[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12800-12814]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 22, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the 
     Veterans Administration from being taken into account for 
     purposes of determining the employers to which the employer 
     mandate applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.

  Pending:

       McConnell modified amendment No. 2266, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell (for Kirk) amendment No. 2327 (to amendment No. 
     2266), to reauthorize and reform the Export-Import Bank of 
     the United States.
       McConnell amendment No. 2328 (to amendment No. 2327), to 
     repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 
     Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 
     entirely.
       McConnell amendment No. 2329 (to the language proposed to 
     be stricken by amendment No. 2266), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 2330 (to amendment No. 2329), to 
     change the enactment date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


        25th Anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are no ideas more central to 
America's democracy and identity than liberty and equality. The 
Declaration of Independence lists liberty among mankind's inalienable 
rights and states: ``All men are created equal.'' But it wasn't until 
1870 that the 15th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, 
extending the vote to African-American men, and women were not given 
the right to vote in America until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was 
ratified.
  America's democracy has indeed been imperfect, but throughout our 
history, we have sought to address our imperfections. After all, the 
story of America is not the story of a perfect nation. It is the story 
of a nation in pursuit of a more perfect nation.
  So it is sobering but not surprising that it took us nearly to the 
end of the 20th century to expand and acknowledge the rights of another 
group of Americans who suffered discrimination through history--people 
with disabilities.
  This Sunday we mark the 25th anniversary of one of the most important 
civil rights victories in our nation's history--the enactment of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act 
set forth four great goals for people with disabilities: equal 
opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-
sufficiency. But the fundamental goal of the ADA is simple. In the 
words of one activist, the ADA is about securing for people with 
disabilities the most fundamental of rights: ``the right to live in the 
world.''
  It is worth remembering that this was a bipartisan victory. Senator 
Bob Dole, a Republican and a veteran wounded by German machine gun fire 
in World War II, and Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, teamed up to get 
this done.

[[Page 12801]]

  When President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA into law, he said: 
``Today's legislation brings us closer to that day when no Americans 
will ever again be deprived of their basic guarantee of life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness.''
  Tom Harkin called the day the ADA passed the proudest day of his 
legislative career. I remember a story he told the Senate a few years 
ago. When he was first elected to the Senate, his whole family came for 
the swearing-in ceremony. They sat up in the gallery right behind me. 
He even arranged a sign language interpreter for his older brother 
Frank, who was deaf. But he was told by the guard outside of the 
gallery door that the interpreter was not allowed to stand in the 
gallery and interpret.
  Tom Harkin could not believe it. He came down to the floor and told 
the majority leader, Bob Dole, the situation. Senator Dole said: ``I 
will take care of it.'' And he did. It was the first thing they did 
together. It sure wasn't the last. Five years later they watched 
President Bush sign the ADA into law.
  I want to give credit to some tireless advocates who helped make that 
a reality: Justin Dart, the ``Father of the ADA,'' who has passed on, 
and my great friend from Chicago, Marca Bristo, President and CEO of 
Access Living.
  In 1977, Marca had a serious accident and broke her neck, leaving her 
paralyzed from the chest down. She lost her job, her house, and her 
health insurance. A lot of people would have given up--but not Marca 
Bristo. She led an army of people who could not see, hear, walk, and 
talk to mobilize and pass the most comprehensive civil rights law since 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  Marca is a force of nature. Every day, Marca and her team are on the 
frontlines helping people with disabilities. They help people such as 
Michael Grice. He uses a power wheelchair and has been involved with 
disability activism for many years. He has a bright personality that 
draws many people to him.
  He speaks with passion and compassion. He calls himself a very active 
person. He was living on his own in an apartment in Hyde Park on the 
South Side of Chicago until health complications led him into a group 
home, where he lived for more than a year. His health continued to 
deteriorate, and he moved into a nursing home.
  Michael and the group home staff planned for him to stay at the 
nursing home for 6 to 8 weeks and then move back on his own. Those 6 to 
8 weeks became nearly 3 years. Michael grew more frustrated. That is 
when Marca Bristo and Access Living came to the rescue, and they helped 
Michael find a new place so he could live on his own. Last year Michael 
was able to move from the nursing home into his own apartment.
  I am proud of activists such as Michael and Marca and the folks at 
Access Living. We owe them a debt of gratitude for helping America 
realize our full potential.
  It is hard to imagine, but before the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, people with disabilities were denied the opportunity to 
participate fully in society. Back then, very few transit systems had 
buses or trains equipped for wheelchairs. If you needed a haircut or to 
see a doctor or just wanted to meet a friend for a cup of coffee, you 
probably had to rely on family and friends or a social service agency.
  The Americans with Disabilities Act has changed that. The Americans 
with Disabilities Act has changed America. Every day you can see how 
far we have come as you walk down the street--with curb cuts, ramps, 
braille signs, and assisted listening devices. Because of the ADA, 
thousands of Americans with disabilities get to go to school, get a 
good education, and enter the workforce.
  We still have a long way to go. The unemployment rate for people with 
disabilities is still too high. Most people with disabilities want to 
work and have to work. When they do work, that can impact our 
communities in ways that are hard to imagine.
  Let me tell you about the late Bob Greenberg, a legendary 
sportscaster at WBEZ radio in Chicago. For his loyal Chicago radio 
audience, Bob described sporting events that they couldn't see. But 
Bob's story is unique because Bob couldn't see them either. Bob 
Greenberg was blind. But that didn't stop him from achieving his 
dreams.
  In the early 1980s, Hall of Fame basketball player Kareem Abdul-
Jabbar was taking questions from reporters after a hard game. He turned 
to Bob, who was holding a white cane and a microphone and he said: How 
did you get here?
  It wasn't hard, Bob said. He then explained how he knew the exact 
number of steps from his home to the Lake Street ``L,'' how he felt for 
the right combination of coins to put in the turnstile, and then how he 
knew the exact number of steps to take along West Madison to Chicago 
Stadium.
  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar paused to take that in and finally said: Ask your 
question, sir.
  It was clear. Bob Greenberg worked hard to get where he was.
  There is no doubt that laws such as the ADA helped Bob. I just wish 
we had passed it sooner. Maybe Bob's road to achieving his dream could 
have been a little smoother.
  Let me close by noting this. I wonder if the Americans with 
Disabilities Act were called before the Senate today, if it would pass. 
We know how great it is. We know what it has done for America. But 
there were also always voices then--and there are voices now--that 
question whether Government ought to have that big a say, that big a 
role, that big a voice in our private lives and our public lives. Thank 
goodness Bob Dole, a Republican, and Tom Harkin, a Democrat, put 
together a coalition that realized that at some moments in history we 
have to move together as an American family to solve a problem. We use 
our Government to achieve that goal.
  The day the ADA passed, Senator Harkin stood at this podium in the 
Chamber and gave his entire speech in sign language. Afterward, he said 
it was the first time anyone ever gave a long-winded speech on the 
Senate floor and no one ever heard him. He was wrong. His brother Frank 
heard him. Marca Bristo heard him, Michael Grice heard him, Bob 
Greenberg heard him, and millions of others with disabilities heard 
that speech.
  Before leaving the Senate, Senator Harkin taught me a wonderful sign 
for the word ``America.'' It is this: All ten fingers joined together, 
rotating in a circle around your chest. That is sign language for 
``America.'' That is the America that we all are striving to become, a 
place where no one is left out, where we are all included within the 
circle of equal opportunity. That is how we honor our Constitution and 
our great Nation--with liberty and justice for all.


                     Syrian Safe Zone Announcement

  Mr. President, I recently spoke on the floor about the terrible 
humanitarian crisis in Syria. If you had to pick out one place in the 
world today where more innocent people are dying, it is hard to think 
of any place that matches Syria. Over 200,000 people have died during 
the course of the Syrian war, and up to 12 million Syrians have been 
displaced.
  I have a friend of mine in Chicago.
He is a Syrian American doctor, Dr. Sahloul, who comes to see me 
regularly and brings photos back from Syria. They are heartbreaking 
photos.
  Dr. Sahloul and his friends literally sneak across the border into 
Syria to treat the casualties in this war. He shows me pictures of 
surgeries performed on the floors of schools and on card tables, and he 
shows me those who have been maimed and killed by the barrel bombs of 
Bashar Assad and by the ravages of war.
  We will be judged as a generation as to whether we have responded 
properly to this humanitarian challenge.
  In April, Senators Kaine, Graham, and McCain joined me on a letter to 
President Obama urging him to work with other world leaders to create 
no-fly zones within Syria where modern medical treatment can be 
provided and displaced persons can safely escape.
  I have raised this with many involved in this extremely difficult 
issue, including Gen. John Allen, Retired, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria 
Staffan de

[[Page 12802]]

Mistura, the Turkish Ambassador, and National Security Advisor Susan 
Rice.
  So, I was heartened today--in fact, exhilarated--to read in the 
morning paper that the United States is now working with Turkey and 
other countries to establish a humanitarian safe zone in the northern 
part of Syria to try to find one patch of real estate in that war-
ravaged country where these children, their mothers, families, elderly 
people, and those who have been hurt can go and safely--safely--be 
treated and live.
  We have to do this. The Turks are going to lead the way. We are going 
to support them, but it is a challenge not just to our two countries--
to us and to Turkey--but to the world to step up and put an end to this 
bloody, terrible, ruthless war.
  There have been so many casualties. The United States--our good 
people who reach out to help those around the world--should stand and 
be counted when it comes to the establishment of this humanitarian zone 
to try to bring some peace to some part of the population living in 
war-torn Syria.
  This won't solve the larger crisis right away, which ultimately will 
require a political transition in Syria. Without a political dialogue, 
there is no long-term hope for Syria, only short-term relief.
  But this announcement does have the possibility to bring the Syrian 
civil war one step closer to an end.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I once again come to the floor to talk 
about a Feinstein-Wicker amendment to this Transportation bill, which I 
hope we can have a vote on and dispose of and let the U.S. Senate work 
its will on, either late tonight or perhaps tomorrow after the pending 
business is taken care of.
  I would begin by quoting from an editorial that was in yesterday's 
Post-Gazette, the daily newspaper in Pittsburgh, where it says: ``The 
tractor-trailer roaring by you on the highway could be 9 feet longer 
next year.'' It could be this long, as shown on this chart I have in 
the Chamber. It could be mandated by this Congress on 39 States that do 
not want it.
  The editorial goes on to point out there is legislation pending that 
would force these longer trucks on these 39 States--on all 50 States--
11 of them already allow it, but 39 do not. Unless we act and adopt the 
Feinstein-Wicker amendment on this bill, a provision in the 
Transportation appropriations bill will go forward and is likely to be 
signed into law requiring this. This will have been done, I might add, 
without a full debate, without a hearing being held in any committee of 
the Senate on this issue.
  So what are we talking about? I have in the Chamber a poster that 
says: ``Would You Feel Safe Driving Next to a Double 33?'' As shown 
here, this is the size of the proposed new longer trucks that we would 
mandate on all 50 States. As you can see on the chart, here is the size 
of a typical passenger car. Here is the comparative size of a 
motorcycle, a bicycle, and, of course, here is a defenseless 
pedestrian. Compared to the pedestrian down to the passenger car, this 
Federal mandate that I am trying to at least give a timeout to would 
mandate on States that they allow these twin 33 trailers, and they 
would be driving along next to this car that my kids are going to be 
driving in and my grandchildren are going to be riding in. I do not 
think it is a good idea.
  But I would point out, if a State does think it is a good idea, I am 
not going to stand in their way. Some 11 States have decided they are 
willing to take this risk--many of them out in the wide-open spaces of 
the West. But it is worth saying that these 39 States do not allow 
longer tandem trucks, and we should ask ourselves whether Congress 
knows better than these States.
  These States do not allow them: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, 
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, and 
Illinois. As a matter of fact, we have a unanimous resolution from the 
Illinois State Senate, a bipartisan, unanimous resolution from the 
Illinois State Senate, saying: Do not mandate these double 33s on us. I 
go on: Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, 
Minnesota, my home State of Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North 
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West 
Virginia, and Wisconsin, Mr. President. None of those States allows 
twin 33s now, but there is a proposal I am trying to stop that would 
mandate that these States must allow for the longer and, I believe, 
more dangerous trucks.
  The editorial goes on to quote the former head of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, who ``likens the massive trucks 
to `trains on highways' that would damage roads and endanger 
motorists.'' I think it makes a lot of sense. I think it would damage 
roads. I think it would endanger motorists.
  Now, if my State of Mississippi, with the considered judgment of the 
Mississippi Department of Transportation and their commission, the 
Mississippi Sheriffs' Association, the Mississippi Association of 
Chiefs of Police--if all of those people are advising us against this, 
why should we as a Congress tell these States that we know better than 
they do?
  I will just quote one final statement from the editorial before I ask 
it be printed in the Record. The editorial concludes: ``With its 
bridges already in the worst shape in the nation, Pennsylvania doesn't 
need longer trucks on its roads.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
                             July 26, 2015]

