congress considers this bill, I ask my colleagues to 
talk to county leaders in their home states, visit local communities 
struggling to fund critical services, and find out how SRS and PILT 
impact their budgets, their priorities, and their quality of life. 
Rural communities deserve better than to have politics delay funding 
for SRS, so I urge my colleagues to join Senator Crapo and me in our 
efforts to reauthorize this critical program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN:
  S. 518. A bill to require States to establish highway stormwater 
management programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the 
introduction of my latest legislative proposal to better control the 
harmful and volumes of polluted stormwater that is generated from our 
Nation's Federal aid highways. Highway stormwater is a growing threat 
to water quality, aquatic ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that 
depend on the health of these ecosystems. Moreover, the high volumes 
and rapid flow of stormwater runoff from highways and roads poses a 
very serious threat to the condition of our Nation's water and 
transportation infrastructure as well as personal property particularly 
in urban and suburban communities.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that pollution 
from point sources have been steadily declining since the enactment of 
the Clean Water Act. Likewise, we have seen reductions in pollution 
from certain non-point sources like agriculture which are attributable 
in part to the success of a wide variety of USDA Natural Resource 
Conservation Service Programs and farming innovations in soil 
conservation and nutrient pollution management.
  One non-point source sector where we are unfortunately seeing an 
increasing impact on water quality is from impervious surface that 
create rapidly moving high volumes of untreated polluted stormwater 
that rush off of road surfaces, erode unnatural channels next to and 
ultimately underneath roadways comprising the integrity of roadway 
infrastructure, and increases the stress on storm sewer systems 
shortening the useful life of this infrastructure and ultimately lead 
to the discharge of untreated pollution that is carried off roadways 
and into our lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters.
  Impervious surfaces include most buildings and structures, parking 
lots and of course the nearly 9 million lane miles of roads across our 
country. The total coverage of impervious surfaces in an area is 
usually expressed as a percentage of the total land area.
  The coverage increases with rising urbanization. In rural areas, 
impervious cover may only be 1 percent or 2 percent, however road 
surfaces comprise 80 percent-90 percent of a rural area's total 
impervious surfaces. In residential areas, impervious surface coverage 
ranges between 10 percent in low-density subdivisions to over 50 
percent in more densely developed communities, where the composition of 
the impervious surface area coverage works out to be 50 percent roads. 
In dense urban areas, the impervious surface area is often over 90 
percent the total land area, with roads comprising 60 percent-70 
percent of that coverage.
  According to EPA, urban impervious cover, not just roads, in the 
lower 48 adds up to 43,000 square miles--an area roughly the size of 
Ohio. Continuing development adds another quarter of a million acres 
each year. Typically two-thirds of the cover is pavement, roads and 
parking lots, and \1/3\ is buildings.
  According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, impervious surfaces compose 
roughly 17 percent of all urban and suburban lands in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. The greatest concentration of impervious surfaces in the 
bay watershed is in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Areas of DC, 
Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia Tidewater area, Philadelphia's 
western suburbs, and Lancaster, PA, are also regions in the watershed 
where impervious surfaces are greater than 10 percent of the total land 
area.
  Rainfall on hard surfaces like roads and highways has a very 
destructive and turbulent affect on nearby waterways and 
infrastructure. For example, the rain events that occur over a week 
long period at the end of April brought nearly 8 inches of rain to the 
Baltimore-Washington region. The urban runoff from roads in Baltimore 
caused an embankment above the CSX railroad track along East 26th 
Street, between St. Paul and Charles Street, to collapse. Fortunately 
no one was injured though homes had to be evacuated for more than a 
month, nearly a dozen parked cars were destroyed and moreover movement 
of freight along CSX railroad was disrupted for more than a week. This 
event shows just how destructive and disruptive poorly managed 
stormwater from transportation infrastructure can be.
  Some may chalk this up to a freak storm of unusually large 
proportion. It's true this storm was unusual, but so were the polar 
vortexes and all of the snow New England and Buffalo received this 
winter, and 2013's 3-mile wide tornado in Alabama, the ongoing drought 
in California. ``Unusual'' weather seems to becoming a lot more usual. 
As extreme weather events triggered by our changing climate become more 
frequent it is imperative that we incorporate better designs into our 
infrastructure to be better handle these types of events.
  Under the Clean Water Act, stormwater is considered a non-point 
source and there are no requirements that stormwater be collected or 
treated. The exception being for localities where in order to meet the 
standards set in an MS4, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, permit 
a region may include its transportation infrastructure in its MS4 
permit.
  However, in most cases stormwater that falls on roadways washes oil, 
grease, asbestos brake-dust, nitrogen deposits from tailpipe emissions, 
trash, road salt and de-icing agents, and sediment into nearby 
waterways. Highway stormwater runoff is most often not treated or 
adequately managed.
  While these organic and inorganic contaminants are legitimate threats 
to water quality, the greater concern with roadway runoff is the sheer 
volume and rapid flow rate in which stormwater leaves these hard 
surfaces and enters

