[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1152-1184]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2012, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the 
     energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Murkowski amendment No. 2953, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Murkowski (for Cassidy/Markey) amendment No. 2954 (to 
     amendment No. 2953), to provide for certain increases in, and 
     limitations on, the drawdown and sales of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve.
       Murkowski amendment No. 2963 (to amendment No. 2953), to 
     modify a provision relating to bulk-power system reliability 
     impact statements.


                           Building Consensus

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Speaker of the House and the 
majority leader met at the White House with President Obama. This 
meeting was the first time that these three leaders sat down together 
to discuss the Nation's business since the beginning of the new year 
and to look for some opportunities to advance bipartisan priorities 
during President Obama's final year in office.
  This Senator knows that some might view such a meeting with 
skepticism

[[Page 1153]]

and say: What incentive do people have to actually work together when 
they come from such polar opposite points of view politically and 
ideologically? But this Senator believes there is an opportunity to 
build on some of our success that we had in the Senate last year.
  While many eyes are focused on Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, 
and Nevada, I want to assure my constituents and anybody else who 
happens to be listening, that we actually have been trying to get the 
people's work done here in the U.S. Congress. Some people might not 
want to hear that, some might not believe it when they hear it, but I 
would hope that fair-minded people might look at the evidence and say: 
Yes, there is actually some important work being done.
  In the process, in 2015, we actually--I know this sounds improbable--
reduced the role of the Federal Government in education and sent more 
of that responsibility back where it belongs to parents, teachers, and 
local school districts in the States.
  We reformed Medicare, which provides important health services to our 
seniors.
  We provided for the long-term stability of our Nation's 
infrastructure. We passed the first multi-year Transportation bill, I 
think, in 10 years, after having made about 33 different temporary 
patches, which is a terribly inefficient way to do business. Where I 
come from in Texas, since we are a fast growing State--and I expect 
most States feel the same way--providing for transportation 
infrastructure is important. It is important to our air quality, to 
commerce, to our economy, and to public safety.
  We also did something that this Senator is proud of: the first 
Federal effort to provide meaningful support to victims of human 
trafficking, a bill that passed 99 to 0 in the U.S. Senate. One doesn't 
get more bipartisan and consensus-building than that.
  The way these measures happened, as well as the other work we have 
done, is by Republicans and Democrats working together. We are stuck 
with each other whether we like it or not. Republicans can't get things 
done by themselves. Democrats can't get things done by themselves. The 
laws can't be passed under our constitutional framework unless both 
Houses of Congress pass legislation and it is actually signed by the 
President. We have to work together if we are going to make progress.
  A lot of the credit for last year's production in the Senate should 
be laid at the feet of the majority leader, Senator McConnell, who said 
that after years of dysfunction where we were stuck in gridlock and 
nothing seemed to happen--he said: We are going to return to the 
regular functioning of the Senate. We are going to have committees 
consider legislation. We are going to have hearings to figure out how 
to pass good legislation, which is going to be voted on in the 
committee before it comes to the Senate so that we can see what pieces 
of legislation have bipartisan support and thus might be able to be 
passed by the Senate. In the Senate we call this regular order, but all 
it means is that everybody gets to participate in the process.
  It is important to all of us that we be able to offer suggestions, 
that we be able to debate and offer amendments both in committee and on 
the floor. It might seem like pretty basic stuff, and people may think 
that happens as a matter of course. But, unfortunately, it didn't.
  In 2014 the Senate had 15 rollcall votes. As the Presiding Officer 
knows, the Senate was stuck in a ditch and couldn't seem to get out. To 
give a number to demonstrate how dramatically things have changed in 1 
year with the new majority leader, last year we had 200 rollcall votes 
on amendments. There were 15 in 2014 and 200 in 2015. So we could talk 
about the substance, but I think those numbers tell part of the story.
  So I am glad there is open communication between our Congressional 
leaders and the President. I hope we can find some ways to get some 
things done, because, again, no matter whether you are a conservative 
or a liberal, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, we actually 
are not going to be able to get things done unless we find a way to 
build consensus. That is the way legislation is passed.
  We have more work to do this year. So we need to keep our focus not 
on what is happening in Presidential primaries but on our job here in 
Congress and continue to try to work in a bipartisan way and deliver 
for our bosses, namely, the American people.
  The bipartisan energy bill we are working on now is a good start to 
2016. I congratulate Senator Murkowski, the chair of the energy 
committee, and Senator Cantwell, the ranking member, for getting the 
bill this far. I think part of what demonstrates to me the wisdom of 
Senator Murkowski in handling this particular bill is that some of the 
more controversial issues, such as lifting the ban on crude oil 
exports, were handled separately and dealt with at the end of last year 
rather than in this bill.
  This bill does represent one with broad bipartisan support. Coming 
from an energy State, as the Presiding Officer does, we understand the 
importance of energy to our economy. We produce more of it, we use it 
more efficiently, and, hopefully, it benefits consumers in the process. 
This bill will update our energy policies so that they reflect the 
enormous transformation we have observed in our energy sector. I have 
said it before, and I will say it again: I chuckle to myself when I 
heard people in the past talking about ``peak oil.'' That was sort of 
the talk in the oil patch. People said: Well, we have discovered all of 
the oil there is, and there is no more. So we are now going to be in a 
period of perpetual decline. We might as well get ready for that.
  But thanks to the innovation in the energy sector with things like 
fracking--which has been around for 70 years but which some people have 
just discovered, it seems--along with horizontal drilling, what we have 
seen is this shale oil and gas revolution, which has been a boon to our 
country and particularly in places such as Texas, North Dakota, and the 
like.
  Now, because of the glut, literally, of oil being produced, natural 
gas prices are much lower, which actually benefits consumers. If you 
have looked at the price of a gallon of gas lately, you have seen that 
gasoline is pretty cheap relative to historic levels.
  Another important issue beyond energy that I think we need to deal 
with this year is to get back to a regular appropriations process. We 
saw at the end of last year--because our friends across the aisle 
blocked voting on appropriations bills, including funding our military, 
which I just found to be incredible and really disgraceful, frankly--
that we found ourselves in a position where in order to fund the 
functions of government, we had to do an Omnibus appropriations bill.
  I have said before that you might call it an ``ominous'' 
appropriations bill. It is an ugly process. It is a terrible way to do 
business because what it does is it empowers a handful of leaders to 
negotiate something that Members of the Senate ought to be involved in 
through the regular process, through voting bills through the 
Appropriations subcommittees, through the Appropriations Committee, 
through the floor, where we have transparency in the process and where 
any Senator who has a good idea can come to the floor and offer an 
amendment.
  That is the way it ought to be done. We need to restore that sort of 
regular order this year so that each of the 12 separate funding bills 
can be considered and voted on by the Appropriations Committee and then 
here on the Senate floor and then matched up with the House bill before 
it is sent to the President. Again, this is legislation 101, pretty 
basic stuff.
  But unfortunately, the Senate and the Congress have not been 
operating as they should. That is something that we would like to 
change. So last year, all 12 appropriations bills were sent out of 
their respective committees--the first time since 2009 that has 
happened. But, again, because of the blocking of the legislation, we 
ended up in a bad situation at the end of the year, where the only 
thing we could do was pass an Omnibus appropriations bill.

[[Page 1154]]

  So now we look to the President's budget, which will be sent over 
here in short order. We will take up that matter up through the Budget 
Committee, and we will look at the appropriations process ahead of us. 
I would like to suggest to our Democratic friends that they have a 
choice to make. They can try to force this Chamber back into the same 
dysfunction and the same sort of partisan bickering that has 
characterized it for years when they were in charge or they can decide 
to work with us--as we would like to do--to move forward principled 
legislation, including appropriations bills, in a transparent, open 
process that allows every Senator--Republicans and Democrats alike--a 
chance to participate and allows our constituents to watch, as they go 
across the floor, and to ask the appropriate questions, to raise 
concerns if they have those concerns.
  That is the way our democracy is supposed to work. Passing massive 
stopgap funding bills is not doing the best for the people we 
represent. It can be avoided, but it is going to take a little bit of 
cooperation. But I have to think that whether you are in the majority 
or the minority, most Senators like to work in a Senate that actually 
functions according to regular order, because, as the Presiding Officer 
knows, even being in the majority does not mean we have a chance to 
vote on amendments to legislation.
  Indeed, for a period of time, his predecessor did not even have a 
chance to vote on an amendment--a rollcall vote on an amendment--
nevertheless being in the majority party at the time. That is not the 
way this body is supposed to function. That is not doing our best to 
serve the interests of the people we represent. So we have a choice to 
make. I hope we choose the higher ground and perhaps listen to the 
better angels of our nature rather than the other one on our shoulder 
to whom we should not pay attention.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address several amendments that 
I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on before this bill is 
completed.
  The first amendment is amendment No. 3131, research and development 
for secondary use and innovative recycling research of electric vehicle 
batteries.
  Electric vehicles, as folks generally understand, run almost entirely 
on lithium ion batteries, which are commonly considered to have reached 
the end of their useful life when the capacity diminishes by 20 to 30 
percent. The range of the vehicle diminishes in a corresponding 
fashion. At that point, it is time for a new set of batteries. But the 
battery still has a lot of useful life. It still has 70 to 80 percent 
of its original capacity. So it has the capacity to be utilized in many 
other potential roles, including, possibly, stationary electric 
storage.
  This amendment instructs the Department of Energy to conduct research 
on possible uses of a vehicle battery after its use in a vehicle, to 
assess the potential for markets for those batteries, to develop an 
understanding of the barriers for the development of those markets, and 
to identify the full range of potential uses.
  That would be very useful to diminish the flow of potential batteries 
into recycling, to get the most out of the investment we have made in 
them, and also to diminish the cost of batteries, because the residual 
use means that they have residual value, and the overall initial cost 
would reflect that. So that is an important research goal. It is 
clearly one of the strategies to enhance our activity from a fossil 
fuel industry to the utilization of more clean, renewable electricity.
  Second, I want to turn to amendment No. 3178, the Federal fleet 
amendment. The General Services Administration currently procures about 
70,000 vehicles a year for various agencies. The total inventory of the 
Federal fleet is now almost 700,000 vehicles. These Federal vehicles 
are used for a wide range of purposes, some of which may well be 
appropriate for electric vehicles and others that may not be.
  But in order to consider the applied role, the General Services 
Administration needs data on vehicle reliability and maintenance costs 
to understand what would be a fair and appropriate use and to calculate 
the lease terms. So this amendment provides GSA with the authority to 
reach out to other agencies to collect the information on the vehicles 
the agencies use, to do an inventory of what uses may be suitable for 
different types of electric vehicles and the numbers that could 
possibly be deployed, and to use that information to develop a 10-year 
plan for GSA to submit a report back to Congress so that we can 
understand what the potential is and make sure that we well position 
our policies to exploit that opportunity.
  The third amendment that I want to draw attention to is amendment No. 
3191, sponsored by myself, Senator Schatz, and Senator Markey. This is 
a resolution of the sense of the Senate. It notes that global 
temperature increases will lead to more droughts, more intense storms, 
more intense wildfires, a rise in sea levels, more desertification, and 
more acidification of our oceans, and that these impacts will result in 
economic disruption to farming, fishing, forestry, and recreation, 
having a profound impact on rural America.
  Now, we know this to be the case because we can already observe these 
impacts on the ground right now. In my home State of Oregon, we have a 
growing red zone caused by pine beetles--pine beetles that previously 
were killed off in colder winters that now survive in greater numbers 
and attack more trees. We have a longer forest fire season. It has 
grown by 60 days over 40 years. The amount or the acreage consumed by 
forest fires is increasing. We have a diminishing snowpack in the 
Cascades, which is resulting in smaller, warmer trout streams, as well 
as affecting our winter recreation industry. I know that anyone who 
loves to fish for trout does not want to have a smaller and warmer 
stream because of its adverse impact.
  Over on our coast, we are having an impact on the baby oysters, which 
have difficulty forming their shells in the more acidic Pacific Ocean, 
an ocean that is now 30 percent more acidic than it was before the 
Industrial Revolution. This amendment simply points to the fact that 
already we see all of this. But as the temperature rises, disruptions 
increase. The impact on our farming, fishing, forestry, and recreation 
is greater, and it is doing a lot of damage to our rural economies and 
a lot of damage overall to the United States of America, and it is 
doing so throughout the world as well.
  We must work together to transition to a clean energy economy. But 
there are important first steps in place. Our future President, 
whomever that might be, must work to build upon the foundation we have 
put in place with our Clean Power Plan, with increased mileage for our 
vehicles and increased mileage for freight transportation. Let's build 
upon those steps in order to work in partnership with the world to take 
on this major challenge.
  So I hope these three amendments have a chance to be debated and 
voted on here on the floor. We are clearly in a situation where we are 
the first generation to see the impacts of our fossil fuel energy 
economy, see the destructive impacts on our forests, our fishing, our 
farming, and our winter recreation. Therefore, we have a responsibility 
to work together to take this on. Our children, our children's 
children, may they not look back and say: What happened? Why did our 
parents and grandparents fail to act in the face of such a massive and 
important global threat?


                    Our ``We the People'' Democracy

  Mr. President, I am now shifting to my regular ``We the People'' 
speech, a series of speeches in which I try to raise issues that go to 
the heart of the framing of our Constitution and the vision of creating 
a republic that has a government responsive to the concerns of citizens 
throughout our Nation.
  Our Founders started the Constitution with three powerful words, ``We 
the People.'' They wrote them in a font 10 times the size of the 
balance of the Constitution as if to say: This is what it is all about. 
This is our goal, as President Lincoln summarized, a ``government of 
the people, by the people, for the people.''
  It was not the plan of our Founders in writing the Constitution to 
have a

[[Page 1155]]

government designed to serve the ruling elites. It was not the design 
of our Constitution to serve the titans of industry and commerce. It 
was not the intention of our Founders to build a government to serve 
the best off, the richest in our society--quite the contrary. So I am 
rising periodically to address issues related to this vision, this 
beautiful Revolution, the American Revolution, that sought to have a 
form of government that served the people, not the elite.
  This week I am using my speech to recognize the anniversary of two 
Supreme Court decisions, two decisions which have driven a stake 
through the heart of our ``We the People'' democracy. One ruling, 
Buckley v. Valeo, marked its 40th anniversary last Saturday on January 
30, and Citizens United marked its 6th anniversary on January 21. These 
two decisions have forever altered the vision of our government. They 
have turned our government on its head. They have changed it from ``We 
the People'' to ``We the Titans.'' It is my hope that visitors will 
rally together in this country, that Senators and House Members will 
rally together to defend the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold 
that was not a ``We the Titans'' Constitution, it was a ``We the 
People'' Constitution.
  Central to the promise of ``We the People'' is the right to 
participate in an equal footing, to contribute one's opinions and 
insights on elections and on issues.
  President Jefferson called this the mother principle. He summarized 
it as follows: ``For let it be agreed that a government is republican 
in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the 
direction of its concerns . . . by representatives chosen by himself, 
and responsible to him.'' Let me emphasize again, ``republican in 
proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the 
direc-
tion. . . . ''
  The decisions of Buckley and Citizens United are a direct assault on 
this fundamental understanding that to have a ``We the People'' 
republic, you have to have citizens participate in a roughly equal 
footing.
  These two decisions bulldozed the ``We the People'' pillar on which 
our government is founded.
  President Lincoln echoed Jefferson's equal voice principle. He said: 
``Allow all the governed an equal voice in the government, and that, 
and that only is self-government.''
  Is there anyone in this Chamber who believes that today all the 
governed have an equal voice in the government? I am sure no one among 
our 100 Senators would contend that principle--so eloquently laid out 
by President Jefferson, so resoundingly echoed by President Lincoln, so 
deeply embedded in the founding words of our Constitution--is true 
today. It is not true because Buckley v. Valeo found that individuals 
could spend unlimited sums to influence issues and the outcomes of 
election. That decision and Citizens United destroyed the notion that 
all citizens get to participate on an equal footing. By green-lighting 
the spending amount of unlimited sums in combination with the high cost 
of participating in the modern town square--that is, to secure time on 
radio, time on television, time or space on the Web--these decisions 
give the wealthy and well-connected control of the town commons and the 
ability to drown out the voice of the people.
  Certainly a situation where the top 10 percent can overwhelm, can 
drown out the 90 percent, is not ``We the People'' governance. 
Certainly a situation where the top 1 percent can drown out the 99 
percent is not ``We the People'' governance. It is the opposite.
  As President Obama said, ``Democracy breaks down when the average 
person feels that their voice doesn't matter.'' That is how people feel 
when they are drowned out by the few under the framework established by 
Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United.
  The most basic premise of our Constitution is that influence over 
elections means influence over governance. That is the whole point. 
Influence over elections is not limited just to being in the booth and 
pulling a lever. When you enhance the voices of the wealthy relative to 
everyone else, you fundamentally shift the outcome of legislative 
deliberations. Despite the arguments of the plaintiffs in Buckley v. 
Valeo, the wealthy do not have the same concerns about this Nation, 
about their lives that everyone else has. They don't have the same 
concerns about the cost of college. They don't have the same concerns 
about paid family leave. They don't have the same concerns about the 
solvency and adequacy of Social Security. They are not worried. They 
are not staying up nights about the health of their child and concern 
over the cost and quality of health care, and they are not disturbed 
over policies that shift our manufacturing jobs overseas and eviscerate 
the working middle class in America.
  Yet here we have it. Buckley v. Valeo takes this small percentage of 
folks who do not have concerns that reflect the vast majority of 
Americans and gives them overwhelming power in elections and issues.
  Let me ask you, is it any wonder that the middle class is doing 
poorly while the wealth of America has grown exponentially? Isn't that 
what one would expect in a system favoring the wealthy over the 
workers? Are we, can we be a government of, by, and for the people if 
individuals at the very top have vastly greater influence over 
elections and policy than others? Our Constitution says no. Our 
Founders said no, but Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United said yes--
and they are wrong.
  With a campaign finance system that gives the most affluent massive 
influence over elections with concomitant control over laws, we don't 
have a government that embodies President Jefferson's mother principle; 
that is, one that reflects and executes the will of the people.
  So it is time to change this. It is time to recapture the genius of 
American governance, and it is time to restore the ``We the People'' 
principles so eloquently and powerfully embedded in the framing of our 
Constitution.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Islam

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about two 
topics that often make this body and sometimes my side of the aisle 
uncomfortable. I want to talk about the fight that is on across the 
world--or particularly in the Middle East for the soul of Islam and how 
it matters to the United States--and I want to talk about our 
relationship with Saudi Arabia and the connection to the former issue.
  We frequently hear this criticism of President Obama that he doesn't 
have a strategy to defeat ISIS. I fundamentally don't believe that is 
true. He does have a strategy, and it is largely working when you look 
at the metrics on the ground. You see that ISIS's territory in Iraq and 
Syria have been reduced by about 30 percent over the course of the last 
year. We have tightened our immigration policies here to make sure the 
bad guys don't get in. We have stood up a more capable fighting force 
inside Iraq. We have clamped down significantly on ISIS's sources of 
revenue and financing. Listen, it is hard to win when only one 
spectacular and deadly strike can erase all of your good work, but the 
President does have a strategy on the ground right now inside Iraq and 
inside Syria.
  The problem is that it is still a relatively short-term strategy. As 
we debate how to defeat ISIS or groups like it, our strategic 
prescriptions are all relatively short term. We use military force. We 
try to retake territory. We try to take out top terrorist leaders. We 
clamp down on sources of financing. These are necessary and important 
measures to combat a serious threat to the United States, but they 
don't address the underlying decisions that lead to radicalism. 
Addressing those issues is the only way to ensure that the next 
iteration of ISIS--whoever it is, whatever it is, wherever it is--
doesn't just simply emerge in its place.

[[Page 1156]]

  So my argument is that one of the reasons no one has a particularly 
credible long-term strategy is that it would involve engaging in some 
very uncomfortable truths about the nature of the fight ahead of us and 
about the imperfections of one of our most important allies in the 
Middle East. To make this case to you, I want to first bring you to 
northwest Pakistan and ask my colleagues to imagine that you are a 
parent of, let's say, a 10-year-old boy. You are illiterate, you are 
poor, and you are getting poorer by the day. Unemployment in your 
village is sky high. Inflation is robbing you of any wealth you may 
have. Your crop yields have been miserable, but one day you get a visit 
that changes your perspective. A cleric from a nearby conservative 
mosque offers you a different path. He tells you that your poverty is 
not your fault but simply a punishment handed down to you because of 
your unintentional deviation from the true path of Islam. Luckily, 
there is a way to get right to God, to submit your only son to Islam.
  It gets even better. This cleric is going to offer to educate your 
son at his school. We call them madrassas. Not only will you not have 
to pay for the education, this school is going to actually pay you 
maybe $6,000 just to send your son there. When your son finishes 
school, this individual promises you that he will find him employment 
in the service of Islam. Your 10-year-old, previously destined to lead 
a life that was perhaps more hopeless than your own, is now going to 
get free housing and meals, religious instruction, the promise of a job 
when he is older and you get money that you badly need and improved 
favor with God.
  For thousands of families in destitute places such as northwest 
Pakistan, we can see how it is often a pretty easy choice. But as the 
years go on, you lose touch with your son. The school cuts off your 
access to him. And when you do get to see him every now and again, you 
see him changing. Then one day it is over. He is not the little boy you 
once knew. He is a teenager. And he is announcing to you that the only 
way to show true faith with Islam is to fight for it against the 
infidels who are trying to pollute the Muslim faith or the Westerners 
who are trying to destroy it. He tells you that he is going off to 
Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq with some fellow students and that you 
shouldn't worry about him because God is on his side.
  You start asking questions to find out what happened in the school 
and you start to learn. You discover the textbooks he read that taught 
him a brand of Islam greatly influenced by something called Wahhabism, 
a strand of Islam based on the earliest form of religion practiced 
under the first four caliph. It holds that any deviation from Islamic 
originalism is heresy. In school, your son was therefore taught an 
ideology of hate toward the unbeliever--defined as Christians, Jews, 
and Hindus, but also Shiites, Sufis, and Sunni Muslims who don't follow 
the Wahhabi doctrine. He is told that the crusades never end; that aid 
organizations, schools, and government offices are just modern weapons 
of the West's continuing crusade against his faith; and that it is a 
religious obligation to do ``battle'' against the infidels.
  I tell my colleagues this story because some version of it plays out 
hundreds of times every day in far-flung places, from Pakistan to 
Kosovo, Nigeria to Indonesia, the teaching of an intolerant version of 
Islam to hundreds of millions of young people.
  Think about this: In 1956 there were 244 of these madrassas in 
Pakistan; today there are 24,000. These schools are multiplying all 
over the globe. Yet, don't get me wrong, these schools, by and large, 
aren't directly teaching violence. They aren't the minor leagues for Al 
Qaeda or ISIS. But they do teach a version of Islam that leads very 
nicely into an anti-Shia, anti-Western militancy.
  I don't mean to suggest that Wahhabism is the only sect of Islam that 
can be perverted into violence. Iran's Shia clerics are also using 
religion to export violence as well. But it is important to note that 
the vicious terrorist groups whom Americans know by name are Sunni in 
derivation and greatly influenced by Wahhabi Salafist teachings.
  Of course, the real rub is that we have known this for a very long 
time. Secretaries of State, ambassadors, diplomats, and four-star 
generals have all complained over and over again about it. Yet we do 
very little to stop this long, slow spread of intolerance. We don't 
address it because to do so would force us to confront two very 
difficult issues.
  The first is how we talk sensibly about Islam. Right now we are 
caught between two extremes. Leading Republicans want to begin and end 
this discussion with a debate over what we call terrorists. Of course, 
the leading candidate for President often equates the entire religion 
with violence. I think this debate over nomenclature is overwrought, 
but I certainly understand the problem of labeling something ``radical 
Islamic terrorism'' because it gives purchase to this unforgivable 
argument that all Muslims are radicals or terrorists. So many 
Republicans don't want to go any deeper into the conversation than just 
simply labeling the threat. But Democrats, frankly, aren't that much 
better. The leaders of my party often do back flips to avoid using 
these kinds of terms, but, of course, that forestalls any conversation 
about the fight within Islam for the soul of the religion.
  It is a disservice to this debate to simply brand every Muslim as a 
threat to the West, but it is also a disservice to refuse to 
acknowledge that although ISIS has perverted Islam to a degree to make 
it unrecognizable, the seeds of this perversion are rooted in a much 
more mainstream version of that faith that derives in substantial part 
from the teachings of Wahhabism.
  Leaders of both parties need to avoid the extremes of this debate and 
enter into a real conversation about how America can help the moderate 
voices within Islam win out over those who would sow the seeds of 
extremism. Let me give an example. Last fall, I visited the Hedayah 
Center in Abu Dhabi, a U.S.-supported, Arab-led initiative to 
counterprogram against extremist messaging. When I pressed the center's 
leadership on the need to confront Wahhabi teaching and the mainstream 
roots of extremism, they blanched. They said it was out of their lane. 
They were focused on the branches of extremism, not the trunk. But, of 
course, by then it is probably too late.
  America, frankly, doesn't have the moral authority or weight to tip 
the scales in this fight between moderate Islam and less tolerant 
Islam. Muslim communities and Muslim nations need to be leading this 
fight. But America--and most notably, sometimes the leaders of my 
party--also can't afford to shut its eyes to the struggle that is 
playing out in real time.