 Bigger's Not Better: Longer Tractor-Trailers Spell Trouble on the Road

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       The tractor-trailer roaring by you on the highway could be 
     9 feet longer next year if Congress approves a measure backed 
     by FedEx and other shippers, who want bigger trucks so they 
     can haul more stuff. It's a bad idea everywhere in the 
     nation, but particularly in Pennsylvania with its poorly 
     maintained roads and bridges.
       The legislation would force states to allow ``twin 33s''--
     trucks that pull two trailers, each 33 feet long. Only 11 
     states allow them now, and Pennsylvania is not among them. 
     Double trailers here cannot be more than 28 feet, 6 inches, 
     and single trailers can be no more than 53 feet long.
       Supporters say the change would eliminate 6 million trips 
     each year, improve the environment and cut down on crashes. 
     But anyone who has ever held his breath as a massive truck 
     comes within inches of his car while making a turn would be 
     hard to convince that bigger is better.
       The former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration likens massive trucks to ``trains on 
     highways'' that would damage roads and endanger motorists. 
     Trucks weigh 20 to 30 times more than cars, and they take 
     longer than cars to come to a stop, particularly on wet and 
     slippery roads. A U.S. Department of Transportation study 
     found that the twin 33s require 22 more feet for braking than 
     the current trucks on the road. In 2013, 3,964 people died in 
     crashes involving large trucks.
       Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat who is crusading 
     against the change, says longer trucks would cause more than 
     $2 billion in damage to the nation's roads and bridges. With 
     it bridges already in the worst shape in the nation, 
     Pennsylvania doesn't need longer trucks on its roads.

  Mr. WICKER. Once again, I stress the point, this is Pennsylvania 
specific. Pennsylvania has made a considered decision not to allow 
these. I think it ill-behooves us as a Congress to say we know better 
about the roads and the condition of the bridges in the State of 
Pennsylvania than the local authorities do.
  So in the interest of deferring to the States, I think we should 
adopt the Feinstein-Wicker amendment not to mandate these longer trucks 
on States that do not want them.
  Also, I do want to stress a few things. If this goes forward, it will 
have been done with no hearings in this Congress in any committee. The 
Appropriations Committee, which voted on this, did not have a hearing. 
The transportation committee, which I serve on, did not have a hearing. 
The commerce committee, which is another committee of

[[Page 12803]]

jurisdiction on this matter, never had a hearing about this. Wouldn't 
it be a good idea--before we tell States they have to do this--to get 
proponents of this Federal mandate before us to answer questions about 
it--perhaps opponents of this Federal mandate to come and give us their 
considered opinion, experts about the safety issues, experts about what 
this will do to bridges, about what it will do to tear up our highways. 
Wouldn't that be a good idea before we decide in our wisdom inside the 
beltway in Washington, DC, that we know better than 39 States? I think 
it would be a good idea.
  We might want to hear from AAA. We might want to hear from officials 
of the State of Missouri who have memorialized this Congress not to 
mandate this on the very people whom they are trying to represent on a 
State-by-State basis. I would like to get the Mississippi Trucking 
Association here. They have come out against this Federal mandate. They 
are in favor of the Feinstein-Wicker amendment to continue to leave 
this up to the States. I would like to get them before a hearing and 
hear them out. Perhaps Members of Congress and members of the various 
committees could be convinced, as I have become convinced, that they 
are correct.
  Why would any trucker be opposed to this? I will simply tell you, a 
lot of truckers are small businesspeople. We honor small business 
people. We know they are the engine of job creation in the United 
States of America. Many of the small truckers have told me--and they 
make up organizations like the Mississippi Trucking Association--they 
cannot compete in an environment in which this becomes the norm. The 
big guys can easily move to the tandem 33 trailers, but the small 
business people cannot. It is much harder for them to get a loan. It is 
much harder for them to come up with the capital expenditure of moving 
to this, and many of them feel as though they will be put out of 
business.
  So I think we should be very careful about saying we are going to run 
over the considered opinion of people in 39 States, we are going to 
disregard the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police and a host of 
other State chiefs of police associations, we are going to disregard 
the Mississippi Sheriffs' Association and a laundry list of other 
sheriffs associations from all around the United States of America.
  I think the better approach is the Feinstein approach, which lost on 
a tie vote in the Appropriations Committee. The Feinstein approach 
says: Let's make sure we have a full and comprehensive study about this 
and get back to us, and if we implement it, let's do it in the normal 
course of events with the rulemaking process and comments from all 
sides.
  So all this Feinstein-Wicker amendment does is say we cannot mandate 
this this year. Instead, we are going to ask the leading experts in 
this city to come back to us and tell us if, in their opinion, this is 
safe, to tell us, in their opinion, what this will do to bridges and 
infrastructure. I think that is the better approach.
  There were 30 members of the Appropriations Committee who voted on 
this issue--exactly 30. Let me make sure I am precise. The Feinstein 
amendment lost on a vote of 15 to 15. Now, should that go forward as 
the policy of this U.S. Senate? I do not think so. I think we owe it to 
the American people, on an issue that involves safety, on an issue that 
involves infrastructure, and on an issue that involves deferring to the 
States to make the best decisions for their people--I think we owe it 
to them to have a full vote and not let something go forward on a 
virtual tie vote.
  The provision that is now in the appropriations bill was adopted 16 
to 14 in the Appropriations Committee with no hearings. I simply ask my 
colleagues, is that the way to make a major safety decision, an 
infrastructure decision for the American people?
  So we are nearing the time when supporters of the Feinstein-Wicker 
amendment are hoping for a vote. I was heartened to hear the 
conversation of the majority leader yesterday that he certainly hoped 
we would be able to have votes on germane amendments like this. I 
appreciate the efforts of the ranking member of the committee, a friend 
of mine from California, in saying she is going to do whatever she can 
to get us a vote on this. So I do appreciate it.
  I would say to Members listening today, it is time to get informed on 
this issue. It is time to find out what the facts are, to realize this 
appropriations decision that I am trying to reverse and put the brakes 
on, to a certain extent, is not permissive in nature. It is a 
requirement. If it goes through, we will be telling 39 States they are 
wrong, somehow we are right here in Washington, DC.
  So I hope, first of all, we can get an amendment on the floor, and I 
hope Members will search their consciences and decide that indeed this 
is something which at least ought to be thoroughly studied. We ought to 
have all of the facts. More than that, this is something where we don't 
need to run over the 39 States that happen to feel otherwise.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the presentation by my 
friend. He is absolutely right and my colleague Senator Feinstein is 
absolutely right on this point.
  I think the American truckers are saying, I say to my friend from 
Mississippi, that this is a modest extension, a 5-feet extension, but 
it is 5 times 2, as my staff pointed out, so this is a 10-foot 
extension. And many of our States are already in trouble. Many of our 
bridges are structurally obsolete. So the American truckers are pushing 
hard for this. But I think my friend is right. I think States ought to 
be able to decide the condition of their roads, the condition of their 
bridges, and if they feel this type of increase is going to jeopardize 
safety, I don't think Uncle Sam ought to be telling them what to do.
  Mr. WICKER. If my friend will yield briefly.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. WICKER. I know she wants to talk about the larger issue. If it 
is, in fact, a modest and relatively harmless extension of the size, 
then I think perhaps States might want to make that decision 
themselves. They may very well conclude--39 have not made that 
decision, but 11 States have made that decision. And even though some 
may consider this a modest extension, I think modesty and the length of 
the trucks and the safety thereof is really in the eye of the beholder, 
and the State of Mississippi might feel very different than one of the 
wide-open Western States.
  I thank my friend for her comments.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend, and I agree with him. If each of us 
had written the bill that is before us, it wouldn't look the way it 
looks. Clearly, if my friend had written it, this wouldn't be in there. 
If I had written it, this wouldn't be in there and a lot of other 
things would.
  I am so happy Chairman Inhofe has arrived. I am the ranking member on 
the Environment and Public Works Committee. Our title is responsible 
for 70 percent of the spending in this legislation. We knew that 
everyone had a wish list. We knew that if one Senator got everything he 
or she wanted, we wouldn't have a bill, and if I got everything I 
wanted, we wouldn't have a bill. We had to meet in the middle, and we 
had to withhold on some of the items on our wish list. Frankly, I think 
that is the story of legislating a huge and important bill such as 
this, and it is an important bill.
  Before I came over here, I say to my friend Senator Inhofe, I read 
that the whip over in the House, who comes from California, said: The 
Senate should not send the bill over to the House.
  My response to that is, if we have a bill, we are sending it.
  He said: We are leaving, and that is it.
  If the House chooses to go out on vacation, a work period, or 
whatever they do, that is their business, but it is our job to fix the 
problems we are facing.
  With the help of my friend Chairman Inhofe, I have a couple of 
pictures to show everyone.