[[Page 2272]]

our waterways. Flows and volumes that cause roads to collapse in 
Baltimore.
  Roads are designed for stormwater to flow off of the driving surface 
quickly, for safety reasons. When stormwater rushes off of road 
surfaces into storm drains it is usually piped straight into the 
nearest river or stream without removing contaminants, detaining any of 
the volume, or slowing down the flow. This creates an enormously 
destructive set of circumstances for our waterways.
  Another example of the destructive force that persistent unmitigated 
and poorly managed highway runoff can have on the condition and safety 
of highway infrastructure is in Mobile Alabama along Highway 131 in the 
Joe's Branch Watershed. The Mobile Bay Estuary Program, part of the 
National Estuaries Program, in coordination with Alabama Department of 
Transportation is having to spent millions of dollars to reinforce a 
highway embankment to keep the highway from slipping down a hill and 
into the Joe's Branch Creek, restore the hydrology of the river, and 
help protect private property from the dangerous erosion that's been 
caused by poorly managed stormwater from Highway 131.
  The Mobile Bay Estuary Program described the problem this way: ``In 
the Joe's Branch watershed, on the property of Westminster Village 
adjacent and parallel to Highway 131, a head cut stream is eroding at 
an accelerating rate, an ominous condition as ALDOT prepares to 
undertake improvements to the highway. Identified as a high priority 
stabilization area in the D'Olive Creek, Tiawasee Creek and Joe's 
Branch Watershed Management Plan, MBNEP has submitted a funding request 
to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management on behalf of its 
partners in Spanish Fort, Daphne, ALDOT and Westminster Village to 
undertake restoration of the stream using a cutting-edge technology 
called Regenerative Step Pool Storm Conveyance.''
  The four entities involved are spending large amount money to repair 
a problem caused by stormwater damage that could have been prevented at 
a lower cost by incorporating better stormwater mitigation facilities 
into the design of the highway.
  These high-volume/high-speed flows also hasten the deterioration of 
water infrastructure. A 2001 study on the erosive power of urban 
stormwater flows examined how excessive stormwater volumes and flow 
rates off of urban surface infrastructure caused more than $1 million 
in roadway and water infrastructure damage in the Cincinnati 
metropolitan areas in Ohio and Kentucky in a single year.
  While there are serious water quality concerns with not adequately 
controlling roadway infrastructure runoff, there are serious 
infrastructure costs, that are ultimately passed on to taxpayers and 
ratepayers, that can be avoided if transportation authorities do more 
to control and manage stormwater runoff with the infrastructure assets 
they manage and build.
  The increased incidence of flash flooding events that occur even 
during seemingly mild and routine storm events is a direct result of 
the growing percentage of impervious land cover in urban and suburban 
communities. Replacement of the ``greenscapes'' that are lost to 
pavement is essential to restoring hydrological balance to our urban 
and suburban communities and impaired watersheds.
  According to USGS: an inch of rain on one square foot of pavement 
produces 1.87 gallons of stormwater, Scaled up, 1 inch of rain on one 
acre would produce 27,150 gallons of stormwater. Using FHWA design 
standards for interstate highway lane and shoulder widths, 12 feet per 
lane, 10 foot right shoulder, 2x, 4 foot left shoulder, 2x, 10 miles of 
a four lane interstate highway generates nearly 2.5 million gallons of 
polluted stormwater for every inch of rain. To put that into 
perspective for the Potomac and Anacostia River Watersheds: The Capital 
Beltway, not including its 48 interchanges, generates nearly 30 
million, 29,920,946, gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of 
rain that falls on the 64 mile 8 to 12 lane interstate highway loop. It 
is volumes of stormwater like that which cause dangerous streambank 
erosion.
  Gillies Creek is an urban waterway located East of Downtown Richmond. 
It is a tributary of the James River which flows into the Chesapeake 
Bay. Gillies Creek is surrounded by industrial and residential 
development and also receives stormwater from State highway 33, 
Interstate 64, US 60, and hundreds of city streets including Stony Run 
Parkway which directly adjacent to the creek for several miles. The 
banks and bed of this creek have eroded so badly as urban development 
around the creek has added more impervious surfaces to the watershed 
that streambed sheering has created cliffs more than 10 feet tall at 
spots along the creek. Trees supporting the bank continually fall into 
the creek and nearby roadways and other infrastructure as well as homes 
and business are at risk. Reducing the impacts of the storms by 
mitigating the flow and volume of stormwater in this watershed will 
protect against further erosion and save the cost of repair and 
eventual replacement of the assets located along this endangered creek.
  The aim of this legislation is to improve highway designs to better 
manage stormwater to avoid the costly damage that poorly managed 
stormwater causes to infrastructure and nearby streams, rivers and 
coastal waters.
  I held a hearing on this issue in the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee 
on May 13, 2014. I heard many ideas from both the minority and majority 
witnesses that were invited to present testimony at this hearing. I 
listened to the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and I have incorporated provisions into this bill that should 
alleviate concerns they may have had with previous attempts to better 
control highway stormwater.
  My bill's approach to highway runoff management is one that I hope my 
colleagues of both parties can support. First of all it put States in 
the driver's seat for developing hydrological analysis and 
implementation of best management practices to control highway runoff. 
The objective of the legislation is to control and manage flow and 
volume of stormwater from highways not to treat runoff in order to meet 
water quality standards. By taking this sort of approach we avoid EPA's 
involvement in the process. Lastly, States would only need to apply 
these procedures to new construction on major reconfiguration projects 
that significantly increases the amount of impervious surface in the 
project area.
  Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a 
significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the 
environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of 
``context sensitive solutions.'' In 2008, the Government Accountability 
Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that needed 
to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. 
That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy 
and the environment. With 985,139 miles of federal aid highways 
stretching from every corner of the US, polluted highway runoff is no 
small problem facing our Nation's waters. I would urge my colleagues to 
join me trying to address this problem facing America's waterways and 
infrastructure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 518