                              Saudi Arabia

  That brings me to the second uncomfortable truth, and I present it to 
you in a quote from Farah Pandith, who was President Obama's Special 
Representative to Muslim Communities. In a moment of candor, she 
commented that in her travel to 80 different countries in her official 
position, she said, ``In each place I visited, the Wahhabi influence 
was an insidious presence . . . funded by Saudi money.''
  The second uncomfortable truth is that for all the positive aspects 
of our alliance with Saudi Arabia, there is another side to that 
country than the one that faces us in our bilateral relationship, and 
it is a side we can no longer afford to ignore as our fight against 
Islamic extremism becomes more focused and more complicated.
  First, let me acknowledge that there are a lot of good aspects in our 
relationship with Saudi Arabia. I don't agree with cynics who say our 
relationship is just an alliance to facilitate the exchange of oil for 
cash and cash for weapons. Our common bond was formed in the Cold War 
when American and Saudi leaders found common ground in the fight 
against communism. The unofficial detente today between Sunni nations 
and Israel is a product, in part, of the Saudi-led diplomacy. There 
have been many high-profile examples of deep U.S.-Saudi cooperation in 
the fight against Al Qaeda and ISIS. More generally, our partnership 
with Saudi Arabia--the most powerful and the

[[Page 1157]]

richest country in the Arab world--serves as an important bridge to the 
Islamic community. It is a direct rebuttal of this terrorist idealogy 
that asserts that we seek a war with Islam.
  But increasingly, we just can't afford to ignore the more problematic 
aspects of Saudi policies. The political alliance between the House of 
Saud and the conservative Wahhabi clerics is as old as the nation, and 
this alliance has resulted in billions of dollars funneled to and 
through the Wahhabi movement. Those 24,000 religious schools in 
Pakistan--thousands of them are funded with money that originates in 
Saudi Arabia. So are mosques in Brussels, Jakarta, and Paris. According 
to some estimates, since the 1960s the Saudis have funneled over $100 
billion into funding schools and mosques all over the world, with the 
mission of spreading puritanical Wahhabism. As a point of comparison, 
researchers suggest that the Soviet Union spent about $7 billion--a 
fraction of that--during the entire period of 1920 to 1991. Less well-
funded governments and other strains of Islam just can't keep up with 
the tsunami of money behind this export of intolerance.
  Rightfully, we engage in daily castigations of Iran for sponsoring 
terrorism throughout the region. But why does Saudi Arabia largely get 
off the hook from direct public criticism from political leaders simply 
because they are a few degrees separated from the terrorists who are 
inspired by the ideology their money helps to spread? Why do we say 
virtually nothing about the human rights abuses inside Saudi Arabia, 
fueled by this conservative religious movement, when we so easily call 
out other countries for similar outrageous behavior?
  Second, we need to have a reckoning with the Saudis about the effect 
of their growing proxy war with Iran. There is more than enough blame 
to be spread around when it comes to this widening Saudi-Iranian fault 
line in the Middle East. I would argue that the lion's share of the 
responsibility lies with the Iranians, who have been a top exporter of 
terrorism and brutality for decades. It is primarily Iranian-backed 
groups who have destabilized places such as Lebanon and Iraq. It is the 
Iranians who are propping up a murderous regime in Damascus.
  But in the wake of the Iran nuclear agreement, there are many in 
Congress who would have the United States double down in our support 
for the Saudi side of this fight in places such as Yemen and Syria 
simply because Saudi Arabia is our named friend and Iran is our named 
enemy. But the Middle East doesn't work like that anymore, and there is 
growing evidence that our support for Saudi-led military campaigns in 
places such as Yemen are prolonging humanitarian misery and, frankly, 
aiding extremism.
  Ninety billion dollars in U.S. arms sales money has gone to Saudi 
Arabia during the Obama administration to help them carry out a 
campaign in Yemen against the Iranian-backed Houthis. Our government 
says its top priority in Yemen is defeating AQAP, which is arguably Al 
Qaeda's deadliest franchise, but this ongoing chaos has created a 
security vacuum in Yemen in which AQAP can thrive and even expand. No 
expert would dispute that since the Saudi campaign began, Al Qaeda has 
expanded in Yemen and ISIL has gained a new territorial and recruitment 
foothold. To make matters worse, Saudi Arabia and some of their GCC 
allies are so focused on this fight against Iran in Yemen that they 
have dramatically scaled back or in some cases totally ended their 
military efforts against ISIS. Under these circumstances, how does 
military support for Saudi Arabia help us in our fight against 
extremism if that is our No. 1 goal?
  Here are my recommendations. The United States should get serious 
about this. We should suspend supporting Saudi Arabia's military 
campaign in Yemen, at the very least until we get assurances that this 
campaign does not distract from the fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda or 
until we make some progress on the Saudi export of Wahhabism throughout 
the region and throughout the world. And Congress shouldn't sign off on 
any more military sales to Saudi Arabia unless similar assurances are 
granted.
  If we are serious about constructing a winning, long-term strategy 
against ISIS and Al Qaeda, our horizons have to extend beyond the day 
to day, the here and now, the fight in just Syria and Iraq. We need to 
admit that there is a fight on for the future of Islam, and while we 
can't have a dispositive influence on that fight, we also can't just 
sit on the sidelines. Both parties here need to acknowledge this 
reality, and the United States needs to lead by example by ending our 
effective acquiescence to the Saudi export of intolerant Islam.
  We need to be careful about not blindly backing our friend's plays in 
conflicts that simply create more instability, more political 
insecurity vacuums which ISIS and other extremist groups can fill, such 
as what is going on in Yemen today.
  We need to work with the Saudis and other partners to defeat ISIS 
militarily, but at the same time, we need to work together to address 
the root causes of extremism. Saudi Arabia's counter-radicalization 
programs and new anti-terrorism initiative are good steps that show 
Saudi leaders recognize some of these problems, but they need to do 
more. Tackling intolerant ideologies, refusing to incentivize 
destabilizing proxy wars--these are the elements of a long-term anti-
extremism strategy, and we should pursue this strategy even if it on 
occasion makes us uncomfortable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iran

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, today I want to talk about the President's 
recent dealings with Iran and the serious questions the 
administration's actions have raised.
  Let me begin by saying first of all that I welcome--as do all 
Americans who have been watching this--the release of the three 
American hostages who were wrongfully detained in Iran. We are all glad 
to see the return of Pastor Saeed Abedini, Jason Rezaian, and Amir 
Hekmati. That they have been freed and that they have been reunited 
with their families is important. Our prayers--my prayers and the 
prayers of so many Americans--remain with those families and with the 
family of Robert Levinson, a former FBI employee about whom we have not 
been given the kind of information we need to have. If he is alive, we 
should demand his release. If he is not alive, we should demand and 
find out what happened to Robert Levinson.
  In return for these three hostages being released, the United States 
released seven Iranians or Iranian Americans who had been convicted of 
transferring technology, which included nuclear dual-use technology, to 
Iran. The administration also agreed to take 14 Iranians off the 
Interpol arrest list as part of this effort to get Americans unfairly 
held back. If clearing the way for 21 convicted or indicted enemies of 
the United States wasn't enough, then the United States, in my view, 
also agreed to pay $1.7 billion to Iran. In everybody's view, they paid 
that $1.7 billion at the time of the swap. The administration, I guess, 
would want us to believe it is coincidental that the day after the 
American hostages were released and the day after the Iran deal went 
into effect, Secretary Kerry announced that the United States had 
settled a claim at the World Court at The Hague dating back decades.
  According to the Wall Street Journal, Iranian General Reza Naqdi 
said: ``Taking this much money back was in return for the release of 
the American spies and doesn't have to do with the [nuclear] talks.''
  Whether it had something to do with the nuclear talks or not, I don't 
know how significant that is. I submitted an amendment when we were 
debating the Iran agreement that it shouldn't be finalized in any way 
until all of these hostages were returned. In fairness, I didn't think 
it should be finalized in

[[Page 1158]]

any way, no matter what, but I definitely couldn't understand why we 
wouldn't insist that these innocently held Americans were returned. It 
becomes more and more obvious all the time that the Iranians had a 
plan. Not only did they want to further humiliate the United States, 
but they simply wanted money.
  Under this settlement at The Hague, the United States will be paying 
Iran--and has already paid Iran--$1.7 billion. This is supposedly $400 
million in principal stemming back to a former military sale before the 
fall of the Shah of Iran and then $1.3 billion in interest--$400 
million in principal, and $1.3 billion in interest.
  The timing of the swap and the announcement of the breakthrough in 
the settlement--this had been at the World Court for 35 years, and we 
are supposed to believe that it is just another coincidence in the 
Obama State Department.
  Peeling back the details of this settlement is even more troubling 
because the money had already been spent. This was Iranian money from a 
foreign military sale that had been held in what is called the FMS 
account--the foreign military sale account. It was originally placed in 
that trust fund, but then it was spent.
  Why was it spent? It was spent because the Congress in 2000 passed 
legislation that the President signed that directed the Secretary of 
the Treasury to use that money to compensate victims of Iranian 
terrorism. In cases like Flatow vs. Iran and four other related cases, 
Iranian terror victims all received compensation from this fund, 
effectively wiping out the balance of the fund. The trust fund that the 
administration is referring to has already been spent.
  How do you give money back that has already been spent? You can't 
give money back that has already been spent. I suppose you can take 
taxpayer dollars, which is what happened here, suggest that somehow 
this was money of the Iranians all the time and give those taxpayer 
dollars to Iran in return for, as their own general said, the release 
of the people he called the American spies.
  Did the administration essentially agree to ransom to get these 
Americans released? It certainly appears so.
  I think you and I and every Member of the Senate should continue 
pressing the administration for answers. If they want to spend taxpayer 
money, there may be some legal way they can do that, but there is 
really no legal way they can say they are giving money back that the 
Congress already told them to do something else with, and they did.
  In addition to that money we have now given to Iran, the Iranian 
agreement allows somewhere between $100 million and $150 million held 
by countries all over the world since the late 1970s to be returned to 
Iran. Just last week, Secretary of State Kerry said that some of this 
money will ``end up in the hands of the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard 
Corps] or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.''
  Well, of course that is where that money is going to wind up. There 
was an argument made during the Iranian agreement that there are so 
many needs in Iran that they are going to spend this on other more 
worthwhile things. But no matter how many needs there were in Iran, 
Iran is, by the administration's own determination, the No. 1 state 
sponsor of terrorism in the world. Of course when you give them money 
back, they are going to use that money for what they are already using 
their money for. They are just going to have over $100 billion more at 
their disposal.
  The world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--whether it is backing 
Palestinian terrorists in Gaza or supporting Hezbollah's attacks 
against Israel from Lebanon, the regime will now have more resources to 
do that with. Iran, of course, has made no secret of its nuclear 
ambitions nor of its willingness to flout the treaty obligations in 
order to achieve those ambitions. It recently launched two ballistic 
missile tests in the past 3 months. It is a direct violation of the 
U.N. resolution which prohibits them from engaging in activities 
related to ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, 
but they have done it twice in the last 90 days. Even Members of the 
President's own party who have supported the Iran agreement have 
criticized the administration's lack of response to these violations.
  What is the world to think? What are the American people to think 
when we are transferring money at the time we get American hostages 
back, when we are allowing missiles to be launched near the U.S.S. 
Harry Truman, when we are allowing ballistic missile tests to occur, 
and acting as if we have made some great breakthrough with Iran?
  The recent detention of U.S. sailors in Iran is another example of 
how little we have gained in this Iranian policy agreement. The 
administration has gone out of its way to accommodate the demands of 
this regime that is hostile and sponsors terrorists. Enough is enough. 
It is time that the Congress stood up, and I urge my colleagues in the 
Senate to utilize every tool at our disposal to hold the Iranian regime 
accountable.
  One important step will be to secure Iranian assets owed to victims 
of terrorism who had been awarded judgments by our courts and other 
courts. Why would we give money to Iran when there are Americans who 
are victims of terrorism that courts have said have a right to that 
money? They found Iran liable for sponsoring fatal attacks against 
American citizens, including the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy and 
the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and the 1996 bombing of the 
Khobar Towers in Khobar, Saudi Arabia.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, about $43.5 billion 
in unpaid judgments from Iran to Americans are due. Iran should not 
receive any sanctions relief until those claims have been paid. We 
ought to look at how we can secure Iranian assets to provide some 
measure of justice for victims of these terrorist activities. That 
should include assets held by foreign countries, foreign companies, and 
countries who do business in the United States.
  The idea that the Iranian regime is now our partner is dangerously 
naive and one that undermines our global leadership. It confuses our 
friends, and it emboldens our enemies. I urge the President to quit 
bending to this regime and start putting the interests of the American 
people and our allies first. I urge the Congress to continue to look at 
this recent exchange of money for hostages.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                       Lead In Our Drinking Water

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the effort by 
Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters to amend S. 2012 for Federal 
response to the ongoing crisis in Flint, MI. We know about the lead in 
the water supply, the fact that it was known, and the fact that many 
children today have suffered the consequences. It is incumbent that the 
Federal Government be a partner in finding a way to correct that 
circumstance as soon as possible.
  I come to the floor urging our colleagues to find a way that we can 
move forward with such an amendment to help the families in Flint, MI. 
I congratulate my colleagues, Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters, for 
their leadership.
  I hope we don't lose sight of the big picture, and that is that this 
is happening in cities and towns all across America. In Michigan, it is 
not only Flint but parts of Grand Rapids, Jackson, Detroit, Saginaw, 
Muskegon, Holland, and several other cities that have seen high lead 
levels in their children. Sebring, OH, just this week closed schools 
for 3 days because of lead in their tap water. In Toledo, officials 
have long treated the water with phosphates to prevent leaching of 
lead. Eleven cities and two counties in New Jersey had higher 
percentages of children with elevated lead levels than Flint, MI, State 
lawmakers and advocacy groups said on Monday of this week. Here in the 
Nation's capital, in Washington DC, in the early part of the last 
decade, lead leached into the water of possibly 42,000 children.
  Let me talk about my State of Maryland. In the city of Baltimore, 
high

[[Page 1159]]

lead levels in schools prompted officials to turn off drinking 
fountains and pass out bottled water instead in every school in 
Baltimore City. They are not hooked up to the fountains because it is 
not safe. Across the State of Maryland, every 1- and 2-year-old in the 
entire State will be tested for lead--that is 175,000 children--because 
they are at risk.
  This is a national problem. In Flint, MI, it is estimated it cost 
about $800 million for remedial costs alone. That is about two-thirds 
of what we currently appropriate every year for drinking water 
infrastructure in the entire country. The amount we appropriate is 
woefully inadequate.
  Accord to the EPA's most recent estimates, more than $655 billion may 
have been needed to repair and replace drinking water and wastewater 
infrastructure nationwide over the next 20 years. This comes out to 
over $32 billion per year every year for the next 20 years. Yet 
currently we spend approximately $3 billion per year at the Federal 
level on combined drinking water and wastewater infrastructure State 
revolving funds--one-tenth of the total amount that is needed in order 
to modernize our infrastructure.
  The public expects that when they turn on the tap, the water is safe. 
They expect that when they use their bathroom facilities, the 
wastewater is being treated appropriately. They expect that the Nation 
of the United States can deliver water in a manner that is efficient 
and safe. In reality, our water infrastructure is out of sight and is 
woefully inadequate, as we have seen in Flint, MI.
  I ask my colleagues: If it costs $800 million to fix the pipes in 
Flint, MI, are we going to come to an agreement that we need a 
substantial increase in the amount of funds appropriated for the clean 
water and drinking State revolving funds to help all American cities? 
Because the stakes could not be higher.
  There are many things that went wrong in Flint, MI. First and most 
directly was the failure of the Governor and his appointed emergency 
managers to identify and address the problem as it grew more and more 
apparent. They knew the problem, and yet they didn't do anything about 
it. Second, a declining and increasingly impoverished population, which 
has gutted the tax base and eliminated the ability to pay back the 
loans the city might receive from the Federal Government to change out 
their pipes. It is also a matter of ability to actually afford the 
infrastructure at the local level. That is why the State partnership 
through the Federal partnership through the State revolving funds is so 
critically important.
  This has never been a partisan issue. I have served on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee since I was elected to the 
Senate, and we have recommended authorization levels and changes in the 
formula so that we can modernize our water infrastructure in this 
country. It has had nearly unanimous support in our committee.
  As I said, there is not nearly enough money in these revolving loan 
funds to keep up to date the drinking and wastewater infrastructure in 
this country, even if the cities could pay back the loans. The list 
goes on and on. This list is not limited to Flint. These demographic 
and fiscal physical characteristics are similar to many, many cities of 
every size in the United States, in almost every State.
  None of these things that have gone wrong in Flint are more 
distressing than the possibility that children may have suffered 
irreversible damage in their developing brains from the exposure to 
lead. Exposure to even a low amount of lead can profoundly affect a 
child's behavior, growth rates, and--perhaps most worrying--their 
intelligence over time. Higher levels of lead in a child's blood can 
lead to severe disabilities, eye-hand coordination problems, and even a 
propensity toward violence. Younger children and fetuses are especially 
vulnerable to even small exposures to lead--whether it be in tapwater, 
lead paint, lead in soil still left from the days of leaded gasoline, 
and lead in children's toys and jewelry. The list goes on and on and 
on. There is not just one source of lead, and I understand that, but 
when we turn on the faucets, we do not expect to have water that 
contains lead.
  Further, it is impossible to gauge how a specific child will be 
affected because the developmental impacts of lead poisoning can take 
years to become apparent. So you might have been poisoned 5 years ago, 
and the effects will take longer before it becomes apparent in the 
classroom or the community. In fact, the health effects are so severe, 
our Nation's health experts have declared there is no safe level of 
lead in a child's blood--period, the end, zero.
  I also want to highlight a quote from an article in the New York 
Times on January 29 of this year.

       Emails released by the office of [Michigan] Gov. Rick 
     Snyder last week referred to a resident who said she was told 
     by a state nurse in January 2015, regarding her son's 
     elevated blood lead level, ``It is just a few IQ points . . . 
     . It is not the end of the world.''

  There has to be a greater sense of urgency in this country. We know 
every child, if they work hard, should have an opportunity in this 
country. We shouldn't take away that opportunity by diminishing their 
ability to achieve their objectives.
  Dr. Hanna-Attisha, the doctor primarily responsible for bringing this 
issue in Flint to light, and others have studied lead poisoning and 
have sharply different views of lead exposure for which there is no 
cure. Dr. Hanna-Attisha said: ``If you were going to put something in a 
population to keep them down for generations to come, it would be 
lead.''
  This is devastating to the individual and devastating to our 
country's potential. The work of the institutions in the State of 
Maryland to combat lead exposure is exemplary. Baltimore's Coalition to 
End Childhood Lead Poisoning is a nonprofit organization dedicated to 
services and advocacy on behalf of families affected by lead poisoning. 
This organization started as a grassroots effort by Maryland parents 
who saw a problem in their community and sought innovative solutions. 
The coalition has grown nationally, founding the Green & Healthy Homes 
Initiative to provide a holistic approach for safer and greener living 
spaces for American families. The coalition has dozens of local 
partners, including Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and 
the University of Maryland School of Law. Together, I am proud to say, 
these Maryland institutions are paving the way to combat lead poisoning 
and researching innovative legal solutions to a tragic problem, but we 
cannot rely on the nonprofits to fix this problem for us. The stakes 
are too high and the solution too costly. We have a duty to these 
children to make sure their drinking water is safe. Make no mistake, 
massive lead poisoning of an entire city's children from any source 
robs our country of an entire generation of great minds--minds which 
are core to the futures of these most vulnerable communities.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to not only act responsibly with 
regard to Flint, MI--and we can do that today with the bill that is on 
the floor--but to recommit ourselves to find a path forward to provide 
safe drinking water not just for one city but for all American cities 
and all the people of this Nation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I have raced to the floor simply because 
it has come to my attention that there are some Senators who are 
utilizing this Energy bill, which is for a very valued purpose, a 
purpose of energy efficiency. Some Senators are utilizing this 
legislation for their own purpose by proposing amendments that will 
ultimately threaten the environmental integrity off of Florida's gulf 
coast and will threaten the U.S. military and its ability to maintain 
the largest testing and training area for not only the United States 
but for the world.
  I want to refer to a map of the Gulf of Mexico and show you 
everything. Here is the tip of Florida. This is Pensacola, Naples, 
Tampa, and down here are the Florida Keys and Key West. Everything in 
yellow in the Gulf of Mexico--and this is the law--is off-limits to