[[Page 12804]]

  The first picture is my photograph of the bridge collapse on 
Interstate 10 at the Arizona-California border. Years ago they said 
this bridge was functionally obsolete. In other words, when it was 
built, nobody thought so much traffic would be traveling on it. Later 
they gave it an A, but it was determined to be obsolete.
  The reason bridges like this aren't getting fixed is we just haven't 
had enough funds to do it. In this bill, it is true--we stayed away 
from a tax gas increase, and we found a way to get enough for what I 
consider to be a very solid funding bill.
  I will show everyone some other bridges that have collapsed, and 
there are so many. Here is Washington State. The Skagit River Bridge 
collapsed. Look at this. It is unbelievable. There are cars down below 
that have crashed. This is pathetic. This isn't a third-world Nation; 
this is America, and a Washington State bridge collapsed. How are we 
going to get the money for it? We need to pass a long-term bill.
  If we pass a 5-month bill the way some of our opponents are calling 
for here and in the House, we won't have a dime to fix any bridge. All 
we are doing is, at the bare minimum, extending the program. Nobody is 
going to undertake any type of long-term fix on these bridges.
  This is the Arlington Memorial Bridge. It was built in 1932. We know 
about it; it is right here. It is deteriorating. It is in trouble. We 
are trying to avoid a collapse. We need this bill to do that.
  So when I talk about this bill--these bridges are in trouble.
  Here is a picture of another bridge that actually did collapse. This 
is in Minnesota. This started the whole thing, and it was in 2007. It 
was unbelievable what happened there, and we can see the devastation. 
This is why Senator Inhofe is doing this. It is the reason I am doing 
this. It is the reason Senator McConnell is doing this. It is the 
reason Dick Durbin is doing this. It is the reason so many of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle are willing to admit that while 
this isn't a perfect bill, we cannot sustain this. Either bridges are 
crumbling or they are collapsing.
  There are other examples. I will keep up the California bridge 
collapse so everybody can see it. It is the one I know the best because 
it is in my State. As I have said, and I ask rhetorically, how much 
business are we losing when we have cars and cargo having to go 400 
miles out of the way to get from California to Arizona or Arizona to 
California? This is a nightmare.
  As I understand it, we found some emergency funds, and so now we need 
to try to figure this out. Should we close part of it down or keep part 
of it open? It is not that safe to do, and there is no reason why we 
should have a situation such as this.
  It may surprise everyone to hear how many bridges are deficient and 
in need of repair. In Kentucky, the Brent Spence Bridge; in Louisiana, 
the Calcasieu River Bridge; in Maine, the Piscataqua River Bridge; in 
Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge; in Massachusetts, the I-95 Bridge 
in Middlesex; in Michigan, the I-75 Rouge River Bridge; in Minnesota, 
the I-35 East Bridge over Pennsylvania Avenue; in Mississippi, the 
Vicksburg Bridge; in Missouri, the I-270 East Bridge over Conway Road; 
in Nevada, the Virginia Street Bridge in Reno; in New Hampshire, the I-
293 Bridge in Hillsborough.
  When I am done reading this, I will have the whole list printed in 
the Record.
  In New Jersey, the Garden State Parkway in Union County; in New 
Mexico, the Main Street Bridge; in New York, the Brooklyn Bridge.
  These are iconic structures, and they need to be fixed. They are 
deficient.
  In North Carolina, the Greensboro Bridge; in Ohio, the John Roebling 
Suspension Bridge; in Oklahoma, the I-40 Bridge over Crooked Oak Creek; 
in Oregon, the Columbia River Crossing; in Pennsylvania, the Benjamin 
Franklin Bridge.
  Do you think we ought to fix the Benjamin Franklin Bridge?
  In Rhode Island, the I-95 Viaduct in Providence; in South Carolina, 
the I-85 Bridge in Greenville; in Texas, the I-45 Bridge; in Utah, the 
I-15 Bridge; in Washington, the Evergreen Point River Bridge; in 
Wisconsin, the US-41 Bridge; Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; and 
California.
  The Golden Gate Bridge is the hallmark and one of the landmarks of my 
State, and it is deficient and in need of repair.
  Colorado; Connecticut; the District of Columbia. I showed everybody 
the Memorial Bridge. Florida; Georgia; Hawaii, the Halona Street Bridge 
in Honolulu County; Illinois, the Poplar Street Bridge; Indiana, the I-
65 Bridge over the CSX Railroad; in Iowa, the Centennial Bridge.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of deficient 
bridges in need of repair be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


     State Examples of Deficient Highway Bridges in Need of Repair

       Alabama--I-65 Bridge over US-11 in Jefferson County
       Arizona--I-17 Bridge over 19th Avenue in Maricopa County
       Arkansas--I-30 Bridge over the UP Railroad in Pulaski 
     County
       California--Golden Gate Bridge
       Colorado--I-70 Bridge in Denver
       Connecticut--West River Bridge in New Haven
       District of Columbia--Memorial Bridge
       Florida--Pensacola Bay Bridge
       Georgia--I-285 Bridge in Fulton County
       Hawaii--Halona Street Bridge in Honolulu County
       Illinois--Poplar Street Bridge connecting with St. Louis, 
     MO
       Indiana--I-65 Bridge over the CSX railroad
       Iowa--Centennial Bridge
       Kentucky--Brent Spence Bridge
       Louisiana--Calcasieu River Bridge
       Maine--Piscataqua River Bridge
       Maryland--Chesapeake Bay Bridge
       Massachusetts--I-95 Bridge in Middlesex
       Michigan--I-75 Rouge River Bridge
       Minnesota--I-35 E Bridge over Pennsylvania Avenue
       Mississippi--Vicksburg Bridge
       Missouri--I-270 E Bridge over Conway Road
       Nevada--Virginia Street Bridge in Reno
       New Hampshire--I-293 Bridge in Hillsborough
       New Jersey--Garden State Parkway in Union County
       New Mexico--Main Street Bridge
       New York--Brooklyn Bridge
       North Carolina--Greensboro Bridge
       Ohio--John Roebling Suspension Bridge
       Oklahoma--I-40 Bridge over Crooked Oak Creek
       Oregon--Columbia River Crossing
       Pennsylvania--Benjamin Franklin Bridge
       Rhode Island--I-95 Viaduct in Providence
       South Carolina--I-85 Bridge in Greenville
       Texas--I-45 Bridge over White Oak Bayou
       Utah--I-15 Bridge over SR 93 in Davis County
       Washington--Evergreen Point Floating Bridge
       Wisconsin--US-41 Bridge over the Menomonee River

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if ever there were a bipartisan issue, it 
is this one. When Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was running 
for office, he was shocked at the condition of our roads and the fact 
that we really didn't have roads that were in good shape connecting one 
State to the next.
  This is the United States of America. We are a large and sprawling 
nation. He said that ``a network of modern roads is as necessary to 
defense as it is to our national economy and our personal safety.'' 
This is Dwight Eisenhower. ``A network of modern roads is as necessary 
to defense as it is to our national economy and our personal safety.'' 
He was referring to the fact that we really couldn't move easily 
between the States if there was some type of national emergency.
  I was a little girl when Eisenhower ran, and my father was a lifelong 
Democrat, but he was for Ike. One of the reasons he was for Ike was 
because he knew we needed this kind of network. It appealed to him. He 
knew how important it was.
  If we look at the groups that are supporting us in this effort, I 
will just say they represent America. They are everyone from the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors to the Brotherhood of Carpenters; from the Chamber 
of Commerce to the International Union of Operating Engineers; from 
AAA--and most of us belong to AAA because we are worried something is 
going to happen on one of these bridges or one of

[[Page 12805]]

these roadways that are filled with obstacles and we could get in a 
crash. People belong to the AAA, and they support us. Also, the 
Laborers' International Union, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the 
American Council of Engineering Companies.
  Let's put up some more. Again, these are unusual allies. Usually they 
are fighting each other. The National Association of Counties agrees 
with the National Association of Manufacturers, and they agree with the 
Truck Stop Operators and the National Governors Association. The 
National League of Cities agrees with the National Ready Mixed Concrete 
Association; the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association; the 
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association; the Portland Cement 
Association; and the retail industry leaders. Why did they come 
together for this? If you are in the retail business and people cannot 
get to your store, you will not be there for very long. They may say it 
is just not worth it and will buy online.
  The fact is that we need to fix our roads.
  The American Highway Users Alliance agrees with the American Society 
of Civil Engineers and the Associated General Contractors.
  I want to make a point. On Tuesday the Associated General 
Contractors--the AGC--put out a very important and alarming study. 
Construction employment declined in 25 States between May and June. 
They went on to explain to the press that there were monthly 
construction employment declines as Congress continued to search for 
ways to pay for new highway and transit investments. The monthly 
construction employment figures are troubling.
  Investing in transportation infrastructure will make it easier for 
many firms involved in highway and transit construction to add new 
jobs.
  There are certain States that are worse than others. Illinois lost 
2.2 percent of its construction jobs--they shed so many jobs--followed 
by New Jersey. New Jersey had the second-most shedding of jobs, 4,600; 
Ohio shed 3,700 jobs; Florida, 3,100 jobs; Rhode Island, 700 jobs.
  I heard my colleagues say: Well, Vermont lost 500 jobs. Here is the 
situation. I have heard my colleagues say: We don't like the way this 
is paid for. We have better ideas. I agree with them. I have better 
ideas too. I have 10 or 11 or 12, but I am not the only one putting 
this together. We have to find that magic sweet spot where we can get 
60 votes here in the Senate.
  I am thinking if they vote no on this but it passes, when they go to 
meet one of these workers and the worker says: Thank you so much; we 
got this job because we got a 3-year funding bill, what are they going 
to say? I didn't vote for it because I didn't think the funding was 
right? I wanted it to be done a different way? I am sure the worker 
would say, I appreciate that, but I am working. I am working. I am 
feeding my family.
  I understand why people want a better source of funding, and we have 
tried. As my chairman knows, we have tried so hard. I know he wants to 
speak now, so I will close down my time with this--
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will yield.
  (Mrs. ERNST assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. INHOFE. I am not attempting to get the floor. I think what the 
Senator from California has said is very significant.
  I think people realize--and I have said several times that the 
Senator from California and I are about as far apart philosophically as 
any two people can be. She is a very proud liberal. I am a very proud 
conservative. We disagree on a lot of issues on the committee which the 
Senator from California used to chair when the Democrats were in the 
majority and which I chair now, but during all that time and up to the 
present time, we have agreed on this.
  When I see people saying they don't want--I am very disturbed by what 
the House is doing right now. If we don't have a long-term bill, then 
we will go right back to what we have done since 2009.
  The Senator from California and I remember when we passed the 2005 
transportation authorization. That was huge. We have had things that 
have happened in Oklahoma now as a result of that legislation that are 
saving lives. As I have mentioned before, remember the bridge when a 
chunk of concrete fell off and killed a mother of three. That happened 
right up toward the 2005 bill.
  I can't imagine we are going to be in a position where we go back to 
increase the number of short-term--we have had 33 short-term extensions 
since 2009. I can't imagine we will go back to that. If we do that, we 
don't get the reforms. A lot of the reforms, I say to my friend from 
California, were reforms where she had a hard sell. She had a hard time 
doing it. There are a lot of things--I wanted to change the 80-20 
federal share. In some areas it was 60-40, and then 70-30. We couldn't 
do it. We compromised. I remember there was quite a bit said about 
that, so that was one of my losses that wasn't necessarily one of the 
Senator's gains.
  The bottom line is we have a bill that is going to be before the 
people who have a chance to vote on it. This is the last chance we have 
to get off of the part-time extensions.
  I would ask my good friend from California if she is observing the 
same circumstances that I am.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am observing it exactly the same way. 
I said before that we have a very honest relationship in terms of where 
we can find that common ground, and it is in this arena.
  As the Senator from Oklahoma has pointed out, he reads the 
Constitution and I read the Constitution. He has said many times--and 
he has addressed people who have heard the Senator say this--that this 
is a constitutional responsibility to make sure we have roads, bridges, 
highways, and we can move interstate commerce. From my perspective, not 
only do I agree with that, but I also think it is a very important way 
while we are taking care of the people to see that people have good, 
decent jobs, and that businesses prosper.
  We have never had a problem working together on this. I hope our 
working together brings liberals, conservatives, moderates, and 
everybody in between to tonight's votes.
  I don't know what the vote is going to be, I would say to my dear 
friend, but I do know this. The House is saying through their whip that 
they are leaving. Well, that is up to them. We all know, from the 
Association of General Contractors, it is stated right here that in 25 
States we are seeing layoffs right now in the construction arena 
because we have not acted.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that their statement be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        [From the Associated General Contractors, July 21, 2015]

Construction Employment Declines in Half of the States Between May and 
    June as Congress Seeks New Way To Pay For Needed Transportation 
                                Upgrades