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Runoff Management 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY RUNOFF MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 330. Federal-aid highway runoff management program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Covered project.--The term `covered project' means a 
     reconstruction, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, renovation, 
     major resurfacing, or new construction project on a

[[Page 2273]]

     Federal-aid highway carried out under this title that results 
     in--
       ``(A) a 10-percent or greater increase in impervious 
     surface of the aerial extent within the right-of-way of the 
     project limit on a Federal-aid highway or associated 
     facility; or
       ``(B) an increase of 1 acre or more in impervious surface 
     coverage.
       ``(2) Erosive force.--The term `erosive force' means the 
     flowrate within a stream or channel in which channel bed or 
     bank material becomes detached, which in most cases is less 
     than or equal to the flowrate produced by the 2-year storm 
     event.
       ``(3) Highway runoff.--The term `highway runoff ', with 
     respect to a Federal-aid highway, associated facility, or 
     management measure retrofit project, means a discharge of 
     peak flow rate or volume of runoff that exceeds flows 
     generated under preproject conditions.
       ``(4) Impacted hydrology.--The term `impacted hydrology' 
     means stormwater runoff generated from all areas within the 
     site limits of a covered project.
       ``(5) Management measure.--The term `management measure' 
     means a program, structural or nonstructural management 
     practice, operational procedure, or policy on or off the 
     project site that is intended to prevent, reduce, or control 
     highway runoff.
       ``(b) State Highway Stormwater Management Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, each State shall--
       ``(A) develop a process for analyzing the erosive force of 
     highway runoff generated from covered projects; and
       ``(B) apply management measures to maintain or restore 
     impacted hydrology associated with highway runoff from 
     covered projects.
       ``(2) Inclusions.--The management measures established 
     under paragraph (1) may include, as the State determines to 
     be appropriate, management measures that--
       ``(A) minimize the erosive force of highway runoff from a 
     covered project on a channel bed or bank of receiving water 
     by managing highway runoff within the area of the covered 
     project;
       ``(B) manage impacted hydrology in such a manner that the 
     highway runoff generated by a covered project is below the 
     erosive force flow and volume;
       ``(C) to the maximum extent practicable, seek to address 
     the impact of the erosive force of hydrologic events that 
     have the potential to create or exacerbate downstream channel 
     erosion, including excess pier and abutment scour at bridges 
     and channel downcutting and bank failure of streams adjacent 
     to highway embankments;
       ``(D) ensure that the highway runoff from the post-
     construction condition does not increase the risk of channel 
     erosion relative to the preproject condition; and
       ``(E) employ simplified approaches to determining the 
     erosive force of highway runoff generated from covered 
     projects, such as a regionalized analysis of streams within a 
     State.
       ``(c) Guidance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall 
     publish guidance to assist States in carrying out this 
     section.
       ``(2) Contents of guidance.--The guidance shall include 
     guidelines and technical assistance for the establishment of 
     State management measures that will be used to assist in 
     avoiding, minimizing, and managing highway runoff from 
     covered projects, including guidelines to help States 
     integrate the planning, selection, design, and long-term 
     operation and maintenance of management measures consistent 
     with the design standards in the overall project planning 
     process.
       ``(3) Approval.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall--
       ``(A) review the management measures program of each State; 
     and
       ``(B) approve such a program, if the program meets the 
     requirements of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Updates.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     publication of the guidance under this subsection, and not 
     less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter--
       ``(A) the Secretary, in consultation with the heads of 
     other relevant Federal agencies, shall update the guidance, 
     as applicable; and
       ``(B) each State, as applicable, shall update the 