[[Page 1160]]

drilling until 2022. It happens to be a bipartisan law that was passed 
back in 2006. It was cosponsored by my then-fellow Senator from 
Florida, a Republican, Mel Martinez. Why did the two of us make this a 
law? The drilling is over here, everything to the west. The first 
question is: Where is the oil? Mother Nature decided to have the 
sediments go down the Mississippi River for millions of years where it 
compacted into the Earth's crust and became oil. The oil deposits are 
off of Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and there is a little bit off of 
Mississippi. There really isn't much oil out here.
  In addition, why did we want this area kept from drilling? Take a 
look at that. That is a marsh in Louisiana after the gulf oilspill 
which took place several years ago. We certainly don't want this in 
Florida. You will notice that there are not many beaches off of 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. But what do you think Florida is 
known for? It is known for its pristine beaches all the way from the 
Perdido River, which is along the Florida-Alabama line and goes down 
the coast to Naples. This area not only includes the Keys, but it goes 
up the east coast of Florida. Florida has more beaches than any other 
State. Florida has more coastline than any other State, save for 
Alaska, and Alaska doesn't have a lot of beaches.
  People not only visit Florida because of Mickey Mouse, but they visit 
Florida in large part because of our beaches. The gulf oilspill turned 
these white, sugary sands of Pensacola Beach black. Even though the oil 
spilled way over here, it drifted to the east and got as far as 
Pensacola. A little bit more oil reached Destin, and there were just a 
few tar balls on Panama City's beach. When Americans saw those white, 
sugary sand beaches black from oil, they assumed that had happened to 
the entire coast of Florida, and as a result people didn't visit for 
one whole season.
  So what happened to Florida's economy? What happened to the dry 
cleaners, restaurants, and hotels that are all too happy to welcome 
their guests and visitors who didn't come? You get the picture of what 
happened to our economy.
  I am speaking about this as the Senator from Florida, but now let me 
speak as the Senator who is the second-ranking Democrat on the Armed 
Services Committee. This area is known as the military mission line. 
Everything east of that line--indeed, almost all of the Gulf of 
Mexico--is the largest training and testing area for the U.S. military 
in the world. Why do you think the training for the F-22 is at Tyndall 
Air Force Base in Panama City? Why do you think the training for the F-
35 Joint Strike Fighter, both foreign pilots as well as our own, is at 
Eglin Air Force Base? It is because they have this area. Why is the 
U.S. Air Force training, testing, and evaluation headquarters at Fort 
Walton, Eglin Air Force Base? Because they have 300 miles here where 
they can test some of our most sophisticated weapons.
  If you talk to any admiral or general, they will tell you that you 
cannot have oil-related activities when they are testing some of their 
most sophisticated weapons. This is a national asset, and it is key to 
our national defense. So for all of those reasons, Senator Martinez and 
I put in law that this is off-limits up until the year 2022, but now 
comes the Energy bill, with its sneaky amendments giving additional 
revenue sharing to these States and upper States on the Atlantic 
seaboard. It gives those States a financial incentive to get a cut of 
the oil revenue. What do you think that is going to do to the 
government of the State of Florida in the future as an excuse to put 
drilling out here as well as to have drilling off the east coast of 
Florida?
  When I was a young Congressman, I faced two Secretaries of the 
Interior who were absolutely intent that they were going to drill on 
the east coast of the United States from Cape Hatteras, NC, all the way 
south to Fort Pierce, FL, and the only way back then--in the early and 
mid-1980s--we were able to get that stopped, which this young 
Congressman had a hand in doing, was to explain that you can't have oil 
rigs off of Cape Canaveral, where we are dropping the first stages of 
all of our military rockets that are so essential for us so that we 
will have assured access into space in order to protect ourselves with 
all of those assets.
  Of course, in the early 1980s, I could talk about what was going to 
happen for 135 flights of the space shuttle. You can't have oil-related 
activities where the first stages--the solid rocket boosters on the 
space shuttle--are going to be landing by parachutes in the ocean 
because you are going to threaten the launch facilities for the U.S. 
military as well as NASA if you put oil-related activities out there.
  So, too, in another 2 years we will be launching humans again on 
American rockets, some of whose first stages will still be crashing 
into the Atlantic and whose military defense payloads continue to 
launch almost every month, and those first stages splash down into the 
Atlantic. Yet an amendment that is suspected to be offered by a Senator 
is going to give incentive in the future--all the more pressure to try 
to pull oil out of here.
  Ever since this Senator was a young Congressman, I have been carrying 
this battle. This Senator supports oil drilling. This Senator supports 
it where it is environmentally sound, including fracking in shale rock, 
because look what it has done for us. But there are times when there is 
tradeoff. But in this case there is not going to be a tradeoff, in the 
first place because there is not any oil, in the second place because 
it would wreck the economy of Florida with our tourism and our sugary 
white beaches, but in the third place because it would threaten the 
national security of this country if we eliminated this as our largest 
test evaluation and training center.
  I can tell my colleagues that this Senator is not going to let that 
happen.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 3016. This 
is an amendment that would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate from the 
fuel standards that we have.
  I wish to thank my cosponsors on this amendment, including Senator 
Feinstein from California and Senator Flake from Arizona. This is a 
bipartisan amendment. I think this is a really important issue.
  What this amendment does is it eliminates the corn component of the 
renewable fuel standard. The renewable fuel standard, as my colleagues 
know, was created in 2007, and this is a Federal mandate that forces 
drivers to burn, actually, billions of gallons of biofuels, the vast 
majority of it derived from corn, in our vehicles, in our cars. It is 
on the order of 100 billion gallons of corn ethanol, and because this 
mandate establishes specific and increasing quantities of ethanol that 
has to be burned in our cars, when total gasoline consumption stays 
flat or declines, then it becomes an increasing percentage that we are 
all forced to buy.
  Let me be clear about one thing. The amendment I am specifically 
addressing, amendment No. 3016, eliminates the corn portion of the 
renewable fuel standard mandate, and that is 80 percent by volume. The 
optimal policy is to get rid of this whole thing. It was a well-
intentioned but bad idea to begin with. It is now abundantly clear this 
is bad policy and we should get rid of the whole thing. But I 
understand we don't have as broad an interest in getting rid of the 
whole thing as the interest we have in getting rid of at least the corn 
component. And since that is, after all, 80 percent, this would be 
significant progress.
  There is probably not an enormous universe of things on which I have 
agreed with Vice President Al Gore over the years, but he got this 
right. Vice President Gore has acknowledged that ethanol was a mistake 
in the first place.
  It was created, as I say, with all good intentions. It was thought 
that by forcing people to make ethanol mostly from corn and burn it in 
our cars, we would reduce air pollution. It was thought that it would 
reduce costs for families. It was thought that it might

[[Page 1161]]

even be good for the economy. All three are completely wrong. 
Factually, that is not the case. The mandate has failed to achieve any 
of these goals. Instead, in fact, it increases air pollution, it 
increases costs for families, and it is harmful to our economy.
  Let me take the first one, because the real motivation for this was 
to do something to improve the environment. The real idea behind 
ethanol--the impetus in the first place--was that somehow we would 
reduce air pollution if we are burning ethanol derived from corn rather 
than gasoline. Well, unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way. That 
isn't just my opinion. There is plenty of documentation.
  In 2009, Stanford University predicted: ``Vehicles running on ethanol 
will generate higher concentrations of ozone than those using gasoline, 
especially in the winter . . .''
  In 2011, the National Academy of Sciences observed: ``Projected air-
quality effects from ethanol fuel would be more damaging to human 
health than those from gasoline use.'' That is the National Academy of 
Sciences.
  In 2014, Northwestern University researchers did a little research on 
the real world. They went down to Sao Paulo, Brazil, where they had 
recently required an increase in the use of ethanol, and what did they 
find? A corresponding, significant increase in ground-level ozone, 
which we all know is a harmful pollutant at the ground level and causes 
smog and other health problems.
  So there is no dispute about this. There is no question about this. 
Ethanol is harmful to our air quality and our environment.
  The Environmental Working Group agrees. The Environmental Working 
Group, a group of environmentalists, have said: ``The rapid expansion 
of corn ethanol production has increased greenhouse gas emissions, 
worsened air and water pollution, and driven up the price of food and 
feed.''
  I know that many of my colleagues are very concerned about carbon 
emissions. So separate and apart from ozone, CO2 that is 
being released into the atmosphere is a concern for a lot of people. 
Studies show that ethanol creates more carbon dioxide emission than 
gasoline. It is just a fact.
  The Clean Air Task Force estimates that the carbon emissions from 
corn ethanol, over the next 30 years at current projected consumption 
rates, would exceed 1.4 billion tons, which is 300 million tons more 
than if we used gasoline instead of the ethanol.
  So there really isn't any debate that I am aware of anymore about 
this. Air quality is better if we are not using ethanol than when we 
are. But there are other impacts of this mandate. One is the higher 
cost on families.
  The fact is that ethanol is more expensive to make per unit of energy 
than gasoline. So we need to spend more for our cars to go the same 
distance. The New York Times reported that ethanol increased costs to 
gasoline purchasers by billions of dollars in 2013. The Wall Street 
Journal estimated that in 2014 alone, the RFS mandate--this mandate 
that we burn ethanol in our gas--raised the cost of gas by an average 
of anywhere from $128 to $320 per year for the average family.
  So let's be very clear. This mandate is costing American families 
several hundred dollars a year of their disposable income because they 
are having to spend to buy the more expensive fuel to move their 
vehicles.
  It is not just the direct effect of having to pay more when we gas up 
our cars. These ethanol mandates take a huge segment of our corn 
production off the market and they drive up the price of corn. Again, 
this isn't just me saying so. In 2008, USDA Secretary Ed Schafer and 
Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman acknowledged that ethanol 
increases the food price. Their estimate is just under 1 percent per 
year.
  In 2012, a study by economist Thomas Elam observed that ethanol 
increases food costs for the average family of four by just over $2,000 
per year. So the increased food cost is actually multiples of the 
increased gasoline costs when we fill up our tanks, and families are 
hit by both.
  Of course, the food cost goes up not only because of the direct 
effect of higher corn--and many of us consume corn directly--but corn 
is the principal feed for all livestock. So the price of meat and 
poultry is very much correlated to the cost of the feed, and we make 
that feed much more expensive than it needs to be because of the 
ethanol mandate.
  There is another way in which this mandate is harmful to consumers 
and to families, and that is that it increases engine maintenance 
costs. The EPA acknowledges that ethanol is harmful to engines. They 
say: ``Unlike other fuel components, ethanol is corrosive and highly 
water soluble.'' Gasoline is not. So gasoline doesn't have this 
physical property; it doesn't damage engines. But ethanol does. The 
moisture that is dissolved in ethanol is corrosive.
  In fact, the EPA warns that fuel blends containing as little as 15-
percent ethanol--which, by the way, this year there will be gas 
stations selling gasoline that is 15-percent ethanol--should not be 
used in any motorcycle, schoolbus, transit bus, delivery truck, boat, 
ATV, lawnmower or older automobile because of the damage that we know 
the ethanol will do to these engines.
  AAA warns that raising ethanol content--just rising it above 10 
percent, which is where we are--will damage 95 percent of the cars that 
are on the road today. How can this possibly be good for a family to be 
systematically degrading the engines in their vehicles?
  There are other ways in which this is damaging to our economy. I 
mentioned that part of the reason that food prices for families are 
higher as a result of the ethanol mandate is because corn is such an 
important source of food for livestock. Well, in fact, the Federal 
Reserve and the USDA estimate that the ethanol mandate alone has 
contributed to a 20- to 30-percent increase in corn prices, and that 
has had a terrible impact on livestock operations and the dairy 
industry.
  It is also bad for American refineries. There are 137 oil refineries 
that operate in 28 States and employ thousands of people with good 
family-sustaining jobs, but because the oil refiner has to either blend 
in ethanol with the gasoline they make or they have to go out and pay a 
fine--a penalty, essentially--if they don't, it diminishes jobs in the 
refining sector. Again, this isn't just my opinion. I got a letter from 
the Philadelphia AFL-CIO business manager Pat Gillespie, and I will 
quote from the letter because he lays it out very clearly. He says:

       Our resurrected refinery in Trainer, Pennsylvania . . . 
     once again needs your intercession. The impact of the 
     dramatic spike in costs of the RIN credits--

the system by which EPA enforces the ethanol mandate--

     from four cents to one dollar per gallon will cause a 
     tremendous depression in . . . [our refinery's] bottom line. 
     . . . Of course at the Building Trades, we need them to have 
     the economic vitality to bring about the construction and 
     maintenance projects that our Members depend on. And the 
     steel workers, of course, need economic vitality so they can 
     maintain and expand their jobs with the refinery. . . . We 
     need your help with this matter.

  I completely agree. This is disastrous policy.
  Just to summarize, corn ethanol--ethanol generally but corn ethanol 
in particular--is just bad policy. It is bad for the environment, it 
increases air pollution, it raises costs for families to drive their 
vehicles and to put food on the table, and it costs us jobs. It is bad 
for the economy. Let's end this practice. Let's end this mandate. It 
was well-intentioned at the time, but now it is clear it is doing harm, 
not doing good.
  I will close on one other point. We in Congress, in Washington, 
should not be forcing taxpayers and consumers to subsidize certain 
industries at the expense of others. That is what is going on here. The 
magnitude of the consumption of ethanol is entirely driven by the 
mandate Congress has required the EPA to impose. That is why this is 
happening.
  We use the power of the government to force consumers to pay more 
than they need to pay to drive their car and to buy their food. This 
makes no sense at all.

[[Page 1162]]

  It seems to this Senator that a big part of what we are hearing on 
both sides of the aisle in this very unusual and raucous Presidential 
election cycle is voters who are disgusted with Washington. They don't 
trust Washington. They don't have a very high opinion of Congress. Part 
of it is because they are convinced that Congress goes around doling 
out special favors for special industries, special groups, and the 
politically well-connected. Well, guess what. They are right, and this 
is an egregious example of that. It is a clear example where the 
taxpayer and consumer get stuck with the bill so as to benefit a select 
preferred industry that has a lot of political clout. It is outrageous. 
The American people are right to be angry and tired of this.
  Mr. President, we should end the renewable fuel standard entirely. As 
I say, it started with good intentions, but the evidence is in and 
there is no mystery anymore: This policy is bad for the environment, 
bad for families, bad for budgets, and bad for our economy. There is no 
reason we should be continuing this, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this and any other effort to completely eliminate the renewable 
fuel standard, and if we can't do that, at least take the 80 percent 
out that is comprised of the corn component.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a document titled ``Just the FACTS'' at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  Mr. President, the problem of gun violence is real, but too many of 
the proposed responses to this problem would not only represent unwise 
policy but would also violate a fundamental constitutional right--the 
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
  What does this mean to you and to me as Americans? It means that the 
right to bear arms falls into the same category as our other most 
closely held individual rights: the right of free speech, the right of 
freedom of religion, and the right of due process of law. Basically, 
what I am saying is that one cannot separate out any one of the Bill of 
Rights or any of the other constitutional rights that come under the 
14th Amendment, as an example. You can't separate the right to bear 
arms from those because, and this is not emphasized enough, the Second 
Amendment, the right to bear arms, is an individual, fundamental 
constitutional right. Maybe a lot of us believed that over decades, but 
it has been only within the last 5 to 8 years and in a couple of 
decisions that the Supreme Court has made that entirely clear, that it 
is an individual, fundamental constitutional right.
  With that firm foundation, I want to straighten out some of the 
rampant misinformation that is used to advocate for stricter gun 
control. Correcting these myths is essential so that the issue can be 
properly deliberated and properly addressed. Unfortunately, many of 
these myths were reiterated over the past 2 weeks during prime time, 
nationwide Presidential media appearances.
  First, let's debunk the quote ``gun show loophole.'' Were you to 
click on your TV, pick up a newspaper, or read certain mailers, you 
would be left with the impression that if you buy a firearm at a gun 
show, you are not subject to a background check. In fact, all gun show 
purchases made from commercial gun dealers require a background check. 
These commercial gun dealers--or, as they are called, Federal firearms 
licensees--typically make up the majority of the gun vendors at gun 
shows.
  Let's be very clear. If someone goes to a gun show and at that gun 
show purchases a firearm from a commercial gun dealer, that individual 
or those individuals are subject to a background check, period. So then 
who are these people we hear the President and others speak about who 
are not subject to a background check? If you are an individual and you 
want to sell your gun to another individual, you may do so, assuming 
you don't know or have reasonable cause to believe that such person is 
prohibited from owning a gun. It is quite common sense that the 
government does not dictate where this sale takes place. It is peer-to-
peer. You can sell your hunting rifle to your neighbors, and you can 
make that sale in your home, driveway, or parking lot. You can also 
make that sale to another individual at a gun show. That is what is 
referred to as a peer-to-peer transaction--simply two adults engaged in 
a personal transaction. Just as there is no background check required 
in your driveway, there generally is no background check required when 
that private, peer-to-peer sale happens to occur at a gun show. Very 
clearly, this is not a loophole in the pejorative sense of the word; 
this is simply an American lawfully selling their property to another 
without the Federal Government involved.
  In this same vein, to hear the President discuss it, you would assume 
that these gun shows were lawless free-for-alls for felons to obtain 
their newest illegal weapon. In fact, local, State, and Federal law 
enforcement are often present at gun shows, both in uniform and 
covertly in plain clothes. These law enforcement officers monitor and 
intervene in suspected, unlawful firearm sales such as straw 
purchasing, attempted purchases by prohibited individuals, and the 
attempted sale of illegal firearms.
  As the Washington Times reported last Wednesday, law enforcement 
arrests at gun shows hit new highs last year. I recently attended a gun 
show in Iowa, and there was a robust law enforcement presence. So I 
want to go on to another point beyond the supposed gun show loophole 
that I just showed isn't much of a loophole.
  The second point is that we have been repeatedly told by President 
Obama, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, that firearms purchased on 
the Internet don't require a background check. I have seen media 
reports to that same effect. Once again, this is a blatant inaccuracy 
and that is an inaccuracy that needs to be corrected. So that is why I 
am here.
  An individual cannot purchase a firearm directly over the Internet. A 
gun purchaser can pay for a firearm over the Internet, but, if 
purchased from a firearms retailer, the firearm must then be sent to a 
brick-and-mortar location. When the purchaser picks up the gun, a 
background check is performed. Assuming the purchaser passes the 
background check, he or she may obtain physical possession of that 
firearm.
  In addition, an individual cannot lawfully purchase a firearm on the 
Internet from an individual who lives in another State. Any interstate 
sale of a firearm--even between two individuals online--must go through 
a gun store which, after charging a fee and running a background check 
on the purchaser, provides the purchaser with the firearm that they 
bought from another individual on the Internet.
  These are two clear instances where Internet purchasers require a 
background check.
  The one exception where a firearm can be lawfully purchased using the 
Internet without a background check is when two individuals living in 
the same State establish the terms of a purchase over the Internet and 
then meet in person to transfer the firearm.
  If the firearm is a rifle or a shotgun, a resident may use the U.S. 
Postal Service to mail the firearm intrastate to another individual, 
but he may not do so if the item being purchased is a handgun. A 
handgun can only be mailed intrastate via a contract carrier and, as 
you can see, once you blow away the smoke and pull down the mirrors, 
the statement that there are no background checks on Internet purchases 
rings hollow.
  A third point is that with great fanfare President Obama has stated 
unequivocally that firearms enforcement

[[Page 1163]]

has been a priority with his administration. This is simply not true. 
That can be backed up with statistics.
  The Obama administration chose to focus its criminal justice 
resources elsewhere rather than cracking down on illegal gun sales. 
Federal firearms prosecutions are down at least 25 percent under this 
President.
  In addition, he suspended successful programs specifically designed 
to thwart firearms offenses. Unfortunately, as has so often been the 
case with the Obama administration, the rhetoric just does not match 
the action. As I have repeatedly called for, we need greater 
enforcement of the existing law, which simply has not happened under 
this administration.
  A fourth point, to set the record straight on the President's 
statements, is that despite condemnation from both sides of the aisle 
and even from publications that regularly support increased gun 
control--such as the LA Times, for example--we have once again heard 
the President call for tying America's fundamental Second Amendment 
rights to the terrorist no-fly list. As we all know in this body, the 
no-fly list is actually multiple lists generated in secret and 
controlled by the executive branch bureaucrats. The no-fly list is 
intended to thwart suspected terrorists from flying. Flying is not a 
constitutional right like the Second Amendment is. So the people who 
are put on these lists are not given the chance to challenge their 
inclusion on those lists. However, it is blatantly unconstitutional to 
deny a fundamental constitutional right without any type of due process 
such as notice and the opportunity to be heard.
  The fact that the President continues to call for use of the no-fly 
list as it relates to a fundamental right calls into question his 
repeated assurances that he fully supports the Second Amendment.
  Given unprecedented Executive actions regarding sanctuary cities and 
a refusal to enforce immigration laws as enacted by this body, we 
should not be surprised at those statements. But let me state 
unequivocally that using a secret document--which by its nature and 
purpose will often be overinclusive or contain errors as a basis for 
denying Americans their Second Amendment right--is clearly 
unconstitutional.
  The fifth point against the President's position is that on multiple 
occasions the Obama administration has condemned semiautomatic weapons. 
So let's get it straight right here and now. As any gun owner knows, a 
semiautomatic firearm is simply a gun that shoots one round with each 
pull of the trigger. This encompasses the type of shotgun most often 
used for duck hunting and the type of rifle often used for target 
shooting. A semiautomatic firearm does not equate to the fabled assault 
weapon and, of course, it is not a machine gun. We should be concerned 
when this administration makes proposals on guns that fail to reflect 
knowledge of even elementary elements of their operation.
  I have additional myths that need to be dispelled that I will 
submit--and I have had permission from the Presiding Officer to submit 
that--but I want to be mindful of other people's times, and I now wish 
to respond directly to one of President Obama's challenges.
  So let's talk for a moment about bipartisan efforts regarding gun 
control. Senator Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in 
leadership, and I are working on drafting a bill on which we hope we 
can reach agreement and introduce shortly, which prohibits all aliens--
with the exception of permanent legal permanent residents and those who 
fall under a sporting exception--from acquiring firearms. In addition, 
our bill reinstitutes residency requirements for those noncitizens 
attempting to purchase a firearm.
  The bipartisan legislation we hope we can agree to introduce would 
close real and actual loopholes, such as those that currently permit 
refugees or asylees or those from visa-waiver countries to acquire 
firearms.
  I look forward to the opportunity to work on this issue in a 
bipartisan manner. But if we are going to deliberate and debate the 
issue, we must clear up the misconceptions and avoid erroneous rhetoric 
that seems to be dominating the news out there with all the false 
positions and false interpretations of the law, which I have discussed 
in a few minutes with my colleagues.
  So I am going to end where I started. The Second Amendment right to 
bear arms is a fundamental right, and any legislative or Executive 
action under any President must start and finish with the recognition 
of the fact that the Second Amendment is as important as other 
amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Just the Facts

       The President's Executive Actions on Firearms and Other 
     Common Myths.
       Myth #1: Firearm purchases at gun shows do not require a 
     background check due to the ``gun show loophole.''
       Facts:
       When the President and others refer to the ``gun show 
     loophole,'' they imply that there are no background checks 
     being done at gun shows. As a result, much of the public has 
     been misinformed and are led to believe that individuals who 
     purchase firearms at gun shows are not subject to a 
     background check.
       In reality, there is no ``gun show loophole.'' If an 
     individual wants to purchase a firearm from a licensed 
     firearms retailer, which typically makes up the majority of 
     vendors at gun shows, the individual must fill out the 
     requisite federal firearms paperwork and undergo a National 
     Instant Criminal Background Check System (``NICS'') 
     background check.
       The only firearms that are being purchased at gun shows 
     without a background check are those being bought and sold 
     between individuals, peer-to-peer, as opposed to buying a 
     firearm from a gun dealer. These private sales are no 
     different from selling a personal hunting rifle to the 
     owner's niece or nephew down the road. It is a private sale 
     and no background paperwork is required. The gun is private 
     property and the sale is made like a sale of the family's 
     good silver. The one difference is that the locus of a gun 
     show is being used to make the private sale.
       Under current law, an individual is permitted to 
     occasionally sell part, or all, of their personal firearms 
     collection. These private sellers, however, cannot be 
     ``engaged in the business'' of selling firearms. ``Engaged in 
     the business'' means they can't repeatedly sell firearms with 
     the principal objective of earning funds to support 
     themselves. Some of the individuals who wish to sell a 
     portion, or all, of their personal firearms collection do so 
     at the show and might display their wares on a table. These 
     ``private table sales,'' however, are private, peer-to-peer, 
     sales and, therefore, do not require a background check. The 
     President cannot change criminal statutes governing 
     requirements for which sellers must conduct background 
     checks. His new actions don't do so and don't claim to do so.
       In a peer-to-peer, private firearms transaction, it is 
     already illegal to sell a firearm to another individual if 
     the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the 
     buyer meets any of the prohibited categories for possession 
     of a firearm (felon, fugitive, illegal alien, etc).
       Myth #2: Gun shows lack any law enforcement presence and 
     are a free-for-all for felons and other prohibited 
     individuals to obtain firearms.
       Fact:
       Local, state, and federal law enforcement are often present 
     both in uniform and/or covertly in plain clothes to monitor 
     and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales such as 
     straw purchasing, purchases made by prohibited individuals, 
     including non-residents, and the attempted sale of any 
     illegal firearms.
       Myth #3: Individuals who purchase firearms on the internet 
     are not subject to background checks.
       Facts:
       An individual cannot purchase a firearm directly from a 
     firearms retailer over the internet and have that firearm 
     shipped to them directly. An individual can pay for the 
     firearm over the internet at websites and online sporting 
     goods retailers. The firearm, however must be picked up from 
     a federal firearms licensee (``FFL'') such as a gun store. In 
     many cases, this is the brick and mortar store associated 
     with the website where the gun purchase was made. Once at the 
     retail store, the internet purchaser must then fill out the 
     requisite forms, including ATF Form 4473, which initiates the 
     NICS background check process. Thus, an internet purchase of 
     a firearm from a firearms retailer does require a background 
     check.
       Individuals, from the same state, are able to advertise and 
     purchase firearms from one another and use the internet to 
     facilitate the transaction. It is unlawful, under current 
     law, to sell or transfer a firearm to an individual who is 
     out-of-state. Any internet sale, even between individuals, 
     that crosses state lines would have to utilize a federal 
     firearms