       Illinois and Rhode Island Have Biggest Declines for the 
     Month, Delaware and New York Have Largest Gains between May 
     and June; Ohio and West Virginia Have Biggest Annual 
     Declines, Idaho and California Add Most.
       Construction employment declined in 25 states between May 
     and June even as 39 states and the District of Columbia added 
     construction jobs between June 2014 and June 2015, according 
     to an analysis today of Labor Department data by the 
     Associated General Contractors of America. Association 
     officials noted that the monthly construction employment 
     declines come as Congress continues to search for ways to pay 
     for new highway and transit investments.
       ``While the year-over-year totals remains relatively 
     positive, the monthly construction employment figures are 
     troubling,'' said Ken Simonson, the association's chief 
     economist. ``Investing in transportation infrastructure will 
     make it easier for many firms involved in highway and transit 
     construction to add new staff.''
       Illinois (-4,700 jobs, -2.2 percent) shed more construction 
     jobs during the past month than any other state, followed by 
     New Jersey (-4,600 jobs, -3.0 percent); Ohio (-3,700 jobs, 
     -1.9 percent) and Florida (-3,100 jobs, -0.7 percent). Rhode 
     Island (-4.5 percent, -700 jobs) list the highest percentage 
     of construction jobs between May

[[Page 12806]]

     and June, followed by Vermont (-3.3 percent, -500 jobs); New 
     Jersey and New Mexico (-2.7 percent, -1,100 jobs).
       Twenty-four states added construction jobs between May and 
     June, while construction employment was unchanged in Wyoming 
     and the District of Columbia. New York (3,300 jobs, 0.9 
     percent) added the most construction jobs. Other states 
     adding a high number of construction jobs included Minnesota 
     (2,600 jobs, 2.4 percent) and Connecticut (2,200 jobs, 3.8 
     percent). Delaware (4.3 percent, 900 jobs) added the highest 
     percentage of construction jobs during the past month 
     followed by Connecticut, Hawaii (3.7 percent, 1,200 jobs) and 
     Arkansas (3.5 percent, 1,700 jobs).
       Eleven states shed construction jobs during the past 12 
     months with West Virginia (-12.8 percent, -4,300 jobs) losing 
     the highest percent of construction jobs. Other states that 
     lost a high percentage of jobs for the year included Rhode 
     Island (-9.6 percent, -1,600 jobs); Mississippi (-7.9 
     percent, -3,900 jobs) and Ohio (-7.9 percent, -3,900 jobs). 
     The largest job losses occurred in Ohio, West Virginia and 
     Mississippi.
       California added more new construction jobs (47,000 jobs, 
     7.0 percent) between June 2014 and June 2015 than any other 
     state. Other states adding a high number of new construction 
     jobs for the past 12 months included Florida (25,200 jobs, 
     6.4 percent), Texas (18,900 jobs, 2.9 percent), Washington 
     (15,300 jobs, 9.7 percent) and Michigan (14,000 jobs, 9.8 
     percent). Idaho (12.9 percent, 4,600 jobs) added the highest 
     percentage of new construction jobs during the past year, 
     followed by Nevada (11.1 percent, 7,000 jobs); Michigan; 
     Arkansas (9.7 percent, 4,400 jobs) and North Carolina.
       Association officials said one of the challenges facing the 
     construction industry is uncertainty about future federal 
     funding levels for highway and transit repairs and 
     improvements. Noting that the Senate is expected to vote on a 
     new long-term surface transportation bill later today, they 
     urged members of both parties to work together to address 
     growing problems with the country's aging transportation 
     infrastructure.
       ``Passing a long-term highway and transit bill will provide 
     the kind of funding certainty many construction firms need to 
     expand payrolls and invest in new equipment,'' said Stephen 
     E. Sandherr, the association's chief executive officer. ``The 
     series of short-term transportation funding extensions 
     Congress has passed has clearly had a negative impact on the 
     construction industry's recovery.''

  Mrs. BOXER. That is tragic. What happens when people are laid off? We 
know what happens. We are getting out of this tough recession, and none 
of us wants to walk down the path of a short-term solution.
  So I say to my friend, I am going to finish my remarks in about 2 
minutes and when I yield the floor to him, I look forward to hearing 
his remarks.
  We have work to do tonight. We have to get 60 votes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, if the Senator from California will 
yield, let me make one statement, and then I will be coming back later 
to talk about some of these amendments that will be coming up.
  One issue we need to clarify with our people on our side is that the 
conservative position is to support this. Our good friend, our mutual 
friend Gary Ridley, said that the extensions cost about 30 percent off 
the top--30 percent. In fact, I will say this, after our 27-month bill, 
we went over it in the House, and I had requested an audience with the 
entire--all 33 Republicans on the appropriate committees, and all 33 
agreed that it was a conservative position. All 33 voted for the bill. 
I think we have the opportunity to make that happen again.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, reclaiming my time, my friend is right. 
This is an area where conservatives, progressives, liberals, 
moderates--what we call ourselves doesn't matter. We need to have a 
good, strong highway system. We need to fix the bridges. We need 
transportation. That is what we do here.
  In closing, I wish to make this point. Each of our States has relied 
on the highway trust fund since Eisenhower was President. I have a 
list, and I think I put it in the Record yesterday so I don't have to 
put it in the Record again, but it shows how much each State relies on 
the highway trust fund. I will pull out a few States because it is 
interesting. I know my own State is 49 percent. We raise the rest of 
the money, but that 49 percent is huge, and if it were to disappear, we 
simply could not do what we need to do. So my State is about 50 
percent.
  Here are some of the States: Rhode Island, 100 percent of its program 
is funded by the Federal highway trust fund. Alaska, 93 percent is 
funded by the Federal highway trust fund. Vermont, 86 percent is funded 
by the Federal highway trust fund. South Carolina, 79 percent; Hawaii, 
79 percent; North Dakota, 78 percent; South Dakota, 71 percent; 
Connecticut, 71 percent; New Mexico, 70 percent.
  Now, from that list--that is, everybody who is 70 percent and over--
those are red States, those are blue States, those are purple States.
  My point is exactly what Senator Inhofe said yesterday. The fact is, 
there is no such thing as a Democratic road or a Republican road or an 
Independent road or a progressive road or a liberal road or a 
conservative road. We all use the roads, unfortunately, increasingly, 
at our peril--at our peril.
  Idaho, 68 percent; Alabama, 68 percent; New Hampshire, 68 percent; 
Missouri, 65 percent; Minnesota, 64 percent; Oklahoma, 63 percent; 
Georgia, 62 percent; Iowa, 59 percent; Ohio, 58 percent; Virginia, 57 
percent; Wisconsin, 55 percent; Oregon, 54 percent, and it goes on.
  Every single one of our States is waiting. The lowest, as I 
understand it, looks to be New Jersey at 35 percent, but the fact is 
whether it is 35 percent or 45 percent or 90 percent or 100 percent, 
they all rely on the Federal highway trust fund. All of our people pay 
into it through the gas tax.
  We have a responsibility. We are moving forward if we get the votes 
tonight. Again, we don't know that we will get them. We are working 
hard to get them. Hopefully, we will move forward with a good 
transportation bill and, for the first time in 10 years, we will have a 
long-term bill.
  Now, the Washington Post did an interesting editorial. They don't 
adore this bill. They found problems with it, as we all do, but they 
said it is a sensible plan by Senators Boxer and Inhofe--if we worked 
it out--that it provides 3 years of guaranteed funding, that it would 
be a significant improvement from what we have done in Congress for the 
past decade. They said lawmakers fumbled from short-term funding patch 
to short-term funding patch--a nonstrategy that often relied on budget 
gimmicks and made it difficult for transportation officials to conduct 
long-term planning.
  The New York Times said on Tuesday what I said before: Construction 
employment fell in 25 States this summer as State agencies awaited word 
from Congress on the future of the highway and transit spending. We 
also know there are well over one-half million unemployed construction 
workers--one-half million. Now they are starting to get laid off again.
  I don't know what else to say to Members. The biggest reason they are 
voting no that I heard is they would like to find a better funding 
source. Well, all of us would, and if we had our way--the Presiding 
Officer would come up with her funding source. I love mine, which is a 
refundable gas tax increase, but I can't get a lot of votes for that. 
People won't give me the votes for that. So what do I do, throw up my 
hands and say we will have another short-term extension? No. I sat down 
with Senator Inhofe, I sat down with Senator Durbin, I talked to 
Senator Reid and Senator Schumer, of course, and all of my leadership 
over here, and I did my best. I think everyone has to understand, it is 
either this way or we will have to do a short-term patch.
  I will predict--right now, seven States have shut down their program 
completely. If we don't find a solution, we are going to be looking at 
each other in a month, 2 months, and we are going to see programs shut 
down. I often use this analogy, so if my colleagues have heard it 
before, I apologize in advance. But if you go to the bank, you want to 
buy a house; they say: Great news, you qualify, and they only give you 
a 5-month mortgage. Are you going to buy the house? Of course you are 
not. Are our States going to build a highway if all they have is 
funding for 5 months? No. That is why the private sector that gets this 
money from the States--that is why they are laying people off.
  Now, I want to say, working with Senator Inhofe, we were able to 
create

[[Page 12807]]

a new National Freight Program and a new program called Assistance for 
Major Projects. This means that every one of our States would be 
eligible. It is exciting to have those kinds of programs. The freight 
program will provide funds for all States. All States are going to get 
part of this formula to improve their goods movement, to reduce the 
costs, and improve performance for business. It expands flexibility for 
rural and urban areas to designate key freight corridors. This is 
exciting. The program is supported by the Coalition for America's 
Gateways and Trade Corridors, as well as business groups such as the 
National Association of Manufacturers.
  Now, under the Assistance for Major Programs, this was something 
Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island worked very hard on. The bill 
provides support for major projects of high importance to a community, 
a region, or the Nation, through a competitive grant program. It 
includes a set-aside for rural areas and ensures an equitable 
geographic distribution of funds along with strong transparency 
provisions.
  Now, these programs are exciting news. Whether one is from Iowa or 
California, we are all going to get these funds and locally, we will 
decide how to spend them.
  Our bill passed the committee 20 to 0. What a great moment that was, 
and the reason is we knew we had to compromise. So the part of this 
bill from EPW was a compromise. The part of the bill from the commerce 
committee was a little bit trickier because it did come out on a 
partisan vote, but we have been working--Senator Nelson and Senator 
Thune, Senator Blumenthal, and others--on that to make it a better 
title. And I think it is moving in that direction. As to the banking 
bill, Senator Brown's staff worked very hard on this with Senator 
Shelby's staff, and I believe it has clearly been improved since it was 
first released. The Finance Committee was tough. Senator Wyden tried 
hard. I put some ideas out there. It was tough to get them done. But 
somehow we have managed to put together the funding. It does clear the 
CBO. We are in surplus for 3 years in the highway trust fund. We 
haven't done that. It has been 10 years since we had more than a 2-year 
extension. This is real.
  I just say to my friends from the House that I know you want to get 
out of town. Everybody does. It is August, and we have plans. A lot of 
us are going to go around the world and do our job that way, have 
community meetings, and take a week of vacation with our families as 
every family wants to do. But we are staying an extra week in August. 
You can stay an extra week in August. That is not such a terrible 
thing.
  I get an announcement from the whip over there, Representative 
McCarthy from my State. He says: Don't send us a bill because we are 
going home.
  Well, that is their choice.
  There are so many good organizations. I am going to put this list up 
again and share it because I think it is so important. It is tough to 
put together a bill that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports, along 
with the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' 
International Union of North America, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
and AAA, not to mention Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
  I will show you some others. It is exciting to see the National 
Association of Counties. I started off as a county supervisor. I was in 
local government. You know, to have us agree with the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the truckstop operators, the National 
Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the concrete 
people, and the gravel people--there is one more here--what you see is 
that everybody supports this--the American Public Transportation 
Association, the American Trucking Association, the Associated General 
Contractors of America. The Associated General Contractors of America 
has warned us if we don't get this done, it is going to be a real 
problem.
  So for the sake of every single person in America, I hope we have the 
60 votes we need tonight, and I hope we get this moving. There are a 
lot of people who are slowing this bill down. I understand they are 
upset about everything. Look, we each can be upset. I mean every day we 
can be upset, but we have to try to find common ground. Sometimes it is 
very hard to find it.
  Certainly, Senator Wicker was here. He and Senator Feinstein have an 
amendment. I support it. It is unfortunate that Senator Wicker's 
opinion didn't hold sway in the Appropriations Committee. It is hard. 
It is difficult. I personally think he is right. He didn't win in the 
Appropriations Committee. So now we are trying to fix the problem. We 
may not have the votes, but what we do have before us--and I will 
conclude with this--is a solid bill with increases so we can fix these 
bridges.
  I want you to see the last image, which is the collapse of this 
bridge in California. It just happened a few weeks ago or less. What we 
had here was a bridge that was called functionally obsolete. What they 
said was that when it was built there was very little comment on it. 
But now it is a very important bridge because we have to take the goods 
from Arizona over to California and from California over to Arizona, 
and it has collapsed.
  Senator Inhofe and I talk a lot about why we do what we do. He had a 
devastating bridge collapse--a devastating bridge collapse where a 
mother of three was killed just walking by the bridge. That is when he 
and I said enough is enough. We simply cannot handle it. It is our job.
  Once I was told this when I was a county supervisor. If you know 
there is a problem and people are in danger--this is what they told us 
way back in the day because we had an earthquake problem with the 
building we were in and the county council said to the five 
supervisors: You know this is a problem. If you don't fix it, there is 
an argument to be made that you are personally liable. Now, I am not 
suggesting at all that Senators be held personally liable for a bridge 
collapse, but I am talking about the moral issue. We do know we have 
problems. We were fortunate that no one was killed in this collapse, 
and it was kind of a miracle. But we do know there is a problem. So 
while we don't have a legal obligation to step up to the plate--and I 
know Senator Inhofe agrees with me--we believe there is a moral 
obligation.
  There is this list of bridges. There are three pages of bridges that 
we know are in trouble. We know that 50 percent of our roads are 
deficient. Isn't that enough for us to come together tonight--it will 
probably be late in the evening, I expect--and vote to move forward 
with this bill and get it done, send it to the House, and hopefully, 
they will decide in the same session and decide to pass it? There will 
be a celebration across this Nation. It will be a celebration by 
workers who want to fix these problems, by businesses who want to fix 
these problems, by people who drive who want to see these problems 
fixed. It is a win-win for our Nation.
  I thank you so much, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


     Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling and Trade Enhancement Act

  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
talk about a program called Product of Canada. Product of Canada, you 
might ask what it is. The Product of Canada Program is the voluntary 
food labeling program they have in Canada. So no one has to participate 
in this program in Canada, but if they want to, they can. It is just 
that, a voluntary food labeling program they call Product of Canada.
  What does that mean? Well, just taking from one of the Web sites 
where we

[[Page 12808]]

looked it up, the ``Product of Canada'' label can only be applied to 
animals that are born, raised, and slaughtered in Canada with some 
exceptions. Now, they also have labeling as far as prepacked products. 
That is actually mandatory labeling. Under their mandatory labeling it 
says: All prepackaged food products sold in Canada must be labeled with 
the name and address of the company. Also, it says: If manufactured 
outside of Canada, the label must reflect it is imported. It is 
mandatory to state the country of origin on some specific imported 
prepackaged products such as wine and brandy, dairy products, honey, 
fish, and seafood products, fresh fruit and vegetables, eggs shelled, 
eggs processed, meat products, maple products, processed fruits and 
vegetables.
  The program goes on, but the important point I want to make is they 
have some mandatory aspects to their prepackaged products and their 
prepackaged products program as I mentioned. But the Product of Canada 
Program and the ``Product of Canada'' label, that is a voluntary 
program. It is animals that are born, raised, and slaughtered in 
Canada. Why do I come to the floor of the Senate to point out that 
Canada has a voluntary meat labeling program, a Product of Canada 
Program? For the simple reason that we are and have been engaged in 
what do we do about COOL, the Country of Origin Labeling Program in the 
United States.
  I have offered bipartisan legislation, legislation with Senator 
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who is the lead Democrat on the 
legislation, bipartisan legislation that includes a majority of the 
agricultural committee in the Senate. So what we are trying to do is 
solve the country-of-origin labeling dispute or disagreement by 
creating bipartisanship and passing a bill that addresses the 
underlying problem. So what is the problem?
  The problem is that the WTO court, the World Trade Organization court 
has determined that a mandatory food labeling program, COOL, does not 
meet the WTO requirements. So the House of Representatives, led by the 
agriculture chairman, Mike Conaway, who is an outstanding ag chairman 
in the House, passed a bill that repeals mandatory COOL.
  You know what. We took that bill and we have included it in our 
legislation which we call the Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling and 
Trade Enhancement Act of 2015--we took the very same legislation, and 
we are trying to pass it here. We are trying to pass the same--we did 
not take anything out of Representative Conaway's bill, passed in the 
House. We took that bill. We are trying to pass it here to address the 
issue of mandatory food labeling, mandatory COOL.
  But we also added a voluntary program, just as Canada has a voluntary 
Product of Canada Program. So there are just a few basic logical 
questions I would ask. First, we are repealing the mandatory program. 
So when somebody says: Well, you have to repeal mandatory COOL, and you 
cannot have anything else, we have to repeal mandatory COOL, that is 
exactly what we do. We pass the Conaway bill. We repeal mandatory COOL. 
That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. So let's be clear on that. 
We do. We pass the House bill, and we add to it a voluntary program, 
similar to the Product of Canada Program because there are people in 
this country who want voluntary labeling. They want a voluntary 
country-of-origin labeling program. They want a program, which as 
Canada has--Product of Canada is a voluntary program.
  At the end of the day, to get this done, to avoid any countervailing 
duty or tariffs under the WTO ruling, we need to repeal mandatory COOL, 
which we do, and we put in place the voluntary COOL, which we need to 
do to get bipartisan support in the Senate and the House and pass the 
legislation we need to pass. We need to do it in that way in order to 
get it done timely--certainly before we go on the August recess.
  So this is a clear opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way 
and solve a problem and solve it in a way that makes sense. We reach 
out to our House counterparts. We reach out to our counterparts in the 
House and we say: You did good work. You did hard work. You passed a 
repeal of mandatory COOL.
  That is fine. We are passing your bill. At the same time, because 
there are advocates for labeling, we pass a voluntary program so we can 
actually move the bill through the Senate, get into conference with the 
House, and get their work done now rather than waiting. The voluntary 
program is the same thing Canada does. So how can our very good friends 
in Canada say to us: Well, it is OK for Canada to have a voluntary 
program and, yes, we get that you are fully repealing mandatory COOL, 
but, gee, even though we in Canada have a voluntary program, gosh, we 
don't think you ought to have one in the United States. It does not 
make sense.
  Come on. Let's get together. Let's find a way to get together in a 
bipartisan way, move this legislation, get together with the House and 
get this done. That is all we are asking. We have a good start on this 
bill. We have a majority on our ag committee. Sponsoring the 
legislation along with Senator Stabenow and me are Senator John Thune, 
Republican; Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat; Senator Chuck Grassley, 
Republican; Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat; Senator Mike Enzi, 
Republican; Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat. That is bipartisan. It 
is common sense.
  It is a simple solution. We are saying: OK. We get it. Canada won in 
the WTO court. We cannot have a mandatory program. We follow the 
House's lead. We pass their legislation. At the same time, we put in 
place a voluntary program similar to Canada's. We are reaching out to 
our friends and neighbors in Canada and saying: Hey, we want to work 
with you. Please work with us. That is what we do in this legislation.
  So I hope Senators will join together with us in a bipartisan--I 
emphasize that again--in a bipartisan way. That is what it takes in the 
Senate. It takes 60 votes to pass legislation. You cannot do it with 
just one party or the other. It takes 60 votes. You have to have 
bipartisan legislation.
  I call on my colleagues to get together with us. Let's move this 
legislation. Let's get together with the House and our friends from 
Canada and get this done. We can do it. We can do it now in a timely 
way, and we can make sure we not only don't have any countervailing 
duty or tariffs on our exports, but we can also have a voluntary 
labeling program which many in this country want: consumers, producers, 
our farmers, our ranchers, retailers, some processors.
  But you know what. If somebody does not want to participate, that is 
fine, hence the word ``voluntary.'' That is the American way. I have 
had the good fortune to work with Representative Conaway. I certainly 
appreciate him and his hard work. I have also had the opportunity to 
work with our good friends north of the border. We have no better 
friend and ally than Canada. We should be able to get together with our 
Canadian friends and say: Look, we are absolutely doing what the WTO 
court requires. We are repealing mandatory COOL. We are passing the 
House bill.
  But at the same time, there are a lot of people in this country whom 
we have to be fair to who want a voluntary program. There is no reason 
in the world to hold up solving this problem by not allowing them to 
have a voluntary program, similar to the voluntary program Canada has, 
Product of Canada.
  I also would note that my cosponsor on the legislation is on the 
floor. I greet her and thank her for her hard, bipartisan work to solve 
this challenge in a very commonsense way.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, let me say that it is always a 
pleasure to work with the senior Senator from North Dakota. We 
partnered on a number of different things, including efforts on the 
farm bill.
  So it is with great pleasure that I am partnering with him again to 
solve this problem and to make sure that we eliminate any possibility 
of retaliation on our businesses and solve a problem

[[Page 12809]]