     management measures program of the State in accordance with 
     the updated guidance.
       ``(d) Reporting.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)(A), 
     each State shall submit to the Secretary an annual report 
     that describes the activities carried out under the highway 
     stormwater management program of the State, including a 
     description of any reductions of stormwater runoff achieved 
     as a result of covered projects carried out by the State 
     after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Reporting requirements under permit.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State shall not be required to submit 
     an annual report described in paragraph (1) if the State--
       ``(i) is operating Federal-aid highways in the State in a 
     post-construction condition in accordance with a permit 
     issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
       ``(ii) is subject to an annual reporting requirement under 
     such a permit (regardless of whether the permitting authority 
     is a Federal or State agency); and
       ``(iii) carries out a covered project with respect to a 
     Federal-aid highway in the State described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Transmission of report.--A Federal or State 
     permitting authority that receives an annual report described 
     in subparagraph (A)(ii) shall, on receipt of such a report, 
     transmit a copy of the report to the Secretary.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``330. Federal-aid highway runoff management program.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Coons, Mr. Carper, 
        and Mr. Warner):
  S. 519. A bill to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 
permanently reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails 
Network; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, authorized under P.L. 105-312 in 1998 and 
reauthorized by P.L. 107-308 in 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network helps several million visitors and residents 
discover, enjoy, and learn about the special places and stories of the 
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Today, I am introducing legislation 
to permanently authorize this successful 17-year-old program.
  For visitors and residents, the Gateways are the ``Chesapeake 
connection.'' The network members provide an experience of such high 
quality that visitors indeed connect to the Chesapeake emotionally as 
well as intellectually, and thus to the Bay's conservation. Through 
more than 160 of these sites, the Gateways Network partner sites and 
water trails enable visitors to experience the authentic Chesapeake.
  The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. The Chesapeake ranks as 
the largest of America's 130 estuaries and one of the Nation's largest 
and longest fresh water and estuarine systems. The Atlantic Ocean 
delivers half the bay's 18 trillion gallons of water and the other half 
flows through over 150 major rivers and streams draining 64,000 square 
miles within 6 states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake 
watershed is among the most significant cultural, natural and 
historical assets of our Nation.
  The Chesapeake is enormously vast and diverse--to the extent that it 
is impossible to experience all the culture, history and natural beauty 
in any one place. That is why the gateways program is designed to 
connect and use the scores of existing public resources to collaborate 
on presenting the many chapters and tales of the bay's story. Visitors 
and residents go to more places for more experiences, all through a 
coordinated Gateways Network.
  Beyond simply coordinating the network, publishing a map and guides, 
and providing standard exhibits at all Gateways, the National Park 
Service has helped gateways with matching grants and expertise for 
several hundred high-quality projects, developing sites to provide 
fishing, boating, and viewing access to the bay and its major 
tributaries. This is a great deal for the bay--it helps network members 
tell the Chesapeake story better and inspires people to care for this 
National Treasure, in addition to supporting local, State, and national 
water trails--and it's a good deal for the Park Service. It serves all 
170+ gateways and their 10 million visitors. No other National Park can 
provide such a dramatic ratio of public dollars spent to number of 
visitors served.
  With the National Park Service's expertise and support, gateways have 
made significant progress in their mission to tell the Bay's stories to 
their millions of members and visitors, extend access to the Bay and 
its watershed, and develop a conservation awareness and ethic. It is 
time to not only reauthorize the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails 
program, but