[[Page 1164]]

     licensee (``FFL''), such as a gun store, and the purchaser 
     would be required to fill out the requisite state and federal 
     paperwork and would undergo a background check.
       Myth #4: President Obama's January 5, 2016, executive 
     action on gun control represents landmark change regarding 
     gun control.
       Facts:
       With few exceptions, President Obama's executive action on 
     firearms is nothing more than rhetoric regarding the status 
     quo. Many senators have long argued for better and more 
     robust enforcement of existing laws that prohibit criminals 
     from owning guns.
       It is the current law of the land that anyone engaged in 
     the business of selling firearms must have a federal firearms 
     license. The President's action does not change current law, 
     but merely restates existing court rulings on the meaning of 
     ``engaged in the business.''
       Myth #5: The Obama Administration has made firearms 
     enforcement a priority.
       Facts:
       The Obama Administration has used its limited criminal 
     enforcement resources to focus on clemency for convicted and 
     imprisoned felons, the investigation of police departments, 
     and on civil rights cases. The latter two categories 
     represent important work, but the Department of Justice lost 
     track of one of its core missions of enforcing criminal law: 
     prosecuting violent criminals, including gun criminals.
       The Obama Administration is only now making firearms 
     enforcement a priority. Clearly, enforcing the gun laws is a 
     new initiative, or one of the President's actions would not 
     have been informing all of the 93 U.S. Attorneys about it.
       Proof of this lack of enforcement is revealed in the 
     decline of weapons related prosecutions during the Obama 
     administration. As data obtained from the Executive Office of 
     United States Attorneys, through a Freedom of Information Act 
     (``FOIA'') request, reveal, firearms prosecutions are down 
     approximately 25 percent under the Obama administration 
     versus the last year of the Bush administration.
       Myth #6: Mental health has nothing to do with gun control.
       Facts:
       People with certain levels of mental illness are not 
     permitted to own guns. Many of the recent mass killings were 
     committed by mentally ill individuals. One of the keys to 
     preventing further mass shootings and violence committed with 
     firearms is addressing the issue of mental health.
       Background checks to prevent the mentally ill from 
     obtaining guns can only work if states provide mental health 
     records to the NICS system. Too many states have failed to do 
     so. Many of the worst offenders are states with the most 
     stringent gun control laws. For multiple years now, many 
     members of Congress have repeatedly called for and introduced 
     legislation that would provide incentives for states to 
     submit their mental health records for inclusion in the NICS 
     database.
       Myth #7: President Obama's executive action on gun control 
     will thwart criminals' ability to obtain firearms.
       Facts:
       The President's executive action regarding firearms is 
     focused primarily on individuals who attempt to purchase 
     firearms through the background check process.
       Criminals, however, obtain firearms in myriad illegal ways, 
     including home invasion robbery, trading narcotics for 
     firearms, burglary of homes, vehicles, and businesses, as 
     well as straw purchasing.
       Grassley legislation, SA 725, was specifically designed to 
     combat the straw purchasing of firearms as well as firearms 
     traffickers who transfer firearms to prohibited individuals 
     and out-of-state residents.
       Myth #8: There is a general consensus in America that 
     greater gun control is needed to prevent mass shootings in 
     the United States.
       Facts:
       Despite the President's statement to the contrary, polls 
     have shown that the majority of Americans do not believe that 
     stricter gun control would reduce the number of mass 
     shootings in the United States.
       The American public does not believe that making it harder 
     for law abiding Americans to obtain guns makes America safer. 
     In fact, polls have shown that a majority of Americans thinks 
     the United States would be safer if there were more 
     individuals licensed and trained to carry concealed weapons. 
     A majority opposes re-imposition of the ``assault weapons'' 
     ban.
       Myth #9: The terrorist ``no-fly'' list is a proper 
     mechanism to bar Americans from purchasing firearms.--
     President Barack Obama, January 5, 2016
       Facts:
       The no-fly list is actually multiple lists, which are 
     generated in secret and controlled by executive branch 
     bureaucrats. The Second Amendment right to bear arms has been 
     determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a fundamental 
     right. This puts the right to bear arms in our most closely 
     guarded rights similar to the right to free speech and 
     freedom of religion. It is unconstitutional to deprive an 
     American citizen of their Second Amendment right without 
     notice and an opportunity to be heard.
       Myth #10: Gun retailers need to step up and refuse to sell 
     semi-automatic weapons.--President Barack Obama, January 5, 
     2016
       Facts:
       There is nothing unlawful about a semi-automatic firearm. A 
     semi-automatic firearm simply means that a round is 
     discharged with each pull of the trigger. These include most 
     shotguns used for waterfowl hunting and rifles commonly used 
     for target shooting.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3140, as Modified

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join some of my 
colleagues today to speak about the key role woody biomass can play in 
helping to meet our Nation's renewable energy needs.
  Last night an amendment that several of us offered was adopted by a 
voice vote. I thank the sponsors of that amendment who have joined with 
me--Senator Klobuchar, Senator King, Senator Ayotte, Senator Franken, 
Senator Daines, Senator Crapo, and Senator Risch--all of whom worked 
hard to craft this important amendment.
  There has been a great deal of misinformation, regrettably, 
circulated about the amendment, which I hope we will be able to clarify 
through a colloquy on the floor today. I know the lead Democratic 
sponsor of the amendment, Senator Klobuchar, would like to speak on it 
and has an engagement, so I am going to yield to her before giving my 
remarks. I thank her for her leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins for her 
leadership and for her illuminating the rest of the Senate. Maybe not 
everyone has as many trees as we do, and biomass. I appreciate what she 
has done.
  I was proud to cosponsor this bill and be one of the leads on it, 
with Senator King. This amendment moves us forward in really 
recognizing the full benefits of the use of forest biomass as a 
homegrown energy solution. I also thank Senator Cantwell and Senator 
Murkowski for their work on this Energy bill and the inclusion of this 
amendment--an amendment that encourages interagency coordination to 
establish consistent policies relating to forest biomass energy.
  We have often talked about how we don't want to have just one source 
of energy, whether hydro, nuclear--you name it. So we want to recognize 
the importance of this forest biomass energy and talk a little bit 
about it today.
  I sent letters to the EPA and have spoken with administration 
officials, urging them to adopt a clear biomass accounting framework 
that is simple to understand and implement. Without clear policies that 
recognize the carbon benefits--and I will say that again: the carbon 
benefits--of forest biomass, private investment throughout the biomass 
supply chain will dry up and the positive momentum we have built toward 
a more renewable energy future will be lost.
  Supporting homegrown energy is an important part in an ``all of the 
above'' energy strategy. Biomass energy is driving energy innovation in 
many rural communities. The forest industry in my State and those who 
work in that industry are already playing a significant role in the 
biomass energy economy. There is always room to do more.
  I appreciate the discussions between my colleagues yesterday on the 
language of this amendment and am pleased we ultimately--including 
Senator Boxer's help and others'--found a solution that moves us 
forward. I know there is interest in continuing these conversations, 
and I look forward to doing so.
  I thank Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

[[Page 1165]]


  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
her leadership.
  I, too, want to thank the two floor managers of this bill, the 
chairman, Senator Murkowski, and her partner, Senator Cantwell, for 
working so closely with us.
  The fact is that biomass energy is a sustainable, responsible, 
renewable, and economically significant energy source. Many States, 
including mine, are already relying on biomass to help meet their 
renewable energy goals. Renewable biomass produces the benefits of 
establishing jobs, boosting economic growth, and helping us to meet our 
Nation's energy needs. Our amendment supports this carbon-neutral 
energy source as an essential part of our Nation's energy future.
  The amendment, which was adopted last night, is very straightforward. 
It simply requires the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency to jointly ensure that Federal policy relating to forest 
bioenergy is consistent and not contradictory and that the full 
benefits of forest biomass for energy, conservation, and responsible 
forest management are recognized.
  It concerns me greatly that some have suggested that our amendment 
would somehow result in substantial damage to our forests and the 
environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forests in the 
United States are robust and sustainably managed, and climate science 
has consistently and clearly documented the carbon benefits of 
utilizing forest biomass for energy production. Moreover, healthy 
markets for biomass and forest products actually help conserve forest 
land and keep our working forests in this country.
  Our amendment also echos the principles outlined in a June 2015 
bipartisan letter that was led by Senator Merkley and myself and was 
signed by 46 Senators from both sides of the aisle. Our letter stated: 
Our constituents employed in the biomass supply chain deserve federal 
policy that recognizes the clear benefits of forest bioenergy. We urge 
you to ensure that federal policies are consistent and reflect the 
carbon neutrality of forest bioenergy.
  In response to our letter, the administration noted that ``DOE, EPA, 
and USDA will work together to ensure that biomass energy plays a role 
in America's clean energy future.''
  That is precisely the importance of our amendment, to make sure that 
happens.
  The carbon neutrality of biomass harvested from sustainably managed 
forests has been recognized repeatedly by numerous studies, agencies, 
institutions, and rules around the world.
  Carbon-neutral biomass energy derived from the residuals of forest 
products manufacturing has climate benefits. Scientists have confirmed 
that the ongoing use of manufacturing residuals for energy in the 
forest products industry has been yielding net climate benefits for 
many years. These residuals, such as bark and sawdust, replace the need 
for fossil fuels and provide significant greenhouse gas benefits, which 
some scientists have estimated to be the equivalent of removing 
approximately 35 million cars from the roads.
  As forests grow, carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere 
through photosynthesis. This carbon dioxide is converted into organic 
carbon and stored in woody biomass. Trees release the stored carbon 
when they die, decay, or are combusted. As the biomass releases carbon 
as carbon dioxide, the carbon cycle is completed. The carbon in biomass 
will return to the atmosphere regardless of whether it is burned for 
energy, allowed to biodegrade, or lost in a forest fire.
  In November of 2014, 100 nationally recognized forest scientists, 
representing 80 universities, wrote to the EPA stating the long-term 
carbon benefits of forest bioenergy. This group weighed a comprehensive 
synthesis of the best peer-reviewed science and affirmed the carbon 
benefits of biomass.
  A literature review of forest carbon science that appeared in the 
November 2014 ``Journal of Forestry'' confirms that ``wood products and 
energy resources derived from forests have the potential to play an 
important and ongoing role in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions.''
  So Federal policies for the use of clean, renewable energy solutions, 
including biomass, should be clear and simple and reflect these 
principles.
  We should not have Federal agencies with inconsistent policies when 
it comes to such an important issue. Again, I want to thank the 
sponsors and cosponsors of my bill, my amendment, as well as the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Energy Committee for their 
cooperation in getting the amendment adopted last night.
  I would like to yield to my colleague from Maine Senator King, who 
made this a tripartisan amendment when we offered it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, as usual, my senior colleague from Maine has 
outlined this issue exceptionally well and covered the important 
points. I wish to add and amplify a few.
  The first thing I would say is that I yield to no person in this body 
in terms of their commitment to the environment, their commitment to 
ending our dependence upon fossil fuel, and our facing of the challenge 
of climate change. This biomass discussion is a way of helping with 
that problem rather than hindering it. The important term in all of 
this discussion is the word ``fossil.''
  The issue we are facing now with climate change and with increased 
CO2 in the atmosphere is because we are releasing 
CO2. We are releasing carbon that has been trapped in the 
Earth's crust for millions of years, and we are adding to the carbon 
budget of the atmosphere.
  Biomass is carbon that is already here. It is already in the 
environment. It is in the trees. It is simply being circulated, and 
there is no net addition of carbon to the atmosphere because of the use 
of biomass. I have been in the renewable energy business now for more 
than 30 years and have worked in hydro, biomass, energy conservation on 
a large scale and wind power. So I have some background in this. A 
biomass plant typically burns fuel that would not otherwise enter into 
the economic stream of timber. It is often bark, mill waste, ends of 
logs, branches--the kind of thing that otherwise lies on the forest 
floor, dies and decays and releases carbon. There is no net addition of 
carbon.
  To be intellectually honest, you have to say that burning it releases 
that carbon so much sooner than it would otherwise be released, but in 
the overall term we are talking about a renewable resource.
  In New England and I suspect around the country--I know in Maine--
there are substantially more trees in the forest today than there were 
150 years ago because of the number of farms that have been returned to 
their natural state of forestry. That has given us an opportunity to 
develop an energy source that is a lot more safe and supportive of the 
environment than the other fossil fuel elements we have seen that have 
contributed to the CO2 problem in this country.
  I think this is a commonsense amendment. It basically tries to get 
the Federal Government on the same page on this issue consistently 
across the agencies. It makes the point that as long as we are talking 
about sustainable management, we are talking about what amounts to a 
continuous renewable resource. We are not adding to the carbon burden 
of the atmosphere, and therefore I think this is a commonsense 
amendment that will not set back our efforts with regard to climate 
change but will actually advance them.
  I am happy to support this amendment, to support my colleague from 
Maine. I think this is the kind of commonsense amendment that actually 
belongs. It is a very important part of this bill. It strengthens it 
considerably, in my view. I want to again thank my senior colleague for 
bringing this bill forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Maine. He has enormous expertise in the area

[[Page 1166]]

of renewable energy, and I very much appreciate his adding his 
expertise to this debate.
  Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a letter dated June 30, 2015, and signed by 46 Senators, on 
this very issue, that was addressed to the Administrator of the EPA, 
the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of Agriculture.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 2015.
     Hon. Gina McCarthy,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Dr. Ernest Moniz,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Vilsack,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator McCarthy, Secretary Moniz, and Secretary 
     Vilsack: We write to support biomass energy as a sustainable, 
     responsible, renewable, and economically significant energy 
     source. Federal policies across all departments and agencies 
     must remove any uncertainties and contradictions through a 
     clear, unambiguous message that forest bioenergy is part of 
     the nation's energy future.
       Many states are relying on renewable biomass to meet their 
     energy goals, and we support renewable biomass to create jobs 
     and economic growth while meeting our nation's energy needs. 
     A comprehensive science, technical, and legal administrative 
     record supports a clear and simple policy establishing the 
     benefits of energy from forest biomass. Federal policies that 
     add unnecessary costs and complexity will discourage rather 
     than encourage investment in working forests, harvesting 
     operations, bioenergy, wood products, and paper 
     manufacturing. Unclear or contradictory signals from federal 
     agencies could discourage biomass utilization as an energy 
     solution.
       The carbon neutrality of forest biomass has been recognized 
     repeatedly by numerous studies, agencies, institutions, 
     legislation, and rules around the world, and there has been 
     no dispute about the carbon neutrality of biomass derived 
     from residuals of forest products manufacturing and 
     agriculture. Our constituents employed in the biomass supply 
     chain deserve a federal policy that recognizes the clear 
     benefits of forest bioenergy. We urge you to ensure that 
     federal policies are consistent and reflect the carbon 
     neutrality of forest bioenergy.
           Sincerely,
         Susan M. Collins; Jeff Merkley; Kelly Ayotte; Roy Blunt; 
           John Boozman; Richard Burr; Shelley Moore Capito; Bill 
           Cassidy; Thad Cochran; John Cornyn; Tammy Baldwin; 
           Sherrod Brown; Robert P. Casey, Jr.; Joe Donnelly; 
           Dianne Feinstein.
         Al Franken; Tim Kaine; Angus S. King, Jr.; Tom Cotton; 
           Mike Crapo; Steve Daines; Cory Gardner; Lindsey Graham; 
           Johnny Isakson; Ron Johnson; David Perdue; Amy 
           Klobuchar; Joe Manchin, III; Barbara A, Mikulski; 
           Claire A. McCaskill.
         Patty Murray; Bill Nelson; Jeanne Shaheen; Debbie 
           Stabenow; Rob Portman; James E. Risch; Jeff Sessions; 
           John Thune; Thom Tillis; David Vitter; Jon Tester; Mark 
           R. Warner; Tim Scott; Richard C. Shelby; Patrick J. 
           Toomey; Roger Wicker.
         United States Senators.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join the two Senators 
from Maine--Senator Collins and Senator Angus King--in this dialogue, 
as well as Senator Klobuchar. I believe a few other Senators may join 
us.
  Senator Collins has been a great leader in advancing the debate or 
the conversation recognizing the carbon benefits of biomass. Her State 
and of course Senator King's State is so much like Oregon. If you fold 
the map of the United States in the middle and put east and west on top 
of each other, Oregon and Maine end up closely associated. We have 
similar coastlines. We have shellfish industries. We have timber 
industries. We have salmon runs. We having similar initiative systems 
and our largest cities are named Portland.
  I know that when I had the pleasure to visit Maine--and I went there 
with my wife and children to visit friends from many walks of our two 
lives, my wife's life and my life--we went from town to town visiting 
these friends who moved to Maine. We picked up a newspaper, and we felt 
like we were right at home in Oregon. The same initiatives were being 
done at that time in the State as we had on the front page back home.
  This issue of biomass is close to our hearts in the forests of the 
Northeast and in the forests of the Northwest. When I first came to the 
Senate and the conversation was going forward about renewable energy, 
Senator Dorgan from North Dakota--now retired--said that his home State 
was the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. I heard Senator Reid from Nevada 
say Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of solar power. There was a county 
commissioner from Douglas County--the county I was born in--which has 
the largest concentration of Douglas fir trees, its enormous biomass 
area--who referred to how Douglas County can be the Saudi Arabia of 
biomass energy. I thought, with all these Saudi Arabians in the United 
States, why are we still importing oil from Saudi Arabia? But indeed 
these efforts to develop an alternative to pivot from fossil fuels to a 
clean energy economy should include solar, should include wind, and 
should include biomass.
  When I came to the Senate, I undertook the project of helping the 
Environmental Protection Agency recognize that you have to look at the 
life cycle. You can't simply look at the moment of combustion. You 
can't compare coal being burned in a coal furnace or oil in an oil 
furnace and say that is equivalent to wood being burned in a biomass 
furnace because, indeed, as you take that biomass, that wood, you are 
engaged in a life cycle that doesn't involve bringing more carbon out 
of the Earth and adding it to the cycle of ground. Our colleague, Angus 
King from Maine, was referring to that difference earlier in his 
comments.
  It has been an effort to make sure our government takes account of 
this significant contribution of forest biomass. In the Northwest, the 
biomass is the potential for a win-win as a renewable source and 
improving forest health, and Senator Collins was referring to the goals 
of responsible forest management and conservation.
  Indeed, if you drive along the roads in our national forests in my 
home State, you will see slash piles. These piles are there because as 
we go through for forest health, we thin the trees. If they are good 
saw logs, we take them off to the mill, but the debris remains, and we 
put them into piles. The goal is to remove those piles, but often there 
is no economical way to remove those piles, and then you have to burn 
them in the forest.
  A couple of months ago I was in the forest in Southern Oregon with a 
torch, lighting fire to these piles. In this case it was an area where 
there is often a temperature inversion and you get smog from the smoke. 
They only can be burned a couple days a year. It is a big challenge. 
Isn't it so much better to be able to take those piles of biomass and 
put them to work instead of burning them in the forest? Burn them in a 
situation that produces heat and electricity. That is a win-win 
outcome.
  So when you hear people in the Northwest talk about forest biomass, 
there is a lot of excitement about how to grow this market, a market 
that has the means of improving the health of our forests while 
providing renewable energy. On private lands a growing domestic biomass 
market also has the potential to create a new value stream for our 
forest landowners. By adding another value stream for forest 
landowners, biomass can create incentives to keep forestland as forests 
and avoid conversion to a nonforest use.
  The modification made to Senator Collins' amendment reflects this 
dynamic, that one of the contributions to emissions in the forest 
sector is actually the conversion of forestland and nonforest use 
because trees are no longer there to sequester carbon. So if we can 
help prevent this, that is a beneficial side effect of this overall 
effort on biomass, to amplify the role of the forest, not to remove 
them.
  The most important example that has been brought up as a concern that 
doesn't fit this model of conservation or burning the byproducts is 
whether entire forests might be ground up and used to create pellets 
and so forth. I believe--and I certainly will be corrected

[[Page 1167]]

if I am wrong--that certainly is not the framework in which this 
amendment is crafted with the dedication to enhancing the health of our 
forests and energy and forest conservation.
  I think this amendment sends a clear signal to EPA that in many cases 
forest biomass is carbon neutral and should be treated as such. It 
reinforces the conversation we have been having since I came here over 
the last 7 years and earlier with Senator Collins' hard work.
  When EPA takes regulatory action, it should reflect the opportunities 
where biomass is carbon neutral. In fact, policies like the Clean Power 
Plan should provide an incentive for forest biomass that is carbon 
neutral.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this topic 
because this is a very significant win-win opportunity for energy, for 
the environment, and those are the type of opportunities we should 
seize.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate passed an 
amendment from Senators Collins and Klobuchar to promote biomass 
energy.
  I would like to take a couple minutes to express my support for 
biomass energy.
  Using biomass to create energy can be significantly better than using 
coal. I think it is great that people use wood to heat their homes, 
instead of heating with fossil fuels--like oil--particularly, when they 
do so with clean-burning, EPA-certified wood stoves or pellet stoves, 
particularly, when the stoves are produced by great companies--like 
QuadraFire, based in Colville, WA.
  Professors at University of Washington have emphasized the need for 
such an amendment to encourage the development of new emission-reducing 
energy facilities that use the types of biomass that will achieve our 
country's renewable energy and climate mitigation goals.
  Last October, EPA recognized that the use of some biomass can play an 
important role in controlling increases of CO2 levels in our 
atmosphere. EPA stated that the use of some types of biomass can 
potentially offer a wide range of environmental benefits, aside from 
the important carbon benefits.
  We have a wildfire problem in this country, and we need to encourage 
markets for the small trees, slash, and brush that we want to remove 
from our most at-risk forests. According to the EPA, the growth in U.S. 
forests offsets 13 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions 
annually. But the Global Climate Change Office at USDA has reported 
that increasing wildfires are transforming our forests from ``carbon 
sinks'' to ``carbon sources.'' We clearly need to treat some of our 
forests, and we should use the biomass that is generated. We also know 
we also need energy.
  But I think we need to continue to look at the ``highest and best 
use'' philosophy when talking about biomass. Clearly, trees filtering 
water and providing wildlife habitat is a best use. Clear-cutting our 
forests and burning whole trees for electricity is not a good use. But 
burning industrial or harvesting waste for energy is a good use.
  I am excited that EPA is currently developing a world leading 
accounting framework for biomass-generated emissions, and we are 
counting on them to finish this.
  I also want to say that cross-laminated timber is a particularly 
important ``good'' use of biomass. Building with wood uses less carbon 
than concrete, and CLT explicitly stores carbon, which in terms of our 
carbon balance is better than simply burning it.
  We agree that some biomass is clearly ``carbon neutral'' and some 
biomass is not ``carbon neutral.'' A study by the National Council for 
Air and Stream Improvement showed that mills using biomass residuals 
avoid 181 million tons of CO2 emissions. That is equivalent 
to removing 35 million cars from the road.
  When we modified the amendment yesterday, we did so to make clear 
that the direction to the agencies was to establish biomass energy 
policies that are carbon neutral. Regrowing trees to replace those cut 
to produce energy is ``carbon neutral.''
  But clear-cutting forests and burning them in power plants can lead 
to increases in atmospheric carbon levels for decades--especially when 
owners then sell their cut forests for housing developments, this is 
clearly not ``carbon neutral.'' The trees need to grow back and the 
forest to stay working in order to replace the carbon taken. That is 
why we specifically modified the amendment, prior to voting on it, to 
ensure we are encouraging forest owners to keep their lands in forests.
  Senator Markey is another leading voice in our carbon conversation, 
and I am looking forward to hearing his remarks.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cantwell for her 
tireless work on this Energy bill and for her help in improving the 
biomass amendment that the Senate adopted last night.
  Biomass energy is already contributing to the U.S. energy mix in ways 
that help reduce carbon pollution that causes global warming.
  There are great examples of electricity generation coming from wood 
residues like at the Fort Drum Army installation in New York and the 
Gainesville Renewable Energy Center in Florida. Both of these projects 
have included efforts to ensure that their biomass material promotes 
land stewardship and responsible forestry practices. Projects like 
these are generating biomass electricity, jobs, and economic value in 
their local communities.
  These are the type of projects that we need to encourage to meet the 
climate change challenge.
  But not all biomass energy is created equal. I understand the 
amendment's intent to support biomass energy that is determined to be 
carbon neutral.
  I appreciate the modifications made to the amendment to ensure that 
U.S. bioenergy policy is not encouraging conversion of forest lands to 
non-forest uses. This protection is important to acknowledge.
  But it is also important to acknowledge that the timeframe for any 
climate benefits from biomass energy can vary. In many instances that 
timeframe can be very long--on the order of 50 to 100 years.
  Some practices like clear-cutting forests and burning whole trees for 
energy should never be considered carbon neutral.
  That is why it is critical to incorporate what science tells us about 
forests and their interaction with the global carbon cycle into 
policies governing biomass energy.
  EPA has a scientific advisory board working on this issue of 
bioenergy carbon accounting right now. They will have a meeting in 
April to hear from stakeholders about their experience in using biomass 
to reduce carbon pollution. The results of the advisory board's work 
will be crucial to inform policy across agencies.
  It is important to have agencies working together on cross-cutting 
issues like this one. But efforts to make policies more consistent 
across Federal agencies shouldn't interfere with individual agency's 
statutory responsibilities. The amendment should not be interpreted as 
enabling one agency to block another agency's rulemaking or guidance.
  I want to thank Senators Collins, Klobuchar, King, and the other co-
sponsors of the amendment for working with other concerned Senators 
like myself on modifications to improve the amendment. I look forward 
to continuing working with them to ensure that the United States has a 
smart, sustainable, and scientifically backed policy for biomass 
energy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate is currently considering 
sweeping legislation to modernize the Nation's energy sector. Despite 
its laudable goals, it leaves one area unaddressed. The bill does 
nothing to stop corporate bad actors, including those in the energy 
sector, from simply writing off their egregious misconduct as a cost of 
doing business. Today I am submitting a commonsense amendment to close 
a tax loophole that forces hard-working Americans to subsidize 
corporate wrongdoing.
  Under current law, a corporation can deduct the cost of court-ordered 
punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense. For the victims 
who have already paid the price for extreme corporate misconduct, there 
is nothing