in a way that meets our trade obligations and also makes sure that we 
are standing up for our farmers and our consumers in America. That is 
really the goal.
  I appreciate Senator Hoeven's leadership and commonsense approach to 
actually solving the problem. It is always great to be with the 
Senator.
  As Senator Hoeven did say, we have put together a thoughtful and 
bipartisan bill, the voluntary COOL and trade enforcement act. We are 
very ``COOL'' here in the country of origin labeling act.
  I also thank our cosponsors. We have Senators Grassley, Heitkamp, 
Klobuchar, Thune, Brown, Enzi, Casey, Rounds, Murray, Baldwin, and 
Wyden, and we are adding more people every day. So we are pleased to 
have the majority of the Agriculture Committee standing with us on this 
bipartisan effort.
  Let me start by saying as well that while I disagree with the WTO's 
conclusion and I am disappointed at the final outcome of the case, I 
respect the decision and acknowledge that we have to act. We have to 
act in a responsible way to address this and live up to our trade 
allegations.
  The potential impact on the economy and other industries demands that 
we give this issue our full attention, and that is what we are doing. 
Our legislation offers something that is common sense. It is trade 
compliant, and it is a path forward.
  First, the bill repeals mandatory country-of-origin labeling. This is 
what we have to do to meet our trade obligations to Canada and Mexico. 
There is no way around it, certainly on beef and pork, in order to come 
together to be able to address this quickly. In fact, we have in our 
bill the same language as in the House. So we have the same language as 
the House and the same language as the amendment put forward by our 
chairman, Senator Roberts, and others.
  No. 1, we all agree on what it takes to address the trade case and 
get that off the table.
  No. 2, now it becomes this: What do we want to do as Americans? What 
do we want to do? This is not a realm where Canada or Mexico really has 
a voice. Once we meet the trade obligation, we have met the test. What 
do we want to do?
  I remember during the farm bill, when we were talking about changes 
we needed to make to address the Brazil case on cotton, where they won 
a case against us, and I asked folks: Well, what do the Brazilians 
think?
  I was told by members of the committee, many of whom are now saying 
we have to give Canada veto power or Mexico veto power, that Brazil 
can't have veto power over the United States on cotton and that is up 
to the United States.
  We proceeded with a path that we believed met WTO rules and met the 
needs of American producers. Now we have some of the same folks saying: 
Oh, no, we can't do anything unless this is something that Mexico likes 
or Canada likes. So I would argue that we deal with that--with the 
trade decision in WTO--in all three bills. Now the question is this: 
What do we want to do for our consumers and to support American 
farmers?
  So, second, we establish a voluntary ``Product of the United States'' 
label defined as born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States. So 
you can have whatever labels are appropriate to have, but if you want 
to have a label that says ``Product of the United States,'' you have to 
meet the integrity of that label.
  If the consumer is seeking to purchase a product of the United 
States, a packer is willing to provide it, and they decide they want to 
do that--farmers want to do that; they want to provide that--then there 
should be an accurate label. They can look at all the pros and cons of 
doing that. Then they should be able to do that on a voluntary basis. 
That is all we are saying.
  Anyone who has watched this issue over the years knows that both 
sides have become very entrenched, and we understand that. But our 
approach is to say now that we will agree with the House, we will agree 
with those who always opposed a mandatory country-of-origin labeling, 
and we will agree on repeal. However, we need to make sure, on behalf 
of American consumers, that for American farmers and processors it 
would give them a tool--a voluntary tool--they can use if they wish to 
do that.
  Now, what is very interesting is the fact that back when the 
mandatory country-of-origin labeling bill was on floor and was being 
passed by the House and the Senate, the people who opposed that at the 
time introduced S. 1333, the Meat Promotion Act, which would 
``establish a voluntary program for country of origin labeling of 
meat.'' It was introduced by the same people who are now saying we 
cannot do that--Senators Cornyn, Roberts, Hatch, Alexander, and 
others--all of whom were arguing that we should have a voluntary 
program, not a mandatory program.
  So now here we are. You would think this would be easy. You would 
think this would be a slam dunk. What we are suggesting, in fact, is 
something that was in a bill--a voluntary ``Product of the United 
States'' label for meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in 
the United States. At the time, it was broadly supported by the 
meatpacking industry as well as the largest organization of cattlemen 
in the United States. At the same time, they argued they thought this 
proposal was a smart way to promote U.S. meat products while also 
supporting international trade--the same people who are now working 
against us.
  In fact, as it turns out, they were in the spot where we are now 
understanding we need to land. But instead of agreeing and saying to us 
that it is about time you got here, embracing it and saying let's do 
this very quickly so we can put other businesses where may face 
retaliation in a position of confidence so that is not going to 
happen--we thought this would be a no-brainer; take the bill that was 
already introduced, and take the language passed by the House--now we 
are seeing that, in fact, the same people who wanted S. 1333 are now 
saying that in the world it will start a trade war and all kinds of 
other things.
  But let's talk about that for a moment. Even as recently as last 
August, Canadian officials openly discussed a voluntary COOL program as 
a way to address their trade concerns, and they said: ``If you do a 
voluntary label, which we do in Canada under product of Canada, you 
don't have that trade sanctioned problem.'' That was in August of 2014, 
Gerry Ritz, Agriculture Minister of Canada.
  Next, in 2012, the WTO Appellate Body report quoted both Canada and 
Mexico, suggesting that the United States switch from a mandatory to a 
voluntary labeling program to move ``beyond the dispute.'' So, again, 
this was from Canada: ``Expanded as required to meet consumer interest, 
voluntary labelling can provide as much consumer information on origin 
to interested consumers as the COOL measure.'' That was in 2012, 
suggesting that was the tool that the United States should use.
  Then, this is from our Mexican friends:

       Mexico submits that there are at least four alternative 
     measures. . . . The first alternative is a voluntary country 
     of origin labelling scheme, which in Mexico's view, could 
     maintain the same labelling criteria on origin as the COOL 
     measure--that is, born, raised, and slaughtered [in the 
     United States].

  That is 2012, Mexico.
  So we clearly know that both Canada and Mexico have considered 
voluntarily labeling as the responsible approach. In fact, they have 
suggested we do that. So while both countries have been vocal, it still 
does not change the fact that Canada and Mexico are not entitled to 
veto what the Congress of the United States of America chooses to do 
with our laws, as long as we are compliant with our trade obligations.
  Clearly, I understand politics--Lord knows we do. We understand 
politics, we understand elections, and we understand negotiations. We 
understand. If you can put the United States in a position to 
voluntarily stand down and not let consumers know on a voluntary basis 
what is a product of the United States, that is great for competition, 
if

[[Page 12810]]

you are Canada or Mexico. And if they can bully us into doing that--
well, shame on us if they can bully us into doing that.
  The fact of the matter is our legislation, which I believe clearly 
has the majority of votes in the Senate and certainly on the 
agriculture committee, not only meets the trade requirements of the 
dispute--which we lost, we know it, and we have to address it--but 
stands up for American consumers, American farmers, and processors who 
choose to use the tool of a voluntary label.
  WTO rules are very clear that a country should not proceed with 
retaliation if the underlying law has been made WTO-consistent. So 
folks can stomp around and threaten. We understand negotiations. We all 
negotiate with people who stomp around a lot.
  But the reality is that if we take that away and we are now trade 
compliant, they no longer can legally proceed. The Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative has also stated that our approach would be just as 
WTO-consistent as the repeal bills alone: ``We believe both options--
repealing the mandatory labeling scheme or repealing the mandatory 
labeling regime and replacing it with a voluntary labeling system--have 
the potential to constitute compliance with U.S. WTO obligations.''
  There is no difference--no difference. And this is a few days ago--
July 23, 2015.
  It really comes down to the fact that if Canada has its own voluntary 
label for meat produced in Canada, how in the world can they argue with 
the United States of America that our farmers and consumers should not 
have the same label?
  I think what it boils down to is competition. I do, because it starts 
as a trade case. We meet our trade obligations. We address what we have 
to do legally. Now the question is this: Can they bully us into a 
position to actually stand down so we cannot brag about the great meat 
that we have in this country and let consumers know about it?
  I understand that the Canadians are afraid to compete head-to-head 
with products that are 100-percent born, raised, and harvested here in 
the United States. We do a pretty good job. Our farmers and our 
ranchers do a very good job, actually. After all, there is no safer, 
more abundant food supply produced anywhere in the world than in the 
United States. The American public deserves to know if they choose to 
look for that label and purchase that label. They should have the 
opportunity to do that. Certainly, when our friends in Canada--and they 
are our friends; we work on many issues together in a wonderful way. 
But on this one, I have to say I think this is very much about 
competition. And we need to be able to compete economically with them 
in the same way they compete with us. If they have a ``Made in Canada'' 
label, we need to be able to have a ``Product of the United States'' 
label.
  So I would ask that we stop with all the rhetoric on the floor by 
folks who sponsored a voluntary label with the same definition a few 
years ago; stop the rhetoric by our friends from Canada and Mexico 
about how the world will come to an end if the United States has a 
voluntary program that meets our trade obligations. We need to just 
take a deep breath and make sure that we solve the trade case, that we 
do what we need to do and then have the USDA in America--the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture--allow all of us to decide what we want to do 
about voluntary labeling of our meat--or anything else, for that 
matter.
  We are not interested in starting a trade war, and it seems pretty 
silly when I hear the hot rhetoric that tries to claim that. What we 
are wanting to do is solve a problem that relates to international 
trade that we all agree needs to be resolved. We must resolve it, we 
must make sure those not involved in the dispute don't somehow pay a 
penalty through retaliation, and then respect our own consumers 
enough--our own families, our own farmers, our own processors enough--
to give them a tool, if they decide they wish to use it, to have the 
integrity of a product of the United States labeled.
  It would be a sad day and I believe irresponsible on our part if we 
move back to the days prior to COOL where we were labeling meat that 
was born in a foreign country and spent most of its life in the foreign 
country but then could somehow come in and be harvested here and be 
called a product of the United States. Talk about something that is a 
problem--that is a problem. That is a problem. And American consumers 
deserve better than that. Our own processors and farmers who are 
competing with those in other countries deserve better than that.
  We have the opportunity to embrace a proposal that, frankly, in my 
judgment, should be a no-brainer for us given all of the information 
and the case for why this works.
  So, Madam President, I am looking forward to working with colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to actually get this done. We should get it 
done quickly so that we can move on to a whole series of issues that 
need to be addressed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Federal Environmental Regulations

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, all Americans but especially Arizonans 
should be concerned about the crushing wall of Federal environmental 
regulations that President Obama has been announcing is coming our way.
  Politico recently noted, ``Two years [after the President originally 
announced his intent to take executive action on climate change], 
scarcely a week goes by without the administration unveiling a new 
climate change initiative.'' Common among all these regulations is 
their complete disregard for how businesses really operate and how they 
will adversely affect those businesses and their consumers.
  According to a report recently released by the American Action Forum, 
just the 18 ``economically significant'' regulations the White House 
announced before Memorial Day will saddle the Nation's slowly 
recovering economy with more than $110 billion in potential cost, with 
billions more in unknown burdens. If left uncorrected, these 
regulations will unfairly impact Arizona consumers and businesses and, 
in the view of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, ``cause significant 
economic harm to our state.''
  One of the most alarming of these new regulations is the 
Environmental Protection Agency's so-called clean water rule or waters 
of the United States rule--a Federal regulation of almost unprecedented 
scope. The EPA has claimed this rule would just let it stop 
construction activities that disturb small, environmentally sensitive 
streams and wetlands, but when you dive into the rule's 299 pages, you 
will find it actually expands EPA's authority to roughly 60 percent of 
all ``waters of the United States,'' including irrigation ditches, 
stock ponds, and even dry desert washes.
  This is bad news for Arizona agriculture and homebuilding sectors, 
which combined account for most of all economic activity in my State. 
If a farmer wants to build or repair a canal, the EPA could block it. A 
community that wants to build a school or a church near a dry wash will 
have to beg for EPA's permission. The EPA can even go after property 
owners if the Agency thinks water historically flowed across their 
land, even when there is no visible evidence.
  Ultimately, water is the last thing the EPA will be worried about 
once their clean water rule becomes effective; they will be drowning in 
lawsuits.
  Another proposed rule by the EPA--the ``Clean Power Plan rule''--
would place new limits on greenhouse gas emissions that would prevent 
the use of coal and result in the elimination of 36 percent of 
Arizona's electric power generation. Of course, the billions of dollars 
that would be needed to comply with the plan would be passed on to 
consumers. Estimates are that utility rates could increase up to 13 
percent in Arizona. If you are a small business owner and you don't 
have the luxury to