[[Page 2274]]

make the annual $3 million reauthorization for this program permanent. 
It is my hope that the Congress will act quickly to adopt this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 519

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
     Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. PERMANENT REAUTHORIZATION.

       Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 
     (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended by 
     striking ``for'' and all that follows through the period at 
     the end and inserting ``for each fiscal year.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN:
  S. 520. A bill to amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 
Act to reauthorize the Act; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical 
Migratory Bird Conservation Act. More than half of the bird species 
found in the U.S. migrate across our borders and many of these spend 
our winter in Central and South America. This bill promotes 
international cooperation for long-term conservation, education, 
research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species 
of neotropical migratory birds. Through its successful competitive, 
matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports 
public-private partnerships in countries mostly in Latin America and 
the Caribbean. Up to \1/4\ of the funds may be awarded for domestic 
projects.
  This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory 
birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by 
consuming billions of harmful insect and rodent pests each year, 
providing pollination services, and dispersing seeds. Migratory birds 
face threats from pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and 
invasive species that degrade their habitats in addition to the natural 
risks of their extended flights. Birds are excellent indicators of the 
health of an ecosystem. As such, it is troubling that, according to the 
National Audubon Society, half of all coastally migrating shorebirds, 
like the Common Tern and Piping Plover, are experiencing dramatic 
population declines.
  The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of Maryland and one whose song 
brightens all of the Northeastern U.S., has steadily declined in 
population despite being protected by federal law under the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the State of Maryland's Nongame and 
Endangered Species Conservation Act. Likewise, the iconic Red Knot 
bird, whose legendary 9,000 mile migration centers on a stopover in the 
Mid-Atlantic states, is decreasing in population quickly. Threats to 
these beloved Maryland birds are mainly due to habitat destruction and 
deforestation, particularly in the Central and South American countries 
where the birds winter. In addition, international use of toxic 
pesticides ingested by insects, which are then eaten by the birds, has 
significantly contributed to this decline. Conservation efforts in our 
country are essential, but investment in programs throughout the 
migratory route of these and countless other migratory birds is 
critical. This legislation accomplishes this goal.
  The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track 
record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies 
for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United 
States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. Since 2002, more than 
$50.1 million in grants have been awarded, supporting 451 projects in 
36 countries. Partners have contributed an additional $190.6 million, 
and more than 3.7 million acres of habitat have been affected.
  This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a 
highly successful Federal program. This simple reauthorization bill 
will make sure that this good work continues.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 520

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD 
                   CONSERVATION ACT.

       Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 6109) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this Act $6,500,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2015 through 2020.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Of the amounts made available under 
     subsection (a) for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent 
     shall be expended for projects carried out at a location 
     outside of the United States.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 521. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
a special resource study of President Station in Baltimore, Maryland, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today marks an important day in history as 
our Nation continues to honor the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. 
There are many landmarks in my hometown of Baltimore that are 
significant to Civil War history, which I believe are in the Nation's 
interests to protect for future generations. As our Nation pays tribute 
to this trying time in our Nation's history, I am proud to reintroduce 
the President Street Station Study Act, which would initiate the 
process for preserving one such landmark in the heart of Baltimore. 
President Street Station played a crucial role in the Civil War, the 
Underground Railroad, the growth of Baltimore's railroad industry, and 
is a historically significant landmark to the presidency of Abraham 
Lincoln.
  The station was constructed for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and 
Baltimore, PW&B, Railroad in 1849 and remains the oldest surviving big 
city railroad terminal in the United States. This historical structure 
is a unique architectural gem, arguably the first example and last 
survivor of the early barrel-vault train shed arches, also known as the 
Howe Truss. The arch-rib design became the blueprint for railroad 
bridges and roofs well into the 20th century and was replicated for 
every similarly designed train shed and roof for the next 20 years.
  The growth of President Street Station and the PW&B railroad mirror 
the expansion of the railroad industry throughout the country in the 
latter half of the 19th century. This station played an essential role 
in making Baltimore the first railroad and sea-rail link in the nation 
and helped the city become the international port hub it is today.
  In its heyday, President Street Station was the key link connecting 
Washington, D.C. with the northeast States. Hundreds of passengers 
traveling north passed through this station and, by the start of the 
Civil War, Baltimore had become our Nation's major southern railroad 
hub. Not surprisingly, the station played a critical role in both the 
Civil War and the Underground Railroad.
  Perhaps the most famous passenger to travel through the station was 
President Abraham Lincoln. He came through the station at least four 
times, including secretly on his way to his first inauguration in 1861. 
President-elect Lincoln was warned by a PW&B private detective of a 
possible assassination plot in Baltimore as he transferred trains. 
While it is unclear if this plot existed and posed a serious threat, 
Lincoln nevertheless was secretly smuggled aboard a train in the dead 
of night to complete his trip to Washington.
  Just a few months later, President Street Station served as a 
backdrop for what many historians consider to be the first bloodshed of 
the Civil War. The Baltimore Riot of 1861 occurred when Lincoln called 
for Union volunteers to quell the rebellion at Fort

[[Page 2275]]

Sumter in Charleston. On this day in history, April 19, 1861, 
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania volunteers were met and attacked by a 
mob of secessionist and Confederate sympathizers. The bloody 
confrontation left four dead and 36 wounded. As the war continued, the 
Station remained a critical link for the Union. Troops and supplies 
from the north were regularly shuttled through the station to support 
Union soldiers.
  It is well known that Maryland was a common starting point along the 
Underground Railroad and that many escaped slaves from Maryland's 
Eastern Shore plantations were destined for Baltimore and the President 
Street Station to travel north to freedom. Last year, Congress acted to 
honor Maryland's own Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad's most 
famous ``conductor'' by enacting the Harriet Tubman National Historical 
Parks Act, establishing the first set of National Historical Parks to 
commemorate the life of an African American woman. While Harriet Tubman 
personally led dozens of people to freedom, her courage and fortitude 
also inspired others to find their own strength to seek freedom. 
President Street Station was indeed a station on this secret network. 
Prior to emancipation in 1863, several renowned escapees, including 
Frederick Douglass, William and Ellen Craft, and Henry ``Box'' Brown, 
traveled through the Station, risking their lives for a better and 
freer life.
  Others' journeys for a better life also passed through President 
Street Station. From its beginning and into the 20th century, Baltimore 
was both a destination and departure point for immigrants. New arrivals 
from Ireland, Russia, and Europe arriving on the eastern seaboard 
traveled by way of the PW&B railroads to the west.
  For decades, President Street Station has long been recognized as 
having an important place in history: In 1992, it was listed on the 
National Register of Historic places and the city of Baltimore has 
dedicated it a local historical landmark. For many years it served as 
the Baltimore Civil War Museum, educating generations of people about 
the role Maryland and Baltimore played in the Civil War and the early 
history of the city. In recent years, the museum, run by dedicated 
volunteers from the Maryland Historical Society and Friends of 
President Street Station, have struggled to keep the station's doors 
open and keeping the station's character true to its historical roots. 
The area around President Street Station has changed dramatically over 
the decades, but the Station has worked to preserve its place in place 
in history. It has been many years since trains passed through the 
President Street Station and it is clear that today the best use for 
this building is to preserve the building and use it to tell station's 
American story.
  President Street Station is an American historical treasure. This 
bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 
resource study of President Street Station to evaluate the suitability 
and feasibility of establishing the Station as a unit of the National 
Park Service. President Street Station, a contributor to the growth of 
the railroad, and a vital player in the Underground Railroad, Lincoln 
Presidency and Civil War, is part of this history. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in giving this station the recognition it deserves and 
support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 521