[[Page 1168]]

``ordinary'' about this at all. It is simply wrong. It offends our most 
basic notions of justice and fair play. Punitive damage awards are 
designed to punish wrongdoers for the reprehensible harm that they 
cause and to deter would-be bad actors from repeating similar mistakes. 
Today a company can simply hire a team of lawyers and accountants to 
deduct this punishment from the taxes the company owes. My amendment 
would end this offensive practice with a simple fix to our Tax Code.
  Let us not forget that our energy sector has been plagued with 
companies that have recklessly destroyed environments and harmed 
communities with impunity. In 1994, a jury awarded $5 billion in 
punitive damages against Exxon for the Valdez spill in Alaska. This oil 
spill devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and a 
way of life. After Exxon paid white-shoe law firms to fight these 
damages in the courts for 14 years, it successfully brought its damages 
down to $500 million. Then, adding insult to injury, Exxon used the 
Federal Tax Code to write off its punitive damages as nothing more than 
an ``ordinary'' business expense.
  In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, and 11 
Americans were killed in the worst oil spill in American history. That 
same year, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia 
claimed the lives of 29 miners. If forced to pay punitive damages for 
their misconduct, these companies could also write off that expense.
  The Obama administration has requested eliminating this tax deduction 
in its budget proposals. Our very own Joint Committee on Taxation has 
estimated that closing this loophole would save taxpayers more than 
$400 million over 10 years. If we don't change the law, our deficit 
will grow by nearly half a billion dollars because we allowed taxpayers 
to subsidize the worst corporate actors. By failing to act, we are 
sending the message that pillaging our environment is an encouraged, 
tax-deductible behavior. This amendment makes fiscal sense, and it is 
common sense.
  Vermonters and Americans are tired of seeing giant corporations 
getting special treatment under the law--and paying for their reckless 
mistakes. It should shock the conscience to know that current law 
compels taxpayers to effectively subsidize the malfeasance of the worst 
corporate actors. My amendment would change this unacceptable status 
quo. I urge Senators to support my amendment.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on my amendment No. 3197, 
to increase the protection of our critical infrastructure in the 
electric sector from a debilitating cyber attack. I am pleased to have 
Senators Mikulski and Hirono join me as cosponsors.
  Critical infrastructure refers to entities that are vital to the 
safety, health, and economic well-being of the American people, such as 
the major utilities that run the Nation's electric grid, the national 
air transportation system that moves passengers and cargo safely from 
one location to another, and the elements of the financial sector that 
ensure the $14 trillion in payments made every day are securely routed 
through the banking system.
  The underlying bill includes several provisions that I support to 
improve the cyber posture of the U.S. electric grid. These include 
giving the Secretary of Energy new authority to take actions to protect 
the grid in the event of an emergency and establishing new programs to 
reduce vulnerabilities and improve collaboration among the Department 
of Energy, national labs, and private industry.
  The underlying bill, however, makes no distinction between the vast 
majority of local or regional utilities and the very few entities that 
are so key to the electric grid that they could debilitate the U.S. 
economy and our way of life if they were attacked.
  The Department of Homeland Security has identified the critical 
infrastructure entities at greatest risk of resulting in catastrophic 
harm if they were the targets of a successful cyber attack.
  While the entire list includes fewer than 65 entities across all 
sectors of the economy, it warrants our special attention because there 
is ample evidence, both classified and unclassified, that demonstrates 
the threat facing critical infrastructure, including our energy sector.
  Indeed, the committee report accompanying this bill notes that one-
third of reported cyber attacks involve the energy sector.
  The amendment I have filed to this energy policy bill would only 
affect those entities on the list that are already subject to the 
oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC.
  Our amendment would require FERC to identify and propose actions that 
would reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, the likelihood that a 
cyber attack on one of these entities would result in catastrophic 
harm.
  By ``catastrophic harm,'' the Department of Homeland Security means a 
single cyber attack that would likely result in 2,500 deaths, $50 
billion in economic damage, or a severe degradation of our national 
security. In other words, if one of these entities upon which we depend 
each day were attacked, the results would be devastating.
  The Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, has testified 
that the greatest threat facing our country is in cyber space and that 
the number one cyber challenge concerning him is an attack on our 
Nation's critical infrastructure.
  His assessment is backed up by several intrusions into the industrial 
controls of critical infrastructure. Since 2009, the Wall Street 
Journal has published reports regarding efforts by foreign adversaries, 
such as China, Russia, and Iran, to leave behind software on American 
critical infrastructure and to disrupt U.S. banks through cyber 
intrusions.
  Multiple natural gas pipeline companies were the target of a 
sophisticated cyber intrusion campaign beginning in December 2011, and 
Saudi Arabia's oil company, Aramco, was subject to a destructive cyber 
attack in 2012.
  In an incident that is still not fully understood, 700,000 Ukrainians 
lost power in December due to an attack that Ukrainian authorities and 
many journalists have ascribed to Russian hackers.
  In a hearing of the Intelligence Committee last summer, I asked 
Admiral Rogers, the Director of the National Security Agency, which is 
responsible for cyber space, how prepared our country was for a cyber 
attack against our critical infrastructure. He replied that we are at a 
``5 or 6.''
  Last month, the Deputy Director of the NSA, Richard Ledgett, was 
asked during a CNN interview if foreign actors already have the 
capability of shutting down key U.S. infrastructure, such as the 
financial sector, energy, transportation, and air traffic control. His 
response? ``Absolutely.''
  When it comes to cyber security, ignorance is not bliss. The 
amendment we have filed would take the common sense approach of 
requiring the Federal agency responsible for the cyber security of the 
electric grid to collaborate with the entities that matter most and to 
propose actions that can reduce the risk of a catastrophic attack that 
could cause thousands of deaths, a devastating blow to our economy or 
national defense, or all of these terrible consequences.
  Congress has previously missed opportunities to improve our Nation's 
cyber preparedness before a ``cyber 
9/11'' eventually occurs. We should not repeat that mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital, bipartisan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I didn't rise during 
this debate on energy to address the administration's continuing 
efforts to wear down America's coal industry. As the Senate considers 
reform of our Nation's energy infrastructure, the importance of coal to 
America's energy portfolio simply cannot be understated, and 
unfortunately neither can this administration's deliberate attempts to 
use Executive power to put the coal industry out of business.

[[Page 1169]]

  This administration has made no secret of its disdain for fossil 
fuels and has unleashed a series of policies intended to subvert 
reliable, affordable, traditional energy sources, such as oil and 
natural gas, in favor of valuable but more expensive and less reliable 
renewable resources.
  We have a lot of wind in Wyoming. In fact, the first wind turbines 
were put in and the rotors blew off until they discovered they couldn't 
turn them into the wind at 80 miles an hour. But even though we have a 
lot of wind--I guess Wyoming could be called the Saudi Arabia of wind 
and solar, coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium--we have found that 
sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and we have found that sometimes the 
Sun doesn't shine and sometimes the wind doesn't blow when the Sun 
isn't shining, and that creates a problem unless you have alternate 
fuels.
  Coal is at the center of that regulatory battle. The war on coal is 
not only an affront to coal producers in my home State of Wyoming but 
to energy consumers across America. Let me explain how the 
administration's war on coal affects Americans across the country with 
this chart.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, 39 percent of the 
electricity in the United States was generated by coal in 2014. The 
only other energy source that comes close to coal for energy production 
is natural gas, at 27 percent. We need to ask ourselves: If we allow 
the administration to kill the coal industry, what energy source is 
going to take its place and provide our constituents with the energy 
they need? It is actually the only stockpilable resource we have.
  This issue hits close to home for me because approximately 40 percent 
of the country's coal is produced in my home State of Wyoming. 
Actually, 40 percent is produced in my home county of Campbell County, 
WY. According to the National Mining Association, coal supports more 
than 27,000 jobs in my State. Now, 27,000 probably doesn't sound like a 
lot in California, Washington, DC, New York, or even Texas, but that is 
9 percent of our state's workforce. Nine percent of our workforce has 
jobs related to coal, and they are good-paying jobs. These jobs pay an 
average of about $81,500 a year. Multiply that by 27,000 jobs, and we 
are talking about billions. Let me be clear. This isn't just an issue 
for Wyoming or other coal-producing States. The Wyoming Mining 
Association reported that in 2014, 30 States received coal from 
Wyoming's mines.
  The area depicted in red on this chart are the States that receive 
Wyoming coal, but that doesn't mean some States don't also receive 
electricity produced in Wyoming from coal. Those States include 
California, Utah, and Idaho. And, of course on this carbon issue, 
Wyoming is forced to account for the carbon that produces the energy 
these other states consume.
  The second chart shows that if you represent Texas, Illinois, or 
Missouri, you should be worried about the coal industry because in 2014 
each of those States received more than 10 percent of Wyoming's coal. 
Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Michigan each got 
about 5 percent of Wyoming's coal. Wyoming's coal was also distributed 
to Nebraska, Georgia, Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Tennessee, 
Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, New York, and Arizona. If I didn't list 
your State, don't think the stability and success of the coal industry 
doesn't affect you. Ten other States and foreign entities also received 
Wyoming's coal.
  All of these numbers and stats boil down to this: Most of America's 
energy is powered by coal, and policies that raise the price of coal 
will hurt industries and households across the country. They will cost 
jobs in our country and will cause people to have higher utility bills. 
Unfortunately, the administration is either oblivious or unconcerned 
with this correlation, as evidenced by the Department of Interior's 
recent announcement that they will block most new Federal coal leases 
in order to conduct a programmatic environmental impact statement on 
coal development on Federal lands.
  About 40 percent of our Nation's coal is produced by the Federal coal 
leasing program. Under that program, which is managed by the Department 
of Interior, private entities compete for the right to lease and mine 
the coal mineral estate owned by the Federal Government. After a 
rigorous multiyear application and land-use planning process, lessees 
are given an opportunity to mine coal on public land. Again, that is a 
rigorous, multiyear application process that can and does drag on for 
years. In return, those companies pay BLM a bonus bid, which is an 
upfront fee for the right to mine. Besides that, they also pay an 
annual land rental payment and they pay an additional royalty on the 
value of the coal after it is mined. Surface mines pay a royalty of 
12.5 percent and underground mines pay a royalty of 8 percent. These 
revenues are shared by the Federal Government and the States in which 
the coal was mined.
  This program, which began in 1920, has been a tremendously successful 
way to provide affordable energy to the Nation, provide jobs in places 
such as Wyoming's Powder River Basin, where 85 percent of all Federal 
coal is mined, and it provides value to the government. According to 
the BLM--the Bureau of Land Management--the Federal coal leasing 
program has generated well over $1 billion a year for the last 10 
years: $7.9 billion in royalties and an additional $4 billion in rent, 
bonus bid payments and other fees. Again, that is money that coal 
leasing earns for the Federal Government--a stark contrast to most 
Federal programs. That doesn't even mention the taxes that are paid by 
the workers who mine the coal, but if we eliminate their jobs, that 
money is not coming in either.
  This administration has announced plans to halt new Federal coal 
leases while it takes years to study the value and efficacy of the 
program. This Department of Interior rule has the potential to 
economically devastate my home State of Wyoming and send energy prices 
around the country through the roof.
  The BLM laid the foundation for this farce last summer when it staged 
a series of listening sessions. I went to the session in Gillette, WY, 
and based on the administration's recent announcement, I don't think 
the BLM was listening very closely. If they were, they would know that 
American taxpayers are already receiving a fair return on coal 
resources.
  One gentleman, who told the BLM his story, moved to Wyoming to be a 
coal miner. He spoke with pride about his job. He was worried that the 
job that has allowed him to raise three children will no longer exist 
if the BLM raises royalty rates.
  The owner of a small business not directly related to the coal 
industry told her story. She was worried about the ripple effect 
raising royalty rates would have on Campbell County and the State of 
Wyoming. As a mom, she also told the BLM about the direct support coal 
companies provide her community through social service agencies, 
community events, and youth activities. She didn't want to see her kids 
lose that support.
  The benefits she referenced are a reflection of the $1.14 billion in 
tax and fee revenues the State of Wyoming collected from the coal 
industry in 2014. This is money which the State critically relies on to 
fund things such as schools, highways, and community colleges across 
the State. Wyoming state lawmakers are going through a process right 
now to try to figure out how to make up for the lost revenue just from 
last year. They are making drastic budget cuts which we wouldn't even 
consider here at the Federal Government even though the State of 
Wyoming is in better financial shape than the Federal Government.
  I mentioned the Gillette woman who is the owner of a small business 
that is not directly related to the coal industry. She said her 
business is down by 60 percent. That is almost two-thirds less revenue 
than what she would have had, which means, of course, that it affects 
some other jobs in the community. So there is a huge ripple effect to 
all of this.
  Despite these and dozens of similar stories, the administration 
announced that they need to shut down Federal coal leases and conduct a 
study to determine if taxpayers are getting a fair

[[Page 1170]]

return on the Federal coal leasing program. For quite a while now, the 
resulting revenue coal producers and companies got to keep was less 
than what they were paying in taxes. If the BLM would have truly 
listened to the folks in Gillette last summer, they would already know 
the answer to this. Instead, they have gone forward with a plan to 
cripple the coal industry and make energy more expensive. In the words 
of Wyoming's Governor Matt Mead, ``Not only will [Interior's new rule] 
hurt miners and all businesses that support coal mining, it will take 
away the competitive advantage coal provides to every U.S. citizen.'' 
When it is part of the energy mix, it affects the other energy prices 
as well.
  As we debate energy policy reforms in the coming days, it isn't just 
the fate of coal that should concern us. Interior's Federal coal 
leasing review is just the latest in a string of regulations aimed at 
driving fossil fuel industries out of business. The administration has 
also proposed a new methane flaring rule aimed at discouraging oil and 
gas leasing on Federal lands.
  This Chamber has spoken clearly in rejecting rules such as the Clean 
Power Plan and the Waters of the United States, but the administration 
continues its regulatory war on energy. As we consider energy policy 
reforms, we need to make sure we are protecting the resources that have 
and can continue to power America, and that has to include coal.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Upon my completion, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Heller be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Prescription Drug Abuse

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for the millions of 
Americans impacted by prescription drug abuse, particularly those in my 
home State of West Virginia, where 600 lives are lost every year to 
opioids. I believe the FDA must start taking prescription drug abuse 
seriously, and that will not happen without a cultural change in the 
agency.
  The Presiding Officer and I are taking on this issue in the drug 
prevention caucus and addressing how opioids have affected South 
Carolina, West Virginia, and the effect the epidemic has had on all of 
America. We have seen too many examples of the FDA standing in the way 
of efforts to address the opioid abuse epidemic.
  If you look at this chart, you can see the rise in deaths over the 
last 15 years and what it has done to our country and our States. It is 
unbelievable and unacceptable. We have been able to face and cure every 
other epidemic in this country. We seem to be keeping this one out of 
sight and out of mind.
  The FDA delayed for years before finally agreeing to reschedule 
hydrocodone. My first 3 years in the Senate were consumed by getting 
the FDA to come around on this important step. Since the change went 
into effect, we have seen a number of prescriptions for combination 
hydrocodone products, such as Vicodin and Lortab, fall by 22 percent. 
That is over 1 billion pills not being put on the market.
  After finally taking that step, to add insult to injury after taking 
so long to reschedule this from a schedule III to a schedule II, the 
FDA approved the dangerous drug Zohydro even after its own experts 
voted 11 to 2 against it. This drug has 10 times the hydrocodone of 
Vicodin and Lortab and has the capability of killing an individual with 
just two tablets. Can you imagine? Just recently, the FDA outrageously 
approved OxyContin for use for children as young as 11 years old. This 
decision means that Pharma is now legally allowed to advertise 
OxyContin to pediatricians under certain circumstances. We have seen 
this story before. We have seen the devastating impact of this type of 
advertising, and we have years of evidence that shows that drug use at 
an early age will make a child more likely to abuse drugs later in 
life. These decisions by the FDA are horrifying examples of the 
disconnect between the FDA's actions and the realities of this deadly 
epidemic.
  Leaders at the FDA, including the director of the division that 
oversees opioids, are now actively working against the Centers for 
Disease Control's efforts to reform prescribing guidelines, which 
represents a reasonable, commonsense approach to help doctors take into 
account the very real and prevalent danger of addiction and overdose 
when prescribing opioids. We have found out there is very little 
education done. Doctors aren't required to cover this as they go 
through medical school. Most will tell you they have less than 1 week 
of schooling for this.
  That is why last week I announced that I will filibuster any effort 
to confirm Dr. Robert Califf. This is a good man with a stellar 
reputation, but he just comes from the wrong end of this crisis for 
which we have to make the changes that need to be made. That is all I 
have said: Give us someone who is passionate about the change. The 
change must come from the top of the FDA.
  We need a cultural overhaul of the FDA. When we have the FDA fighting 
the CDC--the CDC is making recommendations for new guidelines of how 
drugs are prescribed and how we should protect the public, and the FDA 
is really taking the position that, no, what pharmaceuticals are 
putting out is something that we need as a product. It is a business 
plan. I am sorry, I cannot accept that, and I truly believe there needs 
to be a cultural change, and that starts at the top.
  Over the past week my office has been absolutely flooded with stories 
from West Virginians who want their voices to be heard. And, as I said, 
we need to make this real, and it will not be unless I can bring to my 
colleagues the real-life stories of the tragedies that people are 
enduring because of the prescription abuse that goes on.
  These letters have come from children who have seen their parents die 
from an overdose; grandparents who have been forced to raise their 
grandchildren when their kids went to jail, rehab, and the grave; and 
teachers and religious leaders who have seen their communities 
devastated by prescription drug abuse. These people need help from the 
FDA. They count on this regulatory committee--the Federal Drug 
Administration--to do what should be done to protect millions of 
Americans across the United States, as well as those who have been 
affected.
  I am going to read a story and basically bring a person's life to my 
colleagues--an opportunity to see what happens in a daily situation in 
an abusive scenario. The first story I wish to read comes from a West 
Virginian by the name of Haley. Haley lives in Princeton, WV, which is 
in the southern part, and she is a teacher in Beckley, WV. She is 
married and has a baby who is about to turn 1. This is Haley's story:

       Prescription drug addiction destroyed my childhood. Thanks 
     to prescription drug abuse, I grew up much too quickly and 
     still have trust issues today. My mom's one true love was 
     Xanax and I will always come in second or after that, no 
     matter what.
       When I was in fifth grade, my mom went to rehab two hours 
     away from me. My parents are divorced and my stepdad worked 
     on the road, so I stayed with my grandparents. We visited my 
     mom on the weekends and I didn't really understand why she 
     was there. None of it made any sense to me and I just wanted 
     my mom. One day, we received a phone call stating that she 
     had checked herself out and we had no idea where she was for 
     about 24 hours. This wasn't the first time my mom had 
     unsuccessfully tried rehab and it would not be her last.
       There were times when I would get home from school and have 
     no idea where my mother was, so my grandma and I would have 
     to drive around and search for her. We would eventually find 
     her passed out at one of her ``friends'' houses.
       There is one particular memory that traumatized me and is 
     forever engrained in my memory. I was 10 years old when we 
     found my mom. She was too high to even walk on her own. My 
     70-year-old grandmother and I had to virtually carry her to 
     the car. When she got home, I took her shoes off so I could 
     put her to bed. I remember being sick to my stomach with 
     worry when I took off her shoe to find a sock completely 
     soaked with blood. She had apparently stepped on glass and 
     hadn't even felt the cut because she was too

[[Page 1171]]

     high on pain pills. This is something no one, especially an 
     innocent 10-year-old, should have to deal with.
       My 12th birthday was the worst birthday of my entire life. 
     I was supposed to have a pool party, but my mom did not show 
     up to pay for it, so my 16-year-old sister had to step in. 
     There was no food or drinks because my mom was supposed to 
     handle all of that for me. When she finally showed up at the 
     end of my party, equipped with her unbelievable excuses, her 
     eyes were bloodshot and rolling around in her head. I was 
     hurt, but I was mostly embarrassed that people felt so sorry 
     for me. Everyone knew my mom was a drug addict and everyone 
     always pitied my sister and me for the life we had to live. 
     Yet again, my mother chose her beloved high over me.
       My mom's battle with drug addiction did not stop there. She 
     went on to rehab again and jail several more times. When she 
     wasn't home, I would search her room and find Xanax, Lortab, 
     Oxycodone, and many other unknown pills. Nearby, I would 
     always find cut up straws or even parts of a tampon 
     applicator. She was creative, to say the least. When I was in 
     9th grade, my mom went to jail for stealing. She would get 
     super high and then go into stores and steal ridiculous 
     things like hair scrunchies, makeup, and whatever else she 
     could get her hands on. I didn't know she was going to jail 
     until two days before she left. She had been depressed and in 
     her bed sick (probably going through withdrawal) for several 
     days. She finally told me that she would be going to jail the 
     day after Christmas. Once again, I would be without a mom. 
     She was in jail the remainder of my 9th grade year until the 
     end of my 10th grade year. I don't know how I passed the 9th 
     grade. I failed almost every class except English and I would 
     have failed that one too if it hadn't been for such an 
     amazing teacher who helped me overcome so much.
       My mom went to jail for stealing again while I was in 
     college, and my ex boyfriend had to bail her out of jail. I 
     had a baby via C-section less than a year ago. My mom and I 
     were starting to have a relationship for the first time in my 
     entire life, but drug addiction would soon ruin it for the 
     millionth time. I was given pain medicine after having my 
     baby and I was terrified to take it because of what I have 
     lived through. I only took it when I absolutely had to, but I 
     was in so much pain. My mom had just been to visit and I 
     never thought to move my pain medication because it was in my 
     bedroom out of sight. The next day I was lying in bed with my 
     two-week-old baby and I was having terrible pains due to my 
     incision. I reached to the end of the table for my pain 
     medicine. When I opened the bottle, there was only one pill 
     left. I had 8 pills when my mother came to visit and she took 
     7. My mom finally admitted to stealing my medicine and I 
     refused to talk to her for months.
       In November, I received a phone call from my sister telling 
     me the neighbor called and my mom was having a heart attack. 
     When the paramedics arrived they couldn't find a pulse or a 
     temperature. They flew her to the closest town and they had 
     to shock her because her heart stopped. They found narcotics 
     in her system and I will forever believe that years of using 
     drugs is the reason for her heart attack. She spent a month 
     in the hospital. I believe she may be drug free now, but I 
     will never fully trust her. I can't. Each time I call and she 
     doesn't answer, I picture her high somewhere stumbling 
     around.
       I could give endless anecdotes and examples of how drug 
     addiction ruined my life, but I don't think I can ever 
     adequately describe what prescription drugs robbed me of. The 
     only thing worse than not having a mother at all is having a 
     mother who chooses drugs over you. Something needs to be done 
     in West Virginia, where the prescription drug abuse is only 
     going to get worse. All addicts have to do is go to a pain 
     clinic and fool the doctors to receive medication. I know too 
     many people who have easy access to drugs because of corrupt 
     doctors in the area and because the pain clinics are not 
     effective. I can only pray the problem is addressed and that 
     my son doesn't have to grow up in an area so overtaken by 
     drug abuse.
       Sincerely, a drug addict's daughter.