[[Page 12811]]

pass on these costs, this dramatic increase in your utility bill could 
prevent replacing old equipment or hiring new employees or otherwise 
expanding your business.
  In addition to being a job killer, this rule will impact Arizona's 
water supply, which in many cases is moved through the State by energy 
derived from coal-fired plants, negatively affecting consumers and 
commerce throughout the State.
  This rule also threatens default on hundreds of millions of dollars 
in taxpayer-backed USDA rural utility service loans around the country 
which are critical to providing rural residents with affordable energy 
and reliable, good-paying jobs.
  Another rule, which would revise ozone regulations, may also 
disproportionately impact Arizona, especially her rural communities. 
Failing to acknowledge qualities unique to Arizona regarding ozone 
concentrations in the State--for example, altitude, topography, 
lightning, and wildfires--this rule would undermine the State's 
continuing attractiveness to business by creating construction 
restrictions, permitting delays, and reduced Federal transportation 
funding.
  So what can be done about all of this? Well, that depends. For those 
rules that have been finalized, we can start looking at legislatively 
repealing them, as a bill Senator Flake and I recently sponsored would 
do with the clean water rule, or we can pass resolutions of disapproval 
under the Congressional Review Act to help bring public attention to 
them. For those rules that haven't been finalized yet, we can consider 
including riders in appropriations bills to disrupt their 
implementation.
  Madam President, we need to be very clear on what is going on here. 
These regulations don't represent a good-faith effort by President 
Obama to work with Congress to legislate transparently with care and 
acuity to help the States ensure the health, welfare, and safety of our 
citizens; rather, like the President's Executive order on immigration, 
they are an example of his insistence on using his ``pen and phone'' to 
unconstitutionally and unilaterally forge a legacy--a legacy that will, 
in fact, have a chilling impact on economic growth and prosperity.
  The fact is, after years of economic recession, the Arizona economy 
is showing signs of recovery. But with Arizona's growing slower than 
the rest of the country, with only a 1.1-percent increase in real gross 
State product compared to 2.2 nationwide and 65,500 fewer people 
working in Arizona compared to 8 years ago, Washington has to be 
focused on doing everything it can to unburden small business owners 
and promote entrepreneurialism. These regulations would do just the 
opposite.
  For these reasons, it will be important for all Arizonans and all 
affected Americans to make their concern and outrage heard. For 
Arizona, Senator Flake and I join our colleagues representing other 
affected States and will continue to exercise our constitutional 
oversight prerogative to keep the Executive in check and help educate 
the American people about what is coming and how it will affect all of 
us.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the Arizona Republic's editorials on this issue that appeared 
yesterday and on June 30, 2015; the op-ed from me and Senator Flake in 
the Arizona Republic entitled ``We're standing up against regulation-
happy Obama''; the two oversight letters we recently sent relevant 
Agency heads on the Clean Power Plan rule and the clean water rule; and 
the op-ed from Arizona Chamber of Commerce president Glenn Hamer in the 
Yuma Sun entitled ``List of examples of federal overregulation is way 
too long.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From The Republic, July 26, 2015]

          New EPA Clean-Air Rules Threaten Rural Power Co-ops

                        (By the Editorial Board)


  Our View: Coal is on the way out, but the feds need to acknowledge 
                               economics.

       By this fall, the federal Environmental Protection Agency 
     is expected to march the nation's energy consumers into new 
     territory on the frontier of controlling carbon emissions.
       Representatives of the big power companies are flooding 
     Washington, D.C., in a desperate effort to mitigate the 
     impact of the EPA's venture, known as the Clean Power Plan.
       Debates between environmental activists and politicians 
     over its implications are heating up.
       But few have looked at the EPA's new carbon plan with quite 
     the riveted sense of alarm as small utility companies that 
     serve rural customers.
       The president of a small cooperative serving rural 
     customers in Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada is blunt about 
     that impact:
       ``The people throughout rural Arizona that we serve will be 
     screwed more than anybody else in the country,'' Patrick 
     Ledger, CEO of the Arizona Generation and Transmission 
     Cooperatives, told the Environment and Energy news service.
       Unless the EPA's plan includes substantial revisions. 
     Ledger is not exaggerating.
       His energy co-op, serving some 500,000 rural customers, 
     operates one natural-gas-fired and two coal-fired units at 
     the Apache Generating Station in southeastern Arizona.
       One of the coal-fired units is scheduled to convert to gas 
     in 2018 to accommodate recent EPA rules governing haze. But 
     under the draft plan proposed by the EPA, the co-op would be 
     forced to shutter its coal-fired unit altogether, stranding 
     around $230 million in recent upgrades and investment.
       In addition, the co-op would have to take on between $450 
     million and $600 million in additional debt to rebuild 
     capacity to serve its customers.
       All told, that would push the price of the energy Ledger's 
     cooperative sells to distributive cooperatives to 38 percent 
     above market rates. And that, says Ledger, spells the end.
       ``We will be put out of business,'' Ledger told the 
     Republic editorial board last week. We go into bankruptcy.''
       Arizona Generation's debt is owed to another federal 
     agency. Repeat this story with multiple rural co-ops, and 
     taxpayers will be stuck with an enormous bill.
       Ledger and his colleagues understand that coal's future is 
     limited, so they are lobbying the EPA to give the nation's 
     100 smallest utilities more flexibility in meeting the carbon 
     goals.
       Ledger doesn't hold much hope for that, so he's also 
     working with Arizona's other utilities. This state faced the 
     most ambitious goal to reduce carbon under the draft plan; 
     utilities are urging the EPA to give them a longer glide path 
     to ease the transition away from coal.
       Concerns over enormous amounts of stranded debt is a near-
     universal one as the Clean Power Plan approaches.
       Arizona's major utility companies, including Salt River 
     Project and Arizona Public Service Co., recently invested 
     hundreds of millions of dollars to bring their coal-fired 
     plants into compliance with existing EPA regulations.
       Much of that investment will be lost if the EPA does not 
     revise the draconian carbon reductions written into the Clean 
     Power Plan, much of which the agency expects to occur no 
     later than 2020.
       A battle among giants, the debate over the Clean Power Plan 
     is scarcely considering the dire consequences for little-guy 
     energy providers like the Arizona Generation and Transmission 
     Cooperatives.
       It needs to start.
                                  ____


                   [From The Republic, June 30, 2015]

            We Have the Right To Know Cost of New EPA Rules

                        (By the Editorial Board)


 our view: how much will new carbon rules cost you? the supreme court 
               says taxpayers should be able to find out

       Within months, maybe weeks, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency will release new rules governing carbon dioxide 
     emissions from energy plants.
       The rules will constitute the most sweeping assertion ever 
     of the EPA's regulatory power. And it is only the beginning. 
     The EPA in the fall is expected to alter its standard for 
     what constitutes unhealthy ground-level ozone pollution, 
     which would require significant, economy-wide investment in 
     ozone-pollution control measures.
       That's a lot of unprecedented action. This would be a good 
     time for an honest talk about the balance between the costs 
     of these policies and their benefits.
       The Supreme Court is strongly suggesting that conversation 
     take place.
       In a 5-4 vote, the high court on Monday said the EPA must 
     reconsider a rule governing mercury emissions, mostly from 
     coal-fired power plants, because it did not weigh the costs 
     and benefits of the rule change before issuing it. The rule 
     is estimated to cost $9.6 billion annually.
       The decision is considered a setback for the Obama 
     administration's all-but acknowledged mission to retire the 
     majority of the nation's coal-fired electric plants.
       But not necessarily a major setback. The court's decision 
     does not throw out the mercury-emissions standards. It just 
     requires the agency to recalculate the rule while considering 
     more closely the price tag of implementing it.
       Most importantly, it leaves the EPA in charge of 
     determining anticipated costs and benefits.

[[Page 12812]]

       In the coming debate over the EPA's Clean Power Plan 
     mandates, Arizonans deserve to know exactly what 
     environmental benefits they are getting and whether the costs 
     of implementing these new emissions standards are reasonable.
       The EPA's self-analysis of the costs and benefits of its 
     mercury-pollution rule, however, suggests an honest report 
     may not be in the cards.
       According to the EPA, its mercury emissions rule would cost 
     the energy industry (which is to say, consumers) $9.6 billion 
     annually. That figure, however, doesn't take into account 
     significant factors like the higher costs of additional 
     borrowing the industry would have to incur, or the potential 
     economic drag.
       NERA Economic Consulting of Washington, D.C., calculated 
     the rule's annual cost at $16 billion.
       However, the EPA gets really creative in naming the 
     ledger's benefits.
       According to the EPA's figures, the mercury rule generates 
     a direct economic benefit of less than $7 million annually. 
     Part of that is derived from the 15 percent of pregnant women 
     in Wisconsin the agency assumes catch and eat at least 300 
     pounds of lake fish per year.
       The EPA also calculated that secondary impacts of the 
     mercury rule--infinitely more malleable ``improvements to the 
     public health''--would boost it's ``economic'' value to 
     between $24 billion and $80 billion per year.
       Bingo. Economic justification.
       We are talking about a significant financial investment to 
     achieve far less impressive results.
       As long as the EPA is in control of economically certifying 
     its own rules, it will be impossible to seriously judge 
     whether the upcoming Clean Power Plan emissions rules are 
     justified. That stands in opposition to the court's 
     direction.
       In Monday's Michigan vs. EPA decision, the high court's 
     majority concluded that federal administrative agencies ``are 
     required to engage in `reasoned decision-making.'''
       That means honestly assessing costs.
                                  ____


                   [From The Republic, July 11, 2015]

            We're Standing Up Against Regulation-Happy Obama

                    (By John McCain and Jeff Flake)


 senators: this administration intends to rewrite environmental policy 
                      with no thought to the costs