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``President Street Station 
     Study Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the 
     President Street Station, a railroad terminal in Baltimore, 
     Maryland, the history of which is tied to the growth of the 
     railroad industry in the 19th century, the Civil War, the 
     Underground Railroad, and the immigrant influx of the early 
     20th century.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a special resource 
     study of the study area.
       (b) Contents.--In conducting the study under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall--
       (1) evaluate the national significance of the study area;
       (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of 
     designating the study area as a unit of the National Park 
     System;
       (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, 
     protection, and interpretation of the study area by the 
     Federal Government, State or local government entities, or 
     private and nonprofit organizations;
       (4) consult with interested Federal agencies, State or 
     local governmental entities, private and nonprofit 
     organizations, or any other interested individuals; and
       (5) identify cost estimates for any Federal acquisition, 
     development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance 
     associated with the alternatives.
       (c) Applicable Law.--The study required under subsection 
     (a) shall be conducted in accordance with section 8 of Public 
     Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
       (d) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which 
     funds are first made available for the study under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that 
     describes--
       (1) the results of the study; and
       (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Casey, 
        Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, 
        Mr. Booker, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, 
        Mr. Coons, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
        Heinrich, Ms. Heitkamp, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. King, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Markey, Mr. Manchin, Mrs. McCaskill, 
        Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
        Schatz, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Tester, Mr. Udall, Mr. 
        Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 522. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have made great strides in recent years 
ensuring that Americans of all ages have access to quality health care. 
Part of this success comes from the Children's Health Insurance Program 
created in 1997 as a joint State-Federal health insurance program for 
low- to moderate-income children and pregnant women.
  Because of CHIP, 10 million children, including 130,000 children in 
my State--most of whom are sons and daughters of working parents who 
are in low-income jobs and not making enough money to afford insurance 
and for employers that typically don't offer insurance--have access to 
health care today--health care they may not have received otherwise.
  We know CHIP works not just in the number of children insured under 
the program but because of the flexibility CHIP provides States and the 
quality of care children receive. It works. It works for children, it 
works for parents, and it works for communities.
  That is the good news. The bad news is, even though the law is on the 
books until 2019, the funding for CHIP will expire in September. That 
is why I am proud to introduce legislation today with my colleagues 
Senators Stabenow, Wyden, Casey, and Leader Reid to protect the CHIP 
program and to extend its funding to match the authorization until 
2019.
  The Protecting and Retaining our Children's Health Insurance 
Program--PRO-CHIP--Act is straightforward, it is common sense, and will 
provide much needed budget predictability for our States.
  The Republican Governor of my State supports CHIP. He understands 
they need it in Ohio and across the country sooner rather than later so 
they can properly budget and plan and avoid gaps in health care for 
vulnerable children.
  Again, these 130,000 children in my State alone are overwhelmingly 
sons