  I know the Presiding Officer has received these same letters, these 
same circumstances we live with every day. If someone doesn't rise up 
and say ``Enough is enough; we have to stop this abuse,'' it is going 
to be an epidemic that is going to ruin this country.
  I go to schools and tell them, there is not another country in the 
world that believes they can take on the United States of America 
militarily or economically. We are the greatest Nation. We are the hope 
of the world. Guess what. They don't believe they have to. They are 
going to sit back and watch. If we don't have education and we don't 
have skill sets because of a lack of education attainment, and if we 
are addicted, if we don't have a clean society, we are not going to be 
able to be the superpower.
  We can't let this generation down. We can't let it fail. I will be 
coming here every chance I get to read letters from West Virginians to 
let my colleagues know the epidemic that is going on, the ravaging that 
is happening in my State and taking away precious lives, whether 
directly or indirectly, through a child or a parent.
  I am hoping we can all change the FDA's direction, that we can get 
somebody in there that will change the culture of the FDA that will 
protect us and fight for us and not for the business plan of 
pharmaceuticals.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor to my good friend from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the bill before 
us.
  Energy and mineral development has been one of the central pillars of 
the Nevada economy, even before it joined the Union. The discovery of 
the Comstock Lode transformed the State as miners rushed in and boom 
towns like Virginia City and Austin were born.
  Today we are a world leader in mineral production while being at the 
forefront of national efforts to implement a 21st century ``all of the 
above'' energy strategy. The Silver State produces over 80 percent of 
the gold and nearly 25 percent of the silver mined domestically. Mining 
contributes more than 13,500 jobs in Nevada alone, adding $6.4 billion 
for our State's gross domestic product annually.
  Nevada's renewable energy resources are among the best our Nation has 
to offer. Over 2,300 megawatts of renewable energy projects have come 
online, roughly enough electricity to power over 4.6 million homes. In 
total, more than 23 percent of the State's total electricity generation 
comes from renewables.
  Our State is not only leading the way on clean energy production, it 
is a hot bed for the research and development on energy efficiency and 
other alternative technologies that are critical to our Nation's energy 
future. Tesla's development of its battery gigafactory at the Tahoe 
Reno Industrial Center and Faraday Future's recent announcement to 
build its automotive manufacturing facility in North Las Vegas ensure 
that our State will be at the forefront of energy storage technologies 
and electric vehicles for years to come.
  Energy is not only one of Nevada's but, overall, one of our Nation's 
greatest assets. But Congress has not enacted comprehensive energy 
legislation in a decade, so it is time to reform Federal policies to 
reflect the energy and natural resource challenges of the 21st century.
  I commend the majority leader and the chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee who have made energy policy modernization a 
focus for the 114th Congress. In our first week, we advanced the 
Keystone XL Pipeline legislation and energy efficiency legislation. In 
the final days of 2015, we enacted a tax deal which included important 
policies I fought for and which facilitated renewable energy production 
while lifting the crude oil export ban. And this week we are focusing 
on a bipartisan Energy Policy Modernization Act.
  I appreciate the hard work of the bill managers, Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, who 
have put the time in to bring this proposal to the Senate floor. My 
colleagues all have a wide range of ideas on energy and environmental 
policy, and often these debates can become bitterly partisan. So both 
Senators should be commended for approving a bill out of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee by a bipartisan vote of 18 to 4.
  In the committee process, I worked with both Senators to incorporate 
a couple of my stand-alone bills focused on streamlining mine 
permitting and the exploration of geothermal resources, the Public Land 
Job Creation Act, S. 113, and the Geothermal Exploration Opportunities 
Act, S. 562, into this bill. I thank them for that, and I hope to 
continue to process amendments that modernize Federal energy policy.
  I have filed a variety of amendments aimed at spurring innovation, 
boosting

[[Page 1172]]

job creation, increasing domestic energy and mineral production, and 
rolling back some of these burdensome regulations. One has already 
passed the Senate, and I hope the others will be included as well.
  I have put forth two bipartisan proposals with my colleague from 
Rhode Island, Senator Jack Reed, focused on energy storage. 
Technological developments in energy storage have the potential to be a 
game changer for the electric grid, benefiting the reliability and 
efficiency of the overall system. Our first amendment simply adds 
energy storage systems to a list of strategies that States should 
consider in an effort to promote energy conservation and promote 
greater use of domestic energy. The second, which passed the Senate by 
voice vote on Monday night, enhances the Department of Energy's ability 
to use existing research dollars to develop state of the art technology 
that can make our electricity grid faster and much more reliable. 
Energy storage will play an important role in our Nation's long-term 
energy strategy.
  My Public Lands Renewable Energy Development amendment, which I filed 
along with Senators Heinrich, Gardner, Risch, Tester, Wyden, Udall, and 
Bennet, is an initiative I have been working on for many years. It 
recognizes that in our Western States, there are millions of acres of 
public lands suitable for the development of renewable energy projects, 
but uncertainty in the permitting process impedes or delays our ability 
to harness their potential. In a State like Nevada, where over 85 
percent of our land is controlled by Federal landlords, improving this 
permitting process is vitally essential.
  Our amendment does just that. It streamlines and improves the 
permitting process for utility-scale geothermal, wind, and solar energy 
on Federal lands so that the West can continue to lead the Nation in 
clean energy production.
  To advance this amendment, Senator Heinrich and I had to drop one of 
the important components of the proposal--provisions that would 
repurpose revenues generated by these projects to ensure our local 
communities benefit and to support conservation projects that increase 
outdoor recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, and hiking.
  In the West, where Federal lands are not taxable and outdoor 
recreation is an important part of our way of life, these provisions 
are vital, and I hope we can find a path forward for this concept in 
the near future.
  While recent developments on battery storage, renewable energy 
production, and alternative fuel vehicles is exciting, I want to remind 
my colleagues that without a domestic supply of critical minerals like 
gold, silver, copper, and lithium, they all would not be possible. Far 
too often we take for granted that we need these important resources to 
manufacture those technologies and devices that are now part of our 
everyday lives, such as our smartphones, our computers, and our 
tablets.
  I have worked with Chairman Murkowski and others on comprehensive 
mining legislation over the past few years, and I believe it is key to 
our economy and our Nation's security that those policies are part of 
this comprehensive package. I appreciate that our American Mineral 
Security Act is one of the titles of the bill that is now before the 
Senate.
  One of the biggest issues facing domestic mining--not just mining but 
all natural resource development--is overly burdensome regulations. If 
our Nation is truly going to capitalize on our domestic production 
potential, we need to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Outside of the IRS, the two Federal agencies that draw the most ire 
from my constituents are the EPA and the BLM. Under this 
administration, the EPA is continuing down a path of destroying the 
balance between appropriate environmental oversight and overreaching 
regulations that lead to further economic gridlock. That is why I put 
forth an amendment that would block the EPA from finalizing one of 
their biggest attacks on domestic resources production, a rule to 
impose new financial assurance fees.
  If implemented, these requirements would further deincentivize 
capital investment in the domestic mining industry. New Federal 
requirements would be duplicative of financial assurance programs 
already in place at both the State and Federal level.
  The EPA has made it clear that their push on hard rock mining is the 
first of many of its plans to develop on various natural resources 
industries, such as chemicals, coal, oil, and gas development. My 
amendment would prohibit the EPA from developing, proposing, 
finalizing, implementing, enforcing or administering new financial 
assurance regulations on natural resources development.
  I have also teamed up with my friend and colleague, Environment and 
Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, on my EPA accountability 
amendment. This amendment mirrors a bill that I introduced in the first 
weeks of this Congress and was adopted by voice vote as part of the 
House Energy bill--the North American Energy Security and 
Infrastructure Act.
  The EPA often ignores longstanding statutes that require them to 
improve their own regulatory coordination, planning, and review. Simply 
put, my amendment asks the EPA to abide by its own rules. Without 
oversight, the EPA has the authority to issue unprecedented regulations 
that could wreak havoc on our energy policy and prices. Energy costs 
seep into every aspect of American life, and it is past time we stopped 
the EPA in its tracks.
  Again, I want to thank Leader McConnell. I want to thank Chairman 
Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell for working with me on my 
comprehensive Energy bill policies. I hope we can take up these 
amendments and have them included in the final version of the bill, 
which I am confident will pass the Senate. These commonsense 
initiatives will go a long way toward ensuring an affordable, secure, 
and reliable energy supply for our country.
  Mr. President, thank you, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time as the ranking Democrat 
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues the number of nominees in important foreign policy areas 
that have been acted on by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but 
have not been acted on by the floor of the Senate.
  There are currently 15 nominees that have been recommended favorably 
by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in most of these cases, 
they were unanimous votes in the Committee. I am confident to say that 
in each of these cases there has been no question raised as to the 
qualifications of the individuals to fill these particular positions. 
We are talking about senior members of the State Department diplomatic 
team. We are talking about Ambassadors in countries around the world. 
We are talking about people who have extremely important positions with 
regard to our national security. These positions are critically 
important to our country, and they have remained vacant in some cases 
for over a year. It has been a long period of time that we have not 
acted on these nominations.
  The reason we have not acted on these nominations, quite frankly, is 
because there is a Member in the Senate, or more than one Member of the 
Senate, who has put what is known as a hold on these nominations. What 
that means is that a Senator has indicated that he or she is going to 
object to the consideration of the nomination on the floor. That is 
normally done in order to get a little bit of attention on an issue,

[[Page 1173]]

and it is my understanding that in each of these cases, these holds 
have nothing to do with the qualifications of the person for the 
position to be filled, but it is to give the Member an opportunity to 
get some help on other issues or to raise other concerns.
  Here is the problem. In some cases these holds have been in place for 
over a year. In some cases we are talking about several months that a 
position has gone unfilled because of the hold.
  How can we overcome that? We can overcome that by a Senator releasing 
the hold, allowing a nomination to come to the floor for a vote. In 
many cases, I expect, it will be by unanimous consent, since there has 
been no objection raised, and we can move forward with the nomination.
  Quite frankly, it is the majority leader--the Republican leader--who 
controls the agenda of the floor of the Senate. The majority leader can 
move to executive session, file a cloture motion, and if 60 Members of 
the Senate want to move forward with the nomination--and I expect that 
in each one of these cases we are probably talking about almost 
unanimous votes in the Senate for these nominations--we would pass a 
cloture motion. After the hours have passed, we would have an up-or-
down vote on the nomination.
  If the majority leader were to announce that we would have a cloture 
vote on a Thursday or Friday and we would stay in over a weekend in 
order to finish a nomination, which is typically the case here, we 
would get it resolved before we left for the weekend. As you know, we 
have been completing our work on a Thursday. There is plenty of 
opportunity to take up nominations. We have extensive periods of time 
that we are in State work periods. There are plenty of opportunities 
for us to take up nominations on the floor for votes. All we need to do 
is say: Look, by this date certain, if we don't have your answers, we 
are going to a cloture vote. It would certainly move a lot of these 
nominations.
  This Senator thinks it is unacceptable that 15 of our positions right 
now are going unfilled because of holds by Members of Congress. I think 
we have a responsibility to act. I am talking about positions on OPEC. 
I am talking about the IMF. I am talking about Ambassadors to the 
Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden. I am talking 
about the U.S. representative to the IAEA. I am talking about the Under 
Secretary of State. I am talking about Ambassadors to Luxembourg and 
Burma. There is a whole list of nominations that have gone unfilled.
  What does this mean for our country? Well, if you don't have the 
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs--that is the No. 4 
person in the State Department. That is the person directly responsible 
for all the regional bureaus--for Europe, the Middle East, East Asia 
and the Pacific, for our hemisphere, for Africa. We don't have the 
principal person in the State Department confirmed for those regional 
concerns. That is a national security risk by not having a confirmed 
person for Under Secretary of State.
  My colleagues are quick to be critical if they don't believe the 
administration is responding quickly enough to certain concerns. For us 
not to respond for months on critical positions, to me, is compromising 
our national security.
  But it goes beyond that. In bilateral relationships with countries, 
the fact that they don't have a confirmed ambassador speaks volumes to 
that country's belief as to how important we think that relationship 
is.
  So if we are talking about a U.S. businessperson from South Carolina 
or Maryland who is trying to do business in Trinidad and Tobago and 
there is no confirmed ambassador, that person is at a disadvantage by 
not having a confirmed ambassador in that situation. If we are talking 
about a family member who is trying to deal with a family issue in 
Norway and we don't have a confirmed ambassador, that makes it more 
difficult for us to be able to represent our constituents because our 
No. 1 person, our head of mission, has not been confirmed. So it 
affects our ability to strengthen bilateral relations, it affects our 
national security, and it is absolutely wrong.
  I want to make one thing clear. It is an honor to serve on the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, and it is an honor to be the ranking 
Democrat. Senator Corker, the chairman of that committee, and I work 
very closely together. I am proud of the record of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee under Senator Corker's leadership. We have reported 
out these nominations in a timely manner. We have gathered information 
about the person's qualifications. We have questioned the person. We 
have gone through the confirmation process to make sure this body 
carries out its constitutional responsibility to approve Executive 
nominations. We take our work very seriously, but we do it in a timely 
way. We act in a timely way. Senator Corker was responsible for these 
nominations getting out of the committee promptly, but until the Senate 
acts, the person can't take on the responsibility.
  Now it is the responsibility of the Senate. That is why I call upon 
my colleagues who have made objections to withdraw those objections. 
They have been there for months. Let's move forward. If they don't, I 
would ask that the majority leader give us time for a cloture vote or 
at least announce a cloture vote. If we did that, I would think these 
nominations would comfortably move forward.
  Some of my colleagues are on the floor, and they are going to talk 
about specific nominees. I will yield to them shortly, but if I might, 
I am going to raise 2 of the 15 today. I will do others at other 
points, but I am going to talk about two of the nominees and I could 
talk about a lot more.
  I want to talk about Tom Shannon for Under Secretary of State for 
Political Affairs. I want to tell the American people more about the 
qualifications of Ambassador Tom Shannon and the important post for 
which he has been nominated.
  The Under Secretary for Political Affairs is the State Department's 
fourth-ranking official, responsible for the management of the six 
regional bureaus of the Department as well as the Bureau of 
International Organization Affairs. This is a tremendously important 
leadership post on key national security issues.
  Ambassador Tom Shannon, a career member of the diplomatic corps--he 
is a career diplomat, serving under both Democratic and Republican 
administrations--is held in universal respect and esteem by his 
colleagues and has been nominated to this position. He is strongly 
supported by both Democrats and Republicans on the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  I have twice spoken on the floor to ask for unanimous consent for 
Ambassador Shannon, and I am proud to again ask for his confirmation 
because few diplomats have served our Nation under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations with as much integrity and ability as 
Ambassador Shannon.
  In his current role as Counselor with the Department, he provides the 
Secretary with his insight and advice on a wide range of issues. His 
previous service is formidable. He was our Ambassador to Brazil, was 
Assistant Secretary of State and Senior Director on the National 
Security Council staff for Western Hemisphere Affairs, and also served 
in challenging posts in Venezuela and South Africa, among others. He is 
a career diplomat, giving his life to the Foreign Service. As I said, 
he has served different Presidents for over 30 years. He should be 
confirmed today.
  Mr. Shannon has been waiting on the floor of the Senate for 
confirmation for 125 days.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 
375, which is Thomas A. Shannon, Jr.; that the Senate proceed to vote 
without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if 
confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I 
object.

[[Page 1174]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me now bring to the Chair's attention 
John Estrada to be our Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago. John Estrada 
has been waiting for confirmation on floor of the Senate for 217 days.
  The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean has been used as 
a way station for drug smugglers who are shipping their products to the 
United States, which has caused steadily increasing violence and drug 
activity. We all talk about the War on Drugs. We need a confirmed 
ambassador if we are going to have all hands on deck in our campaign to 
keep America safe. In 2015, the State Department gave the island nation 
the crime rating of ``critical.''
  We need an American of impeccable standing who commands wide respect 
both here and in the United States and in Trinidad and Tobago itself to 
effectively represent our interests there. We are very fortunate that 
the President has nominated John Estrada, a leading business executive 
and a former 15th sergeant major of the Marine Corps.
  Mr. Estrada has a compelling American story. He was born in Trinidad 
and Tobago and immigrated to the United States when he was only 12 
years of age. Mr. Estrada served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 34 years. 
In 2003 he was made sergeant major of the Marine Corps. I want to make 
sure my colleagues understand just what an honor that is. It is the 
ninth highest enlisted rank in the Marine Corps. The sergeant major is 
the senior enlisted adviser to the Commandant of the Marine Corps and a 
singular honor. Only one marine is chosen every 4 years to serve as 
sergeant major. For Mr. Estrada to be chosen as the 15th sergeant major 
of the Marine Corps is a testament to the degree of trust and 
confidence the Marine Corps has in his abilities and skills. Mr. 
Estrada truly exemplifies the Corps' bedrock values of honor, 
commitment, and courage.
  While such virtues are their own rewards, Mr. Estrada's achievements 
have been repeatedly recognized over the course of his military 
service. He received the Distinguished Service Medal in 2007, the 
Bronze Star Medal in 2003, and the Meritorious Service Medal in 1998, 
2000, 2001, and 2003. There are over 50 more honors he earned that I 
could tell my colleagues about.
  The qualification of this highly accomplished nominee remains 
unchallenged, nor has any objection been advanced due to his experience 
for the post he is to take. He has twice been favorably reported from 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous support. I have 
expressed my disappointment and confusion as to why we have not moved 
forward with Mr. Estrada.
  We all speak whenever we can to say thank you to the men and women 
who have worn the uniform of this country to preserve the freedom of 
America. Here is an individual who has devoted his entire life to 
defending America, his entire life to defending our country. He has 
accomplished extraordinary results as a member of the Armed Forces and 
now is prepared to serve our country in a very difficult position where 
law enforcement is desperately needed. It is for that reason that I 
would hope that after 217 days, my colleagues would be prepared to vote 
on this nominee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 
329, John L. Estrada to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
of the United States of America to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago; 
that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on 
the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I acknowledge that Senator Klobuchar is on 
the floor. I know she has nominations that she wants to bring to the 
attention of our colleagues. I thank Senator Klobuchar for being on the 
floor. She has been very much involved in our nominees, particularly 
for Norway but also Sweden. I thank her for her leadership in bringing 
these nominations to the attention of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee and for the work she has done to advance these nominations. 
She has been steadfast in the need for us to act on these nominations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin and Senator 
Corker for their leadership and their bipartisan work to get these 
nominees through the Senate, as well as Senator McConnell and Senator 
Reid, who have been supportive of getting this done.
  In fact, both of the nominees I am going to talk about for the 
important allies of Norway and Sweden may be a little bit of a surprise 
to everyone in the Chamber. The 11th and 12th biggest investors in the 
United States of America come from companies in Norway and Sweden, 
which are two of our biggest allies.
  What is going on here? Well, this is actually the third time I have 
come to the floor this year urging Senator Cruz to remove his hold on 
these two nominees so that the Senate can move forward and fill these 
two vital diplomatic vacancies. Various reasons have been raised by 
him, both to colleagues and then publically.
  I was hopeful. I know negotiations are going on, so I always give 
room for that. But this is not related to these two countries or these 
two people. I think that is important to remember. Often, our fights 
are about a particular post because of the post or a particular 
nominee. That is not what this is, so I am hopeful that this gives us 
more room to negotiate.
  So what is going on here? Well, Norway has been without a confirmed 
ambassador for 859 days. There was an original nominee who did not work 
out, was withdrawn by the administration. Then this new nominee was put 
in and went through the committee without a problem, unlike the first 
nominee. It still remains that when you are in Norway--and a lot of 
Norwegians know about this--you haven't had an Ambassador from the 
United States of America for 859 days. You have ambassadors from 
Russia, China, but not from the United States of America. In the case 
of Sweden, it has been 468 days since the President nominated Azita 
Raji to be ambassador--again, someone who came through our committee 
without controversy. It is past time to get these nominees confirmed.
  We need a U.S. Ambassador in Norway who is deeply committed to 
strengthening the relationship between our two countries. Sam Heins is 
our nominee. He is from Minnesota. He is the right person for the job, 
in addition to being an accomplished lawyer. He has demonstrated his 
devotion to leadership in the cause of advancing human rights. He 
founded, organized, and served as the first board chair of the 
Advocates for Human Rights, which responds to human rights abuses 
throughout the world. Obviously, this is something Norway cares a lot 
about, so he is a good fit for this country, not to mention that he is 
from Minnesota, the home of 1.5 million people of Norwegian descent, 
more than any other place in the world next to Norway.
  Now we go to Sweden. Azita Raji is also an incredibly qualified 
nominee. She is a philanthropist, a community leader, and a former 
business leader. She served as a member of the President's Commission 
on White House Fellowships, director of the National Partnership for 
Women and Families, and a member of the Bretton Woods Committee, an 
organization that supports international finance institutions.
  These are qualified nominees, but you don't have to take my word for 
it. Here is what Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican colleague of the 
Presiding Officer's, said about Sam Heins and Azita Raji:


[[Page 1175]]

       I believe both [nominees] are qualified . . . and we have 
     significant interests in Scandinavia. My hope is that both 
     nominees receive a vote in the Senate sooner rather than 
     later.

  He said this in part because for a while he had a hold. He resolved 
those issues. Senator Cotton has said he thinks these two nominees are 
no problem. As we know, the other Republicans on this committee have 
not raised any objections. They are right. We have significant 
interests in Scandinavia, and leaving these key positions vacant is a 
slap in the face to Sweden and Norway, which are two of our best 
economic and military allies.
  In a December New York Times op-ed, former Vice President Walter 
Mondale--himself of Norwegian descent--highlighted the U.S. national 
security interest in confirming these nominees, saying: ``[I]n a time 
of dangerous international crises, we need to work with friends and 
allies, using all the tools of diplomacy.'' Vice President Mondale 
understands that now is not the time to forsake a 200-year-old 
diplomatic relationship.
  Norway and Sweden share a vital security partnership. Norway is one 
of our country's strongest and most dependable international allies, a 
founding member of the NATO alliance, and its military works with the 
United States. This is key to my colleagues who care about the 
aggression of Russia.
  Norway works with us in standing up to Russia's provocations in the 
Ukraine and in countering ISIS, the spread of violence, and Islamic 
extremism. May I say that Norway actually has a portion of its border 
that it shares with Russia.
  Norway is also playing an important role in addressing the Syrian 
refugee crisis. It expects to take in as many as 25,000 refugees this 
year. It has already provided more than $6 million to Greece to help 
respond to the influx of refugees seeking a way to enter Europe.
  I would also add from a military standpoint that Norway recently 
purchased 22 more fighter planes--22 more fighter planes, bringing 
their total to over 50--from Lockheed Martin, based in Senator Cruz's 
district in Fort Worth. That is where these planes are being built, and 
they are worth nearly $200 million apiece. That is what Norway is 
investing in the United States. They deserve an ambassador.
  Sweden, like Norway, plays an important role in our national 
security. Sweden is a strong partner in our fight against ISIS, in our 
attempts to curb North Korea's nuclear program, in supporting Ukraine 
against Russian aggression, and in promoting global democracy and human 
rights.
  Sweden is also on the front lines of the Syrian refugee crisis. More 
than 1,200 refugees seek asylum in Sweden every day, and Sweden accepts 
more refugees per capita than any other country in the EU.
  All of us on both sides of the aisle have talked about the importance 
of a strong Europe during this very difficult time. Yet every other 
major nation in Europe has an ambassador except for Sweden and Norway.
  So I ask my friends and colleagues on the other side who are not 
obstructing these nominations to help us work this out with Senator 
Cruz because this has gone on for far too long. This isn't a joke. 
These are two major allies.
  We also have economic relationships. As I mentioned, Norway 
represented the fifth fastest growing source of foreign direct 
investment in the United States between 2009 and 2013--that is in the 
world--and is the 12th largest source of foreign direct investment in 
the United States overall. Maybe they are too quiet about it and people 
don't realize it. We would never think of blocking an ambassador to 
England or to France, but right now the ambassadors to these two 
countries are being blocked.
  There are over 300 American companies with a presence in Norway. By 
not having an ambassador in Norway, we are sending a message to one of 
the top investors in the country: Sorry, you are not important enough 
to us to have an ambassador in your country. But all the other major 
nations have an ambassador. In October, as I mentioned, they reiterated 
their commitment by buying all those fighter planes from the State of 
Texas, from Lockheed Martin.
  Norwegian Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide said Norway's F-35 
purchase marks ``the largest public procurement in Norwegian history.'' 
It has been 30 years since Norway ordered new combat planes, and 
instead of choosing a European manufacturer, whom did they choose? They 
chose a manufacturer in the United States, right in Texas. Do you think 
those other European countries don't have Ambassadors in Norway? They 
do. I hope Senator Cruz and his friends are listening to this right now 
because they chose to buy those planes from the United States, right 
from his home State of Texas.
  Sweden, like Norway, is also one of the biggest investors in the 
United States. Sweden is the 11th largest direct investor in the United 
States. Swedish foreign direct investment in the United States amounts 
to roughly $56 billion and creates nearly 330,700 U.S. jobs. The United 
States is Sweden's fourth largest export market, with Swedish exports 
valued at an estimated $10.2 billion. Sweden, like Norway, deserves an 
ambassador.
  Scandinavian Americans are understandably frustrated by the fact that 
Senator Cruz is obstructing these nominees. As the Senator from a State 
that is home to more Swedish Americans and Norwegian Americans than any 
other State, I know it because I hear it every day. I hear it from 
people across the country, and most importantly, I hear it from the 
Foreign Minister and others in countries who are waiting to get an 
ambassador.
  So, again, we have an ambassador in France, we have one in England, 
and we have one in Germany. We have an ambassador in nearly every 
European nation but not in these two key Scandinavian countries.
  There is really no doubt about the important relationship between our 
country and Norway and Sweden. We need to confirm Sam Heins and Azita 
Raji immediately.
  I do appreciate the support of nearly every Republican Senator for 
these nominees, the support of the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Corker, the great leadership of Senator Cardin, the 
leadership of Senator Reid and Senator McConnell on these issues, and 
the leadership of my colleague Senator Franken whom we will hear from 
shortly. It is time to get these done.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session 
to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 263; that the Senate 
proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; 
that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I note that Senator Lee, as I assume he did with the 
other objections, was making this objection on behalf of Senator Cruz 
and that, secondly, that was the Ambassador to Norway whom I asked 
consent for.
  I now ask unanimous consent for the Ambassador to Sweden.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session 
to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 148; that the Senate 
proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; 
that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I believe we will now hear from Senator Franken, my 
colleague from the State of Minnesota.

[[Page 1176]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, that is too bad. There is no one else in 
this body who believes that Sam Heins shouldn't be Ambassador to Norway 
or that we shouldn't be sending an ambassador to Norway, and/or that 
Azita Raji wouldn't be perfect to be Ambassador to Sweden. This is 
really a shame. It is another sad moment, frankly.
  Let me talk a little bit about Sam Heins. Sam is from Minnesota, home 
of more Norwegian Americans than any other State. I think we have more 
Swedish Americans, as well, than any other State. Norway is an 
important NATO ally, as Senator Klobuchar so ably put it. We coordinate 
on important security issues. We have important collaborations in 
Minnesota among our universities and in the private sector in this 
country on research projects, renewable energy, health care, and other 
areas.
  Confirming an ambassador to Norway--especially such a highly 
qualified ambassador--is especially important to the people in my 
State. More than 20 percent of Minnesotans trace their ancestry to 
Norway. There are more Norwegian Americans living in Minnesota than any 
other State.
  Sam Heins is a very distinguished Minnesotan who has worked on behalf 
of women's rights, human rights, and victims of torture. We have a 
center in Minnesota for victims of torture. It is a shining example of 
our State and of our country.
  Sam has been nominated to serve as our next Ambassador to Norway. He 
is being blocked, unfortunately, for reasons that are totally unrelated 
to his qualifications. I believe that blocking this nominee from 
confirmation is completely irresponsible. As I said, Norway is an 
important ally, and it is in our mutual interests to have an ambassador 
to Norway who represents the United States. I hope the next time we do 
this, we can get unanimous consent.
  This is unfortunate, and I think it has not been done in a way that 
is consistent with the protocol of the Senate in terms of Senators 
creating conditions for the lift of a hold and then changing what that 
position is. I think that is too bad.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues because 
I share the concerns they have expressed so eloquently about the 
failure of this body to act on the nominees whom they have been talking 
about. But the other nominees, particularly the 27 national security 
nominees who are pending on the floor of the Senate--these nominees are 
not being held up due to concerns about their qualifications or their 
experience. As my colleagues have said, they are being held up for 
political reasons--political reasons that are often wholly unrelated to 
the nominee, and in most cases they are being held up by just one 
Member of this body.
  I find it particularly ironic that, in many cases, they are being 
held up by a Member of this body who is out on the campaign trail, 
campaigning for President. He is not here dealing with the work of this 
country and not here fighting to address the national security of this 
country by making sure that we confirm these nominees. So I am 
disappointed that, once again, we see my colleague from Utah here on 
his behalf to object to our efforts to move forward with these 
unanimous consent requests for Tom Shannon, John Estrada, Azita Raji, 
and Samuel Heins.
  As Senator Cardin noted, I want to begin with Ambassador Shannon, 
because Ambassador Shannon would fill one of the most senior positions 
at the State Department as the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. 
He would be responsible for working with the Europeans on 
implementation of the Iran agreement, on coordinating the G-7 to combat 
Russian aggression, as well as providing daily oversight and direction 
to all of the Department's regional bureaus.
  We had a hearing this morning before the Foreign Relations Committee, 
talking about the strains on the European Union and the implications 
for American foreign policy. One of the things our witnesses who were 
testifying on behalf of the majority and the minority discussed was the 
challenges we are facing from Russian aggression. I am sure we all 
appreciate that in this body. The fact that we are holding up 
Ambassador Shannon, who would be responsible for coordinating the G-7 
response to Russian aggression, is just hard to fathom. I don't get it. 
I don't understand why anybody in this body would want to hold up the 
appointment of one of the key leaders of the team to fight Russian 
aggression.
  Ambassador Shannon is clearly qualified for the job. He is a career 
Foreign Service officer. He has served with distinction in five 
administrations--two Democratic and three Republican. He was nominated 
for this position in September. He had his confirmation hearing in 
October. He was unanimously approved by the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, and now he has been waiting 98 days for the full Senate to 
act on his nomination.
  There isn't much I can add to the outrage and eloquence of my 
colleagues from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken, who 
talked about their frustration at the holdup in confirming Azita Raji, 
who has been waiting 398 days--over a year--to be Ambassador to Sweden; 
Samuel Heins, who has been waiting 265 days to be Ambassador to Norway.
  Again, I would go back and point to the hearing we had this morning 
before the Foreign Relations Committee, where one of the issues that 
our witnesses testified to was the importance of working with our 
Scandinavian allies as we look to combat Russian aggression. Here we 
are. And I said: So, what does it mean to Sweden and Norway that we 
have been holding up the nominees to be Ambassadors to those two 
countries--one for over a year and one for almost a year? And they 
said: It sends a very bad message to Europe, at a time when Europe is 
challenged, that we don't care what is going on in Sweden and Norway.
  In 1914, Norway, a NATO ally, scrambled their F-16 fighters 74 times 
to intercept Russian warplanes. They are there on the frontlines 
helping to fight Russian aggression. Where are we in the Senate? We 
can't even confirm the Ambassador to Norway because we have one person 
in this body who doesn't care enough about the national security of 
this country to be here to help make sure this person gets confirmed. 
That is not acceptable.
  I also want to talk about two other nominees whose qualifications are 
unquestioned. Yet they remain unconfirmed. Brian Egan is the 
President's nominee to be a principal advisor to the State Department 
and the Secretary of State on all legal issues, domestic and 
international. This role includes assisting in the formulation and 
implementation of the foreign policies of the United States and 
promoting the development of law and institutions as elements of those 
policies. It is something that is very important, especially as we look 
at some of the countries that are being threatened now by Russian 
aggression--Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
  Mr. Egan's qualifications to hold this position are clear. He began 
his career as a civil servant and government lawyer in the office of 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He subsequently worked at 
Treasury, at the National Security Council, and as a Deputy Assistant 
to the President.
  He was nominated more than a year ago--384 days to be exact. He was 
unanimously approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June. 
Yet he is still in this ``hold'' position because of one or two 
individuals in this body for reasons unrelated to his qualifications.
  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: 
Calendar No. 204, Brian James Egan to be Legal Advisor of the 
Department of State; that the Senate proceed to vote without 
intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.

[[Page 1177]]


  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Texas, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Again, that is disappointing. Again, it is unfortunate 
that somebody who has served so honorably in both Republican and 
Democratic administrations is being held up for reasons totally 
unrelated to his qualifications and to the job he would do at the 
Department of State.


           Unanimous Consent Request--Presidential Nomination

  I know that many Republicans in this body are as outraged as we are 
about the holdup. I hope they will act with us to move these nominees. 
One of those people is still being held up, this time by the Banking 
Committee, which has refused to schedule a vote on the nomination of 
Adam Szubin to be the Treasury Department's Under Secretary for 
Terrorism and Financial Crimes. This position leads to policy, 
enforcement, regulatory, and intelligence functions of the Treasury 
Department aimed at identifying and disrupting the lines of financial 
support to international terrorist organizations, proliferators of 
weapons of mass destruction, narcotics traffickers, and other actors 
who pose a threat to our national security or foreign policy. This 
position is critical, as we look at legislation that we are talking 
about taking up next week with respect to sanctions on North Korea, 
with respect to continued sanctions on Iran, on Russia, to other bad 
actors, to terrorists who are out there. Mr. Szubin is extremely well 
qualified for this position. He has served in both Republican and 
Democratic administrations.
  He was nominated 294 days ago. Yet even Banking Committee Chairman 
Shelby called Szubin ``eminently qualified'' during his September 
confirmation hearing. The fact that the committee has not held a vote 
and the Senate has not confirmed him lessens his ability to influence 
our allies and to undermine our enemies around the world, which is what 
we want to happen. If we are worried about our ability to enforce 
sanctions, if we are worried about the national security of this 
country and one of the weapons that we have to use to protect this 
country, then we ought to be confirming Adam Szubin.
  It is very disappointing that my Republican colleagues continue to 
object and that my colleague from Utah is here on behalf of Senator 
Cruz from Texas, objecting to moving forward. Even though I understand 
that he is going to object, I am going to put forward another unanimous 
consent motion because I think we need to come back here every day from 
now until the end of this session and ask unanimous consent to move 
forward on these nominees because it is unacceptable that we are still 
here at this time without confirming these people.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session and the Banking Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of PN371, the nomination of Adam J. Szubin to be Under 
Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes; that the Senate proceed 
to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; 
that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further 
motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to 
the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from Alabama, 
I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Again, it is very disappointing that the objection has 
been made, this time on behalf of the Senator from Alabama, who is 
here, so it is disappointing that he is not on the floor to talk about 
what his objections to Adam Szubin are. I believe that refusing to move 
these nominations does a profound disservice not only to these 
Americans who have sacrificed to serve this country but to the national 
security of the United States.
  I call on the majority leader to schedule votes on these nominees and 
other pending national security nominees to let the Senate do its job 
at a time when the world is facing national security challenges on a 
number of fronts. When nations are looking to the United States for 
leadership, we cannot afford to sideline ourselves by failing to 
confirm these important nominees.
  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. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Flint, Michigan, Water Crisis

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to come together as we continue to seek a bipartisan 
path forward to help the people and the children living in the city of 
Flint, MI. Nearly 2 years ago, an unelected emergency manager appointed 
by Michigan's Governor changed the city of Flint's water source to the 
Flint River in an attempt to save money while the city prepared to 
transition to a new regional water authority.
  After switching away from clean water sourced from the Detroit Water 
Authority, Flint residents began to receive improperly treated Flint 
River water, long known to be contaminated and potentially very 
corrosive. The result of the State government's actions was and 
continues to be absolutely catastrophic. Flint families were exposed to 
lead and other toxins that will have lasting effects for generations. 
The ultimate cost of this misguided, dangerous decision will not be 
known for decades, but we now have a chance to begin to make it right.
  Last week, Senator Stabenow and I introduced an amendment that would, 
one, provide water infrastructure funding for Flint; two, create a 
Center of Excellence to address the long-term public health 
ramifications of lead exposure; three, forgive Flint's outstanding 
loans that were used for water infrastructure that has now been damaged 
by the State's actions; and four, require the EPA to directly notify 
consumers instead of going through State and local regulators if their 
drinking water is contaminated with lead.
  We have spent the last week working with Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Cantwell to find common ground and a path forward to provide 
some relief to the people of Flint as we consider this bipartisan 
energy legislation. These discussions are ongoing. They are happening 
as we speak now. But now is not the time to use procedural roadblocks 
to justify inaction.
  Throughout the United States history, when a natural or manmade 
disaster strikes, the Federal Government has stepped in to help those 
in need. Hurricanes, superstorms, earthquakes, flooding, and a 
fertilizer plant explosion--those types of activities or incidents all 
across the Nation have received Federal assistance as communities come 
together to rebuild.
  While the cause of this crisis and the ultimate responsibility to fix 
it lies with the State Government, we need to bring resources from all 
levels of government to bear to address the unprecedented emergency 
that we face. This is why I urge my colleagues to work with us as we 
continue efforts to make a down payment on the years of rebuilding and 
healing that Flint needs.
  I was in Flint earlier this week, and while volunteering with the Red 
Cross to deliver bottled water from house to house, I heard directly 
from impacted residents. Months after the public became aware of the 
depth of this crisis, families still have questions: Can I use my 
shower? When will the water be safe? Will the pipes ever get replaced?
  My question for this body is very straightforward. Who will stand up 
for the children of Flint? These children have been impacted the most 
by this crisis and through no fault of their

[[Page 1178]]

own. I know we all have priorities that we care about in this Energy 
bill, but I simply cannot agree to move forward on action on this bill 
until we deal with Flint and help Flint rebuild to provide safe, clean 
drinking water.
  This should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. Clean water 
is, quite simply, a basic human right. Let's together show the American 
people that when a crisis hits any city in this country, we will stand 
with them. America is a great country, and it is great because at times 
of difficulty, we all stand together as one people.
  Mr. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, later today, at around 5:30 p.m., DC time, 
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and representatives from 11 
other countries will meet at a ceremony to sign the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, or TPP, Agreement. It is no secret that the TPP Agreement 
has the potential to do a lot of good for our country.
  Taken as a whole, the 12 countries involved in this agreement had a 
combined GDP of $28.1 trillion in 2012, nearly 40 percent of the 
world's total economy. In that same year, our goods and services 
exports to TPP countries supported an estimated 4 million jobs here in 
the United States.
  According to the International Monetary Fund, the world economy will 
grow by more than $20 trillion over the next 5 years and nearly half of 
that growth will be in Asia. This agreement, if done right, will give 
the United States a distinct advantage in setting the standards for 
trade in this dynamic and strategically vital part of the world.
  It is also no secret that many stakeholders and Members of Congress, 
including myself, have some doubts as to whether the agreement meets 
the high standards necessary to gain congressional approval. I have 
expressed those concerns many times here on the floor and elsewhere. I 
won't go into any more detail about them today. Instead, I want to talk 
about what will happen after the agreement is signed.
  Even though there is a signing ceremony in New Zealand today, that is 
not the end of the process for TPP in the United States. In fact, in 
many ways, we are really just beginning.
  In the coming months, we will have ample opportunity to debate the 
merits of each and every provision of this agreement and to consider 
how it will impact workers and job creators in our country and how it 
will affect the health of our economy.
  Today I will focus on the process by which Congress will consider and 
debate this agreement. I want to do so in part because I believe it is 
important that our people--including Members of Congress, the 
administration's stakeholders, and the media--have a full understanding 
of how this is going to work. All too often when a trade agreement is 
concluded or signed, the pundits, commentators, and lobbyists in this 
town immediately jump to one question: When will Congress vote on it? I 
get asked that question almost every day. While I have offered my own 
opinions and occasional speculation about when would be the best time 
to have the vote, the fact of the matter is I don't know exactly when 
the vote will take place and no one else does either.
  As we all know, last year Congress passed and the President signed 
legislation renewing trade promotion authority, or TPA, and setting out 
a series of timelines for Congress to consider and eventually vote on 
signed trade agreements. While I am quite sure that interested parties 
and observers have already pored over the text of the TPA statute to 
add up all the statutory timelines and have tried to calculate the 
exact date when Congress will vote on the agreement, that exercise is 
unlikely to yield an accurate result. Let me take a few minutes to 
explain why that is the case.
  Under the TPA process, there are a number of milestones, checkpoints, 
and associated timelines that begin at the outset of negotiations, long 
before any agreement is reached. With regard to TPP, we have gone 
through several of those already. President Obama has determined--
despite some concerns expressed by a number of sources--to take the 
next step in the process and sign the agreement.
  Under the TPA statute, once an agreement is signed, the President has 
60 days to provide Congress with a description of changes to U.S. law 
that he believes would be required under the deal. That is one of the 
more specific deadlines in the law. That 60 days is a maximum time 
period imposed on the administration, not on Congress.
  Assuming the agreement does in fact get signed today, that 
information must arrive no later than April 3. On top of that, the 
statute requires the International Trade Commission--or ITC--to compile 
and submit a report on the likely economic effects of a signed trade 
agreement. That report must be completed within 105 days--another 
specific deadline of the signing date. For a deal signed today, that 
deadline is May 18.
  So far I have just talked about deadlines or maximum time periods for 
compiling and submitting specific documents and materials, but once 
again those maximum timelines are imposed on the administration, not on 
Congress. After Congress receives the President's description of 
legislative changes and the ITC's economic analysis, the administration 
is required to provide to Congress the final text of the agreement and 
a detailed plan on how they intend to administer it. The exact date and 
timing by which the administration has to submit the final text of the 
agreement is not set out in the statute. Under established practices, 
the timing of that submission, like other relevant decisions in this 
process, is generally determined after close collaboration and 
consultation with leaders in Congress.
  However, the TPA statute is clear that the final text of the 
agreement and the detailed administrative plan must be provided to 
Congress at least--and those two words are very important--at least 30 
days before formally submitting legislation to implement the agreement.
  This is one of the more important timelines in the statute, and it 
notably provides a floor, not a ceiling. It sets a minimum timeframe to 
ensure Congress has at least--there are those two words again--30 days 
to review all necessary information and documents before the 
implementing legislation is formally submitted to Congress.
  I would like to point out that this minimum 30-day window is a new 
requirement. We included this requirement for the first time in the 
most recent TPA statute to provide increased transparency and ensure 
adequate consideration and debate in Congress. There are many 
additional steps that take place once Congress has all of the required 
information and before the implementing bill is formally submitted, and 
those steps each take time.
  First, Congress, in consultation with the administration, has to 
develop a draft implementing bill for the agreement. Then the 
committees of jurisdiction will hold hearings to examine both the 
agreement and the draft legislation. Following these hearings, another 
very important step occurs: the informal markups in the Senate Finance 
and House Ways and Means Committees. Most people call this process 
``the mock markup.'' The mock markup--which once again occurs before 
the President formally submits the trade agreement to Congress--is 
similar to any other committee markup. The committee reviews the draft 
legislation and has votes on amendments, if any are offered. If the 
Finance and Ways and Means Committees end up with different versions of 
the draft implementing bill, they can proceed to a mock conference to 
work out the details and reconcile any differences.
  The mock markup process is well established in practice and is an 
essential part of Congress's consideration of any

[[Page 1179]]

trade agreement. It is the best way for Congress to provide direct 
input--complete with vote tallies and on-the-record debates--to the 
President to demonstrate whether the implementing bill meets the 
criteria set out in the TPA statute and whether there is enough support 
in Congress for the agreement to pass.
  After those steps are taken, a final implementing bill may be 
introduced in the House and Senate. Only after the final implementing 
bill is introduced is Congress under any kind of deadline to vote on 
the agreement. The votes must take place within 90 session days. You 
will notice the word ``session.'' Of course, in this case I am using 
the word ``deadline'' pretty loosely. The vote doesn't have to occur 
within 90 calendar days. It must take place within 90 session days, and 
only Congress can decide when it is and is not going to be in session. 
Long story short, no one should be under any illusions that because the 
TPP is being signed today, an up-or-down vote on the agreement is 
imminent or that our oversight responsibilities are at an end.
  If history has taught us anything, it is that this process can, and 
often does, take a very long time to complete. In fact, it is not an 
exaggeration or even all that remarkable to say that it can take years 
to get an agreement through Congress after it is signed. Historically 
speaking, the shortest period of time we have seen between the signing 
of an agreement and the introduction of the implementing legislation, 
which once again triggers a statutory deadline for a vote in Congress, 
is 30 days. That was with our bilateral trade agreement with Morocco. 
Needless to say, that agreement is an outlier and quite frankly it 
isn't a useful model for passing an agreement as massive as the TPP.
  Other trade agreements, like our agreements with South Korea, 
Colombia, and Panama, took more than 4 years to see an implementing 
bill introduced in Congress, and that was 4 years from the time the 
agreement was signed, which is what is happening today with the TPP, 
and the time the clock started ticking for a vote in the Senate. Our 
trade agreement with Peru took 533 days or about a year and a half. Our 
agreement with Bahrain took just over a year. All of these, while 
significant in their own right, were bilateral agreements and paled in 
comparison to the size and scope of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  The closest parallels to the Trans-Pacific Partnership we have in our 
history--and they are not really that close at all--are the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and the Dominican Republic-
Central America Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA, both of which took 
more than 10 months. Once again, that wasn't 10 months between the 
signing day and the vote. That was 10 months between the day the 
agreement was signed and the introduction of the implementing bill, 
which triggers a required-yet-fluid timeline for a vote in Congress.
  Of course, none of these timelines for previous trade agreements are 
all that illustrative because the TPP is nothing like our other 
agreements. By any objective measure, the TPP is a historic trade 
agreement without a comparable precedent. Its approval would be a 
significant achievement. That is all the more reason to ensure it gets 
a full and fair consideration in Congress, however long that process 
takes. All of us--on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the 
Capitol, and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue--should be careful 
when we talk about timelines and deadlines for votes.
  I am quite certain the President wants to get a strong TPP agreement 
passed as soon as possible. I personally share that goal, but Congress 
has a history of taking the time necessary to consider and pass trade 
agreements, and the process set out under TPA demands that we do so. 
Despite a number of claims to the contrary, Congress does not 
rubberstamp trade agreements, and we will not do so in this case. We 
cannot short circuit the process. With an agreement of this 
significance, we must be more vigilant, more deliberative, and more 
accountable than ever before. We need to take the necessary time to 
carefully review the agreement and engage in a meaningful dialogue with 
the administration.
  If that occurs and if the administration is prepared to engage with 
our TPP partners to address new concerns, I am confident the TPP 
agreement can be successfully approved by Congress. That may take more 
time than some would like, but the process of achieving favorable 
outcomes in international trade is a marathon, not a sprint. There are 
no shortcuts. To get this done, we have to do the work and lay a strong 
foundation in Congress.
  As I have said many times, the TPP is an extremely important 
agreement, and we need to get it done, but given that importance, we 
need to focus more on getting it right than getting it done fast.
  Mr. President, millions of Americans depend on coal energy to heat 
their homes, power their electronics, and keep their businesses 
running. Coal is an indispensable asset in our Nation's energy 
portfolio. It accounts for nearly one-third of U.S. energy production 
and generates half of all our electricity today. Quite literally, coal 
keeps the lights on, but the Obama administration's war on coal could 
pull the plug on an industry essential to our energy needs.
  America's coal miners have no greater antagonist than their own 
President. Ever since President Obama took office, he has deliberately 
targeted coal producers, subjecting them to onerous, job-destroying 
regulations that threaten our economic future. The administration's 
recently announced decision to halt coal leasing on Federal lands is 
just the latest assault in a calculated campaign to cripple the coal 
industry.
  The President's moratorium on new coal leases undermines our ability 
to produce one of the least expensive and most reliable fuel sources at 
our disposal. The long-term consequences of this rule will be 
disastrous not only for coal companies and all of their employees but 
for any industry that depends on coal for its energy needs.
  Beyond the economic costs of this extraordinary action, consider the 
human toll. The U.S. coal industry directly employs more than 130,000 
people. These individuals are more than a mere statistic. They are real 
people with mortgages, car payments, and children to feed. They are 
honest men and women whose very livelihood depends on the future of 
coal.
  Sadly, the President's moratorium puts their jobs in danger. As the 
junior Senator from Wyoming observed, the administration's action 
effectively hands a pink slip to thousands of hard-working individuals 
across the Mountain West who work in coal production.
  As Members of the legislative branch, we have a constitutional duty 
to check Executive overreach. With the amendment I have introduced, we 
have the opportunity to rein in the President's actions and protect 
hard-working American families from overly burdensome Federal 
regulations.
  My amendment reasserts the authority of Congress in this matter by 
prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from halting coal leases on 
Federal land without congressional approval. It also requires the 
Secretary to begin leasing Federal assets immediately pursuant to the 
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.
  If the Secretary wishes to enforce a moratorium on coal leasing, she 
must first provide a reasonable justification for doing so. To that 
end, my amendment requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a study 
demonstrating that a moratorium would not result in a loss of revenue 
to the Treasury. The study must also examine the potential economic 
impacts of a moratorium on jobs and industry. Once the House and Senate 
have had the opportunity to review this study in full, the Department 
of the Interior may suspend coal leasing on Federal lands if and only 
if Congress approves the action.
  Mr. President, my amendment not only protects middle-class Americans 
from harmful government regulations, it also rightly restrains the 
President and his abuse of Executive power by restoring authority to 
the duly-elected Members of Congress, not unelected bureaucracies. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment as

[[Page 1180]]

we continue consideration of the legislation at hand.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Flint, Michigan, Water Crisis

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to talk again about the complete 
disaster, the catastrophe that has befallen a community in Michigan 
called Flint, MI, through no fault of their own.
  We assume that when we turn on the faucet, we can make coffee, take a 
shower, make breakfast, take care of our children or our grandchildren, 
and that we are going to have safe, clean water. That has been a basic 
right in America. If you own a business, a restaurant, you assume you 
are going to be able to turn on the water and make the food and serve 
your customers. If you are a barber, you can turn on the faucet and 
clean water comes out. That is basic in our country.
  For 100,000 people in Flint, MI, the dignity of being able to turn on 
a faucet and have clean water has been ripped away. It started 20 
months ago. They were lied to. They were told the water was safe. 
Finally, we are told it was not safe. People told them that somehow 
this brown water that smelled was safe--clearly not.
  We now know that about 9,000 children under the age of 6 have been 
exposed in some cases to astronomical lead levels. There was one story 
about a home that was tested where the lead levels were higher than a 
nuclear waste dump. How would you feel if that were your house and 
somebody told you your children had been exposed to that? I can only 
imagine. I know how I would feel.
  A little while ago I met with some pastors from Flint who are here 
desperately trying to get beyond this. They don't want partisanship; 
they don't want political fighting; they just want some help. They 
said: We are not interested in the back-and-forth of all this; we just 
want clean water, and we want to be able to provide good nutrition for 
these children who are already impacted.
  The scary thing about this lead is that it stays in your body 
forever. I am learning more about lead than I ever wanted to know, and 
one of the things we know is that it does not leave. There is no magic 
pill. It is nutrition, so you have to give them more iron and milk and 
calcium and vitamins. There is a whole range of things I am working on 
now. I am grateful for the support from the Department of Agriculture 
to help us do that.
  We have too many children--if anyone saw Time magazine--we have 
children with rashes, babies, people losing their hair. I met with 
pastors, and after that I met with another group of citizens from 
Flint: moms who are trying to figure out a way to avoid mixing this 
water with their baby formula. I had been told by the Michigan State 
department of WIC that they were giving ready-to-feed formula, and I 
just met with a group of moms who said that was not true.
  We are talking about children whose brains are being developed and 
right now whose futures are being snatched away from them. They didn't 
cause it. Their moms didn't cause it. Their dads didn't cause it. 
Others caused it, and we can debate who that is. I am happy to have 
that discussion. Right now I just want to help those people.
  I want people to see the people of Flint. They have not been seen or 
heard on this issue for almost 2 years. The folks who were supposed to 
care, who were supposed to see them, didn't. We have a chance to say to 
them: We see you. We hear you. We know that you as Americans have a 
right, if there is a catastrophe in Flint, to have the same sense of 
urgency, of support that we give to other things, such as a fertilizer 
explosion in West Texas, where we brought in millions of dollars, or 
hurricanes in Texas and South Carolina--emergency spending, I 
understand. We all know that something can happen beyond the control of 
citizens, and they look to us.
  I know we all have other issues around aging pipes. We all have 
infrastructure issues, and frankly, we should be addressing those. 
There are very positive bipartisan proposals to address water and sewer 
infrastructure, and I support those. I want to do what we can, and 
hopefully this will serve as an impetus for that, but nowhere in 
America do we have an entire city's drinking water system shut down 
from usage.
  We have other situations in other parts of Michigan. I am not 
asking--although I would love to provide help in all the cities in 
Michigan, I understand that is a broader issue we have to address 
together. But this is about a catastrophe, a crisis, something that we 
do emergency spending on when there is a situation where we see lead 
levels in some parts of this community that are higher than a toxic 
waste dump.
  Even in areas now where it is OK, we have small businesses--it just 
breaks your heart. Downtown Flint has been doing a great job of 
rebuilding the downtown. Everyone focuses on the exciting things in 
Detroit, but Flint also has done great things, bringing great 
restaurants downtown. Even when folks invest in their own water system 
so they are absolutely sure their water is safe, people won't come in 
because now it is Flint, MI. Nobody believes any of the water is safe. 
It is now a joke: If you go to Flint, don't drink the water. So we have 
businesses closing. We have a community collapsing that needs help, and 
the bottom-line help they need is to fix the pipes.
  Senator Peters and I are not suggesting that it is entirely a Federal 
responsibility. In fact, it is a joint responsibility. In fact, we 
would argue that more of the responsibility be on the State than the 
Federal Government. But we do have a shared responsibility to step in 
and help and give some immediate help to be able to get this going. 
That is what we are asking for.
  Up until yesterday afternoon, we thought we had a bipartisan 
solution. I appreciate the work that has been done by the chair and the 
ranking member. We thought we were there. We found a source to pay for 
it. Even though we don't always pay for other emergencies, we found a 
way to do it. We go to the Congressional Budget Office. We find there 
are a couple of technical things. Lord, help us, we love the CBO. There 
is a technical thing that doesn't affect the Senate called a blue slip 
to deal with. We do it all the time--another issue around scoring that 
we are working hard around. Suddenly, everything stops over procedure, 
over bureaucracy and procedure.
  I know that when we did a transportation bill, we waived every single 
point of order because we wanted to do it. I wanted to do it. I 
supported it. But now when we are talking about helping an important 
community in the State of Michigan be able to get some help out of a 
disaster, all of a sudden, no, no, no; there are all kinds of 
procedures and reasons. I don't buy it for a second. I don't buy it for 
a second. When we want to help Americans, we help Americans. That is 
what we do. It is our job to do those things.
  One of the things that I now find such an insult, such a slap in the 
face--I don't know if this means that folks aren't--we are still trying 
to work this out, Mr. President, and I am hopeful that we will so there 
can be an energy bill. But now there is an amendment that has been 
filed to pay for helping Flint by taking dollars away from new 
development of technologies for automobiles--something Senator Peters 
and I have been champions of. Back in the 2007 Energy bill, I was able 
to get a provision in, when we raised CAFE standards, to support 
companies to create that new technology here in America so the jobs 
wouldn't go overseas, they would be here. It is work that has made a 
real difference, that brought jobs back from other countries.
  Senator Cassidy and I have been working on a provision to expand that 
because of trucks because they are getting CAFE standard increases and 
so on. I had a commitment and we had a commitment to actually do that 
on the

[[Page 1181]]

floor, to get that done, but now, all of a sudden, the money from that 
is being proposed to pay for fixing the drinking water system in Flint.
  Flint is the home of the automobile industry. Flint, MI, is where 
much of this started, where the middle class started, where the auto 
industry started. General Motors is still there, although they won't 
use the water because it corrodes their auto parts. So they won't use 
the water.
  But now we are hearing in an amendment for the people of Flint: Well, 
you have a choice. You can either drink the water and have safe water 
or you can have a job.
  Well, that is an insult. I personally feel it is an insult. It is 
being done to just jam us and trying to embarrass us--that we don't 
care about the people of Flint because we are not willing to spend 
money from a new technology source that is being used to create new 
jobs.
  I don't buy it. That is certainly not going to be getting support. 
When we are trying to work in good faith to get this done, I am amazed 
that this would be offered, which is clearly just an effort to jam us.
  I don't know where we are. I still am a very positive person. I tend 
to spend most of my time working behind the scenes to get things done--
I am very proud of that--and so does my colleague Senator Peters. We 
are people who like to get results. We are not into demagoguing about 
this. Lord knows it is ripe for it. We want to do something that will 
help people who need help.
  So we are going to continue to do that. We are going to continue to 
work to try to do that. We are not going to stop, and we are not going 
to support moving forward until we have something that is a reasonable 
way that we can tell the people of Flint that we have done something to 
help them.
  At this point in time, I can't look at this child or his mom in the 
face--or any other children or parents--and not tell them we did 
everything humanly possible to be able to make sure we could help them 
as quickly as possible to stop using bottled water and be able to 
actually give their kids a bath, cook for them, and have the dignity of 
what every one of us has--the gift of clean water, which is a basic in 
the United States, or should be.
  So we are meeting, and we are doing everything we can. We have agreed 
to cut in half the original request we have asked for. We have agreed 
to a structure proposed by the Republican majority. We have said we are 
going to be flexible here, but we are not willing to walk away from 
Flint. We will not walk away from Flint. Too many people in the State 
of Michigan have done that for too long, and we are not going to do 
that. We are going to continue to do everything we can to fix this 
problem.
  If clean water in America is not a basic human right, I don't know 
what is. I hope in the end we are going to be able to stand up and say 
in a bipartisan basis that we did this. That is all we are asking for--
that we actually do something to fix this problem.
  I see that face and the face of other children every night before I 
go to bed. Every morning when I get up I think about what is happening 
this morning, what is happening tonight, what is happening tomorrow in 
Flint. We are going to do everything we can to make sure other people 
remember and are willing to step up and treat them with the dignity and 
respect they deserve as American citizens.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the 
Energy bill and, particularly, a very important and missing part of the 
Energy bill. But before I turn to that subject, I want to particularly 
note, with our colleague Senator Stabenow on the floor this afternoon, 
that I think she is doing extraordinary work on behalf of Flint and the 
people of Flint. I commend her and also her colleague Senator Peters 
for trying to tackle this issue.
  It seems almost unconscionable that in this age, when there is all 
this information and technology at our fingertips, a community is put 
at risk the way Flint has been put at risk. The idea that innocent 
children would suffer this way is why it is so important that we move 
now to address this issue. This is urgent.
  There are questions we deal with in the Senate that if we take 
another few months or a half a year even, Western civilization isn't 
going to exactly change, but what my colleague from Michigan has said 
is that what we know about youngsters--and particularly brain 
development--if we don't get there early and we don't get there 
quickly, we play catchup ball for years and years to come, everything 
we know about neurological development. My friend knows that my wife 
and I are parents of small kids. We are so lucky they are healthy and 
have what a lot of youngsters in Flint aren't going to have. They are 
not going to have the kinds of problems that my colleague has brought 
to light here.
  I saw one report in the news--it is almost beyond comprehension--that 
a State nurse told a Flint patient, ``It's just a few IQ points. . . . 
It is not the end of the world.'' The idea that a health professional--
who I guess has been in a number of the national publications--just 
highlights how important it is that this Congress move, and move now.
  My colleague and Senator Peters, who is also doing a terrific job on 
this, have indicated there are some procedural and constitutional 
questions for the Finance Committee on which my colleague serves so 
well. I want her to know I am with her and the people of Flint every 
step of the way--not just this week and this month. This is going to be 
a challenge that is going to go on for some time. I just so appreciate 
what my colleague is doing. I am with her every step of the way.
  Mr. President, I turn now to the Energy bill before us. I also want 
to commend the chair, Senator Murkowski, and the ranking member, 
Senator Cantwell, who have put together a bipartisan bill in the Energy 
Committee, which is something I know something about because I was the 
chair of the committee. I think my chairmanship began and ended before 
we had the opportunity to work more directly with the Presiding 
Officer, the Senator from Colorado. I look forward to working with him 
in the committee and very much appreciate our colleagues putting 
together this important package.
  If there is one backdrop to this debate, it is the extraordinary 
challenge of climate change. In order to meet that challenge and beat 
back the threat of irrevocable damage that has climate scientists 
ringing such loud alarm bells, there are going to have to be some 
serious changes in energy policy. The legislation in this bipartisan 
bill moves in that direction, the details of which I intend to get into 
in a minute.
  I do want to first discuss a part of this bill that frankly is 
missing. It is missing to this debate. That is because the reality is 
the heart of America's energy policy is in the Federal Tax Code. The 
last big energy tax proposal to become law passed in 2009. According to 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 5 of the 7 hottest 
years in recorded history have come since then. On the books today is 
an outdated, clumsy patchwork of energy tax incentives that in my view 
is anti-innovation and nothing short of a confusing, incomprehensible 
policy that does our country a disservice at a time when we have these 
great challenges.
  There are 44 different energy tax breaks, and they cost about $125 
billion each decade. Some industries--the oil and gas industry in 
particular--have some certainty about their taxes with permanent 
provisions. The fact is, renewable energy sources don't have that 
certainty. Some technologies get a lot of support. Others get little or 
none. It is a disjointed system that has far outlasted its sell-by 
date, and it is ripe for simplification.

[[Page 1182]]

  The amendment Senators Cantwell, Bennet, and I submitted replaces 
this tattered quilt of tax rules with a fresh approach, an approach I 
hope will appeal to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The 
Presiding Officer and I have talked about energy policy being more 
market oriented. The kind of proposal we have made here does just that. 
It supports innovators with fresh, creative ideas. Particularly, I hope 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because we talked about 
it often when I was chairman of the committee and also on the Finance 
Committee--concern about subsidies, a big concern about subsidies, and 
I am very concerned about that as well. The amendment we will be 
offering cuts the $125 billion pricetag in half. So when colleagues say 
we ought to be cutting back on tax subsidies, that is exactly what this 
proposal does. It replaces wasteful tax rules with a new, simple group 
of incentives that have just three goals: cleaner energy, cleaner 
transportation, and greater energy efficiency. Gone would be the system 
where oil companies get a direct deposit out of the taxpayer account 
each year while expired renewable incentives just sort of hang in 
limbo. For the first time, fossil fuel-burning plants would have a big 
financial reason to get cleaner by investing in high-tech turbine or 
carbon-capture technology. So that means everybody benefits by getting 
cleaner. Everybody in the energy sector--renewables, fossil fuel 
industries, everybody gets the incentive to be cleaner under the 
amendment I am offering.
  The amendment is all about harnessing the market-based power of the 
private economy to reward clean energy, promote new technologies, and 
attack climate change. My view is this Congress ought to be doing 
everything it can to fight the steady creep toward a hotter climate. 
When we have legions of scientists lining up to warn the American 
people about the dangers of climate change, and when we have 
policymakers, business leaders, and investors worldwide saying that 
clean energy is the 21st century gold rush, this is a bold energy 
policy transformation. The proposal I offer with Senators Bennet and 
Cantwell ought to become law.
  This may not happen in the context of the Energy Policy Modernization 
Act. I think we all understand the rules of the Senate, but I am very 
much looking forward to working with my colleagues to build support for 
this proposal in the days ahead. In my view the lack of tax provisions 
in this legislation is unfortunate. They ought to be in there. Tax 
policy is right at the heart of energy policy, but it certainly doesn't 
undermine my support for a great deal of what is in the overall 
package. That includes several provisions I authored and my colleagues 
and I on the Energy Committee included.
  One focuses on geothermal energy. It is a proposal that is all about 
bringing the public and private sectors together to figure out where 
geothermal has the most potential in getting the projects underway. 
Another proposal in the package is the Marine and Hydrokinetic 
Renewable Energy Act, which says that with the right investments and 
innovations, our oceans, rivers, and lakes ought to be able to power 
millions of homes and contribute to the low-carbon economy. Note those 
words because we talk a lot in the Energy Committee about these issues. 
My view is there is an awful lot of bipartisan support for a lower 
carbon economy in this country, particularly one that grows jobs in the 
private sector, and this legislation does that.
  In addition to promoting low-carbon sources of energy, the 
legislation will help communities be significantly more energy 
efficient. It will spur the development of a smarter electric grid that 
cuts waste, stores energy, and helps consumers save money on their 
utility bill. Finally, it will permanently reauthorize the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, and that in my view is a win-win for the rural 
communities of my State and rural communities across this country. The 
Land and Water Conservation Fund brings more jobs and more recreation 
dollars to areas that need an economic boost, and it ensures that 
future generations of Americans are going to be able to enjoy our 
treasures for years and years to come.
  I noted my concern about help for the city of Flint. I think it is so 
important that in the days and months ahead, when we come back to talk 
about important public health legislation--because that is really what 
this is, a public health crisis--I hope what we will say is we made a 
start, we made a beginning. We said it was too important to just delay 
moving ahead to address these enormous concerns that the families and 
the children of Flint are dealing with this evening. We have to ensure 
that this Congress takes action on this public health crisis quickly. I 
am committed to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and 
as a member of both the Finance Committee and the Energy Committee I 
will have two opportunities to do it. I think we need to make this bill 
bipartisan and bicameral as quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the Senate is still at work crafting a 
package of energy legislation that can earn the support of a broad 
majority and potentially become this body's first comprehensive energy 
efficiency legislation since 2007.
  This is my 126th weekly call to arms to wake us up to the duty we owe 
our constituents and future generations of Americans, not only to 
unleash the clean energy solutions that will propel our economy forward 
but also to stave off the devastating effects of carbon pollution.
  I commend Energy Committee Chairman Murkowski and her ranking member 
Senator Cantwell for bringing us a bipartisan bill that builds upon 
some of the best ideas of the energy efficiency legislation championed 
not long ago by Senators Shaheen and Portman. According to a report 
assessing the emissions reductions related to Shaheen-Portman done by 
the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the cumulative 
net savings of these provisions would reach around $100 billion over 
the years 2014 to 2030, along with a reduction of about 650 million 
metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over that 15-year period.
  While these are welcomed reductions, they are a fraction of what we 
expect just from the clean energy tax credit extensions that were 
included in the end-of-year omnibus. Those 5-year incentives for wind 
and solar will yield cumulative emissions reductions of over 1 billion 
metric tons of CO2. And even then, we are still far from 
what we need to do to stem our flood of carbon pollution into the 
atmosphere and oceans.
  Last year, the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, Senator Cantwell, offered an ambitious legislative vision 
for growing our clean energy economy while tackling the growing climate 
crisis. Her Energy bill outlines achievable reductions in carbon 
pollution. It would repeal oil subsidies and level the playing field 
for clean energy. Estimated carbon reductions under her plan would be 
34 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which would help us achieve our 
international climate commitment. Our goals in the legislation now 
before us should be just as ambitious.
  Of course, the big polluters always shout that any steps to reduce 
emissions will invariably hobble the economy. They have the nerve to 
say this while they are sitting on an effective subsidy every year, 
just in the United States, of $700 billion, according to the 
International Monetary Fund. It really takes nerve to complain while 
sitting on that big of a public subsidy.
  In the bill before us, I was glad to add an amendment with my 
colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, with the bipartisan support of 
Senators Risch, Booker, Hatch, Kirk, and Durbin, to

[[Page 1183]]

strengthen the development of advanced nuclear energy technologies in 
partnerships between the government and our national labs and the 
private sector. The Holy Grail here is advanced reactors that could 
actually consume spent fuel from conventional reactors and help us draw 
down our nuclear waste stockpile.
  I know that many of my Republican friends have supported commonsense 
climate action in the past. Senator McCain ran for President on a 
strong climate change platform. Senator Collins coauthored an important 
cap-and-dividend bill with Senator Cantwell. Senator Kirk voted for the 
Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the House. Senator Flake has 
written an article in support of a carbon tax that reduces income 
taxes. And there are more. So I hold out some hope, but it is hard.
  There is a whole climate denial apparatus that helps manufacture 
doubt and delay action. The fossil fuel industry players controlling 
this machinery of denial use a well-worn playbook--the same tactics 
employed by the tobacco industry and the lead industry: Deny the 
scientific findings about the dangers their product causes, question 
the motives of the scientists they oppose, and exaggerate the costs of 
taking action. They tend to look only at the costs to them of having to 
clean up their act. They tend never to look at the cost to the public 
of the harm from their product. If accountants looked at only one side 
of the ledger like that, they would go to jail.
  In each case, tobacco, lead, climate change, and other sophisticated 
campaigns of misinformation were used to mislead the public. So this is 
why I have submitted an amendment declaring the sense of the Senate 
disapproving corporations and the front organizations they fund to 
obscure their role that deliberately cast doubt on science in order to 
protect their own financial interests and urging the fossil fuel 
companies to cooperate with investigations that are now ongoing into 
what they knew about climate change and when they knew it.
  I have also pressed to have the political contributions of these same 
polluters made transparent to the American people. The Supreme Court's 
awful Citizens United decision flung open the floodgates of corporate 
spending in our elections, giving wealthy corporate interests the 
ability to clobber, and perhaps even more important, to threaten to 
clobber politicians who don't toe their line.
  My Republican colleagues have refused to shine the light on this 
spending, so since the amendment failed, Americans will remain in the 
dark about who was trying to influence their elections and how.
  The Koch brothers-backed political juggernaut, Americans for 
Prosperity, has openly promised to punish candidates who support curbs 
on carbon pollution. The group's President said if Republicans support 
a carbon tax or climate regulations, they would ``be at a severe 
disadvantage in the Republican nomination process. . . . We would 
absolutely make that a crucial issue.'' The threat is not subtle: Step 
out of line, and here come the attack ads and the primary challengers, 
all funded by the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry, powered up 
by Citizens United.
  Unfortunately, a large portion of the funding behind this special 
interest apparatus is simply not traceable. Money is funneled through 
organizations that exist just to conceal the donor's identity. The 
biggest identity-laundering shops are Donors Trust and Donors Capital 
Fund. Indeed, these are by far the biggest sources of funding in the 
network or web of climate-denial front groups. These twin entities 
reported giving a combined $78 million to climate-denier groups between 
2003 and 2010. Dr. Robert Brulle of Drexel University, who studies this 
network of fossil fuel-backed climate-denial fronts, reports that the 
Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund operations are the ``central 
component'' and ``predominant funder'' of the denier apparatus, and at 
the same time, they are what he calls the ``black box that conceals the 
identity of contributors.''
  The denial apparatus runs a complex scheme to delegitimize the 
honest, university-based science that supports curbing carbon emissions 
and to intimidate officials who would dare cross this industry. And, 
regrettably, it is working.
  Since Citizens United let loose the threat of limitless dark money 
into our elections, a shadow has fallen over the Republican side of 
this Chamber. There is no longer any honest bipartisan debate on 
climate change, nor is there a single serious effort on the Republican 
side of the Presidential race.
  So, anyway, I have submitted the amendment to require companies with 
$1 million or more in revenues from fossil fuel activities to disclose 
their hidden spending on electioneering communications, to bring them 
out of the dark. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Markey, 
Durbin, Sanders, Shaheen, Baldwin, Leahy, Murphy, Blumenthal, and 
Menendez.
  Corporate and dark money, and particularly fossil fuel money, is now 
washing through our elections in what one newspaper memorably called a 
``tsunami of slime.'' All my amendment would have done is show the 
American people who is trying to sway their votes from behind the dark 
money screen. It is a pretty simple idea. It is, in fact, precisely the 
solution prescribed by the Supreme Court Justices in the Citizens 
United decision. Moreover, it is an idea the Republicans have over and 
over again supported in the past. But now that dark money has become 
the Republican Party's life support system, all the opinions have 
changed.
  Well, I believe fossil fuel money is polluting our democracy, just as 
their carbon emissions are polluting our atmosphere and oceans. It 
ought to be time to shine a light on that dark money. In a nutshell, we 
have been had by the fossil fuel industry, and it is time to wake up.


                           Student Loan Debt

  Mr. President, if I may change topics for a moment, we had a meeting 
this morning with a number of students from around the country who came 
in to share with us their concerns about the growing burden of student 
loan debt in this country, which I