       A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a victory 
     for businesses and consumers when it turned back the Obama 
     administration's regulate-at-all-cost proposal for 
     controlling power plant emissions.
       In Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court 
     held that the EPA failed to consider the potentially 
     exorbitant cost its regulation would impose on the economy. 
     The EPA's rationale? The costs are ``irrelevant'' to the 
     decision to regulate.
       We strongly disagree.
       This is one of several new regulations the White House has 
     imposed over the past two years with no regard for how 
     businesses really operate. According to the American Action 
     Forum, 37 major regulations the White House recently 
     announced it is planning on releasing will saddle the 
     nation's recovering economy with more than $110 billion in 
     potential costs--hardly ``irrelevant.''
       If left unchecked, those regulations will unfairly impact 
     Arizonans and, according to the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, 
     ``cause significant economic harm to our state.''
       One of the most alarming new regulations is the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's so-called Waters of the 
     United States Rule. The EPA claims the rule protects only 
     waters that ``have historically been covered by the Clean 
     Water Act'' and that it ``protects clean water without 
     getting in the way of farming, ranching, and forestry.''
       But, dive into the rules 299 pages and you'll find it 
     actually enshrines the EPA's authority to regulate nearly 
     everything that is considered a ``tributary,'' including 
     irrigation ditches and dry desert washes.
       While this rule was supposed to be based on science, there 
     are glaring omissions in how Arizona's arid landscape was 
     considered. An analysis of U.S. Geological Survey stream maps 
     projects that Arizona would see a 200 percent increase in 
     river miles subject to the EPA's jurisdiction.
       This is bad news for Arizona's agriculture and home-
     building sectors, which are vital to the state's economy. The 
     federal government could block farmers from building or 
     repairing canals, communities from building schools or 
     churches near dry washes, or even private property owners 
     from developing on their own land if the agency believes 
     water historically flowed there, despite no visible evidence 
     that it still does.
       When this massive regulatory expansion becomes effective, 
     Arizonans will be drowning in consultants' fees and lawyers 
     bills. We have introduced legislation halting this rule until 
     the scientific analysis of intermittent and ephemeral streams 
     is complete.
       We are also pushing back against the federal government's 
     water grab in other ways. Recently, the Forest Service 
     formally withdrew its groundwater directive, something we 
     asked it to do last October. For now, at least, private 
     property rights that could have been impacted by that rule 
     are safe.
       But another proposed rule by the EPA, the ``Clean Power 
     Plan,'' would place new limits on greenhouse gas emissions, 
     including preventing the use of coal, which produces 36 
     percent of Arizona's electric power generation. The billions 
     of dollars necessary to comply with this plan would be passed 
     on to consumers through increased utility rates.
       This rule will most negatively impact those least able to 
     afford such a rate hike. Likewise, small-business owners who 
     don't have the luxury of passing on dramatic utility-price 
     increases could have trouble replacing old equipment or 
     hiring employees.
       These regulations are not intended to bolster our economy 
     or get Arizonans back to work. They are an assertion of 
     executive power by a president intent on rewriting 
     environmental policy, not a thoughtful attempt to help states 
     ensure the health, welfare and safety of their citizens.
       It is essential that those of us who represent Arizona in 
     Congress exercise our constitutional oversight prerogative to 
     keep the executive branch in check, and to help educate 
     Americans about what's coming and how it will affect us all.
       Given what is at stake here, we certainly will.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 2015.
     Hon. Gina McCarthy,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Tom Vilsack,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Shaun Donovan,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator McCarthy, Secretary Vilsack, and 
     Director Donovan, We write to express deep concern with 
     President Obama's attempt to bypass Congress and commandeer 
     the state regulatory process to impose unduly burdensome 
     carbon-emissions regulations at existing power plants; the 
     so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP). Our fear is that the CPP 
     would create significant technological and economic 
     challenges that disproportionately affect Arizonans.
       As proposed, the CPP would force Arizona, unlike almost any 
     other state, to achieve a 52% reduction in its carbon-
     emissions by 2030, with nearly 90% of that reduction 
     (equivalent to re-dispatching all of Arizona's coal-fired 
     baseload generation) coming within five years. The plan 
     effectively ignores Arizona's zero-emission nuclear asset, 
     Palo Verde Generating Station, and gives little credit for 
     the widespread deployment of renewable technology throughout 
     the state. Instead, the plan charges head long toward 
     dictating Arizona's resource portfolio and regulating beyond 
     the fence line.
       Shrouded by the veil of choice, EPA contends that Arizona 
     can use a combination of options (aka ``building blocks'') to 
     achieve these targets. In reality, the CPP treats Arizona so 
     harshly that it would be compelled to maximize the use of all 
     its building block ``options'' just to comply with the rule. 
     This is hardly a choice. Rather, as explained by Harvard law 
     professor Laurence Tribe, the proposed plan would effectively 
     dictate the energy mix in each state, allowing a federal 
     commandeering of state governments and violating principles 
     of federalism that are basic to our constitutional order.
       As an example, EPA expects Arizona to redispatch coal-fired 
     generation almost entirely with increased natural gas 
     generation. Yet, EPA ignores that more than half of the 
     state's existing natural gas capacity is merchant capacity, 
     not owned by Arizona utilities. Moreover, Arizona's natural 
     gas generating units are often used to manage the diverse 
     energy portfolio, including renewable supplies, meaning that 
     increased baseload use of those resources limits their 
     ability to assist with intermittent generation. Mistakenly, 
     EPA assumes that Arizona can quickly transition from coal 
     generation to natural gas generation by making greater use of 
     existing natural gas facilities. The EPA is not taking into 
     consideration the peak customer energy demands the state 
     requires in the summer months or the current natural gas 
     infrastructure in place.
       Converting coal resources to natural gas will also leave 
     millions of dollars in stranded assets in which plants are 
     forced to close before their useful life. As you are well 
     aware, utilities throughout the state have recently 
     retrofitted a number of these units to comply with other EPA 
     regulations, such as the regional haze rule. It is 
     unreasonable for EPA to compel utilities and their ratepayers 
     to comply with one rule, only to render those investments 
     wasted just a couple of years later under a different rule.
       Utilities and pipeline providers would, therefore, be 
     forced to spend billions of dollars on new energy 
     infrastructure which could take years to plan, implement, and 
     negotiate. The state's year-round energy needs simply cannot 
     be replaced by natural gas-fired plants in time for the CPP's 
     2020 interim deadline.
       As the Supreme Court recently found, these types of 
     economic issues are not ``irrelevant'' to the rulemaking 
     process. They must be considered, rather than marginalized. 
     And, in this case, it is not simply the stranded cost of 
     investing in new emissions technology or the increased rates;

[[Page 12813]]

     it is also the impact on other areas of the state's economy, 
     such as water deliveries that depend on energy. An increase 
     in water-delivery costs, particularly during the ongoing 
     drought, will only serve to further harm consumers.
       This situation is no doubt exacerbated by the possibility 
     that taxpayers could also pay more for this rule, as it 
     threatens to cause default on over $250 million in taxpayer-
     backed Rural Utilities Service (RUS) loans in Arizona. But, 
     Arizona's coal plants, including those with expensive air 
     pollution controls, will not operate long enough under the 
     CPP to pay these loans back. Shuttering Arizona's coal plants 
     before their useful life is completed will challenge rural 
     electric cooperative's ability to pay back those loans.
       In an effort to address many of these concerns, on December 
     1, 2014, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
     (ADEQ) in concert with the Arizona Utility Group, proposed a 
     compliance plan that would work for Arizona. They suggested 
     narrowly modifying EPA's CPP to allow newer, more efficient 
     coal-fired power plants to continue to fully operate after 
     2030. This more gradual plan would ensure that investments in 
     expensive emission control technologies will not be stranded 
     and that the CPP's impact on Arizonans will be mitigated.
       With the proposed final rule currently pending before OMB, 
     we would appreciate your consideration of the Arizona Utility 
     Group proposal and our concerns, as well as a written 
     response to the following questions no later than July 27, 
     2015:
       1. What cost-benefit analysis was conducted in connection 
     with the Administration's decision to go forward with this 
     rule? Specifically, what is the expected aggregate economic 
     impact of this rule on Arizona businesses and consumers?
       2. The USDA has indicated that $254.8 million is held 
     through RUS loans in Arizona. What is the value of these 
     loans that USDA holds nationally?
       3. Is the OMB taking the significant loss of taxpayer 
     investment in these loans into consideration of the EPA's 
     final rule?
       4. If the rule is approved and Arizona's rural energy 
     providers are forced out of business, what happens to the 
     existing loans?
       Thank you for your attention to this matter, I look forward 
     to your response.
           Sincerely,
     John McCain.
     Jeff Flake.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2015.
     Hon. Gina McCarthy,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania 
         Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator McCarthy: I'm writing concerning the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water Rule that 
     was signed on May 27, 2015. As you know, I've written you 
     before opposing the rule and I've cosponsored several bills 
     in the Senate to block it because of the damage it will 
     inflict on job creation and economic recovery in Arizona.
       The Clean Water Rule will extend Clean Water Act 
     jurisdiction to roughly 60-percent of all ``waters of the 
     United States,'' effectively allowing EPA to regulate small 
     streams like it currently does large rivers. But the rule can 
     also apply to ephemeral streams, irrigation ditches, stock 
     ponds, and even dry desert washes that are common in Arizona. 
     As such, the rule disproportionately impacts Arizona farmers, 
     cattlemen, developers and other key sectors of Arizona's 
     economy historically and moving forward into the 21st 
     century. Please bear in mind that agriculture makes up about 
     30-percent of the economy in my home state, and that 
     construction jobs account for roughly 13-percent of new jobs 
     created in Arizona during the economic recovery.
       In recent years, the EPA has, unfortunately, succeeded in 
     building a track record of unilaterally reinventing federal 
     statutes, like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, to 
     advance politically-sensational regulations. What follows is 
     not genuine environmental protection, which is vitally 
     important, but a stigmatization of EPA and its restrictive 
     regulations, which are criticized and then litigated for 
     their blatant disregard for their economic harmfulness. This 
     pattern recently forced the hand of the Supreme Court in 
     Michigan et al. v Environmental Protection Agency, in which 
     it rejected EPA's new rule on mercury and air toxic Standards 
     because the agency had not justified the economic cost-
     benefit of the rule.
       Against this backdrop, I respectfully request that you 
     respond to the following questions:
       1. Explain on what basis the EPA has concluded that its 
     economic-impact analysis for the final Clean Water Rule 
     determined that this rule is ``appropriate and necessary?''
       2. What economic-impact analysis, if any, did the EPA 
     conduct in connection with the Clean Water Rule that took 
     into account Arizona businesses and consumers in particular?
       3. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Michigan et al. 
     v EPA, do you believe EPA sufficiently calculated the rule's 
     cost considering that the Small Business Administration's 
     Office of Advocacy's requested that the EPA withdraw the rule 
     because it ``will have a direct and potentially costly impact 
     on small business'' and requested further review by the SBA? 
     Please explain your answer.
       Thank you for your attention to this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John McCain,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____


              [From the Yuma Sun: Opinion, June 24, 2015]

  Guest Column: List of Examples of Federal Overregulation Is Way Too 
                                  Long

                            (By Glenn Hamer)

       During an address before a joint session of the Indiana 
     State Legislature, Ronald Reagan once quipped, ``If the 
     Federal Government had been around when the Creator was 
     putting His hand to this State, Indiana wouldn't be here. 
     It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact 
     statement.'' These remarks were from a speech given in 1982, 
     and although tongue-in-cheek, their meaning unfortunately 
     still rings true 33 years later.
       The federal government continues to roll out rules and 
     regulations that are often overly burdensome and unnecessary. 
     This has a particularly chilling effect on business and 
     economic growth. What's more, the Arizona business community 
     is increasingly concerned that the regulatory agenda of the 
     current administration unfairly impacts Arizona, and has the 
     potential to cause significant economic harm to our state.
       Last week I sent a letter to Sen. John McCain outlining 
     five federal rules, primarily driven by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA), that illustrate this concern:
       First up, the EPA's carbon emission rule for electric power 
     plants. In this proposed rule, the EPA has assigned Arizona 
     one of the most stringent reduction goals in the country--52 
     percent carbon emission reduction by 2030, with an aggressive 
     interim goal to achieve more than three-quarters of that 
     reduction by 2020. Arizona's utilities would need to retire a 
     majority of the coal-fired generating facilities in the state 
     to meet this goal, This transition is not economically 
     feasible and would threaten the reliability of Arizona's 
     electricity supply.
       Next, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 
     issued a final rule changing the definition of ``waters of 
     the United States,'' under the Clean Water Act. This brings 
     vast swaths of land under the federal government's 
     jurisdiction and disproportionately impacts Arizona as a 
     result of our unique landscape and infrastructure. For 
     example, Arizona's canal systems, drainage systems, ditches, 
     and private property will be subject to federal government 
     control, which limits our ability to manage water allocation 
     and usage locally. According to a recent economic analysis, 
     our system of canals is responsible for 30 percent of 
     Arizona's gross state product, yet the EPA found the 
     definitional change would ``not have a significant economic 
     impact.''
       The EPA is also considering a rule that would lower the air 
     quality standard for ozone. Under the EPA's proposed range, 
     the entire state of Arizona stands to be classified as a non-
     attainment area. Such a designation brings significant 
     consequences, including permitting delays, restrictions on 
     construction, and threats to our federal transportation 
     funding, all of which will undoubtedly make it more difficult 
     for Arizona to attract and retain businesses.
       Arizona is further disadvantaged by these environmental 
     regulations because of the cost of proving so-called 
     ``exceptional events'' and their frequency in our state. As 
     we all know, Arizona is home to frequent dust storms during 
     the summer months. These exceptional events occur regularly 
     in Arizona and contribute to artificially poor air quality 
     readings. Under the EPA's current Exceptional Events Rule, a 
     state can be subject to a non-attainment designation and 
     other significant consequences unless it can prove that a 
     poor air quality reading is the result of an exceptional 
     event.
       Finally, the federal Endangered Species Act lists hundreds 
     of species as endangered or threatened, many dozens in 
     Arizona. This results in high costs to industry by hindering 
     development and economic growth and imposing exorbitant 
     compliance costs even when the designation does not give an 
     accurate picture of the species' status.
       Government regulation and oversight serves an important 
     purpose. However, the federal government has a responsibility 
     to ensure the regulations it promulgates are fair, equally 
     applied, and result in an articulable benefit. Recent 
     environmental regulations demonstrate a failure to recognize 
     the limits of federal authority and to meaningfully engage 
     the states to develop regulatory schemes that safeguard 
     public health and safety, acknowledge the unique qualities of 
     the individual states, and support a robust and growing 
     economy.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 12814]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________