[[Page 2276]]

and daughters of working parents who don't make enough money to pay for 
health insurance out of pocket, and who are working at companies and 
businesses that don't provide health insurance.
  I am honored that 30 of our Senate colleagues have already joined as 
cosponsors. Providing health insurance to low-income children isn't 
just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Children stay 
healthier, families function better, neighborhoods are better off, and 
children do better in school as a result, with fewer sick days. They 
feel better when they are at school because they have a family doctor, 
because they have health insurance.
  We know it works. Listen to these numbers: Thanks to CHIP, the number 
of uninsured children has fallen by half, from 14 percent in 1997--when 
this bill passed with bipartisan support, and it has been extended and 
reauthorized a couple of times since--to a record low of 7 percent in 
2012.
  In nearly every State of the Union, Governors planning their State 
budgets and parents planning their family budgets are relying on us to 
extend CHIP now. We should not go right up to the deadline, as some are 
now talking about in terms of shutting the government down. We should 
not go up to the deadline but do it now. It would provide a sigh of 
relief for parents, not only for financial reasons but because CHIP 
means better access to comprehensive care for their kids.
  Think about the anxiety parents face knowing they have insurance 
today under CHIP but not being certain they will have it this time next 
year. We should act together to protect this vital program that 
provides comprehensive health care coverage for 10 million children. 
States will start to roll back their CHIP program and funding for the 
program will expire at the end of September if we don't act soon.
  This has always been bipartisan. It should continue to be. I look 
forward to working with all my colleagues to prioritize children's 
health and help pass this PRO-CHIP legislation as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kirk):
  S. 529. A bill to improve the services available to runaway and 
homeless youth who are victims of trafficking, to improve the response 
to victims of child sex trafficking, to direct the Interagency Task 
Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking to identify strategies to 
prevent children from becoming victims of trafficking and review 
trafficking prevention efforts, to protect and assist in the recovery 
of victims of trafficking, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a measure that 
would help us make progress in the fight against domestic human 
trafficking, a terrible crime. This legislation, titled the Combating 
Human Trafficking Act of 2015, has three objectives. First, it would 
encourage federal agencies to devote existing grant resources to 
initiatives that are designed to protect runaway and homeless youth 
from human traffickers. Second, it would update the authorizing 
language for the cyber tipline of the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children to ensure that the statute specifically references 
``child sex trafficking.'' Third, and finally, this legislation would 
help ensure that trafficking victims' housing needs are met and equip 
Congress with more information on the best practices to combat human 
trafficking.
  The first title of this measure is based on legislation introduced by 
U.S. Congressman Joseph Heck of Nevada in January. It is titled the 
Enhancing Services for Runaway and Homeless Victims of Youth 
Trafficking Act of 2015. Similar language passed the House on January 
26 by a unanimous voice vote. This part of the bill would improve the 
support provided specifically to runaway and homeless youth who are 
trafficking victims. This title also would enable the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to devote existing grant resources to 
training grantees' personnel on the effects of human trafficking on 
runaway and homeless youth. Finally, this title would allow the HHS 
Secretary to provide street-based services to such victims.
  The second title of the bill, based on a measure introduced by U.S. 
Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio, would amend the Missing Children's 
Assistance Act to ensure that the phrase ``child sex trafficking'' is 
incorporated into the statutory language that authorizes the cyber 
tipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 
Nearly identical language already passed the U.S. House of 
Representatives earlier this year.
  The final title of this legislation is known as the Human Trafficking 
Prevention, Intervention and Recovery Act of 2015, after a bill 
introduced by U.S. Congresswoman Kristi Noem of South Dakota. It would 
charge the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking 
with several duties, such as identifying best practices and strategies 
to combat human trafficking and cataloging the anti-trafficking 
activities of various State and Federal agencies. This task force, 
which was created under the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 
must provide a report within one year of its review and findings, under 
the legislation.
  The third title of this legislation also calls for the Government 
Accountability Office to report to Congress on governmental and law 
enforcement efforts to combat domestic human trafficking. This title 
also recognizes that minors who are trafficking victims in the United 
States are in desperate need of housing. It would ensure that certain 
grants, which are available from the U.S. Department of Justice under 
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, can be used for 
initiatives to assist trafficking victims with their housing needs. 
Shelters and facilities that are seeking to expand or develop services 
to trafficking survivors would be eligible to apply for these grant 
funds, under this title of the legislation. Nearly identical language 
passed the House last month.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this vitally important legislation. I 
also want to extend my appreciation to my colleague from Illinois, Mr. 
Kirk, who has agreed to join me as an original cosponsor of this 
measure.

                          ____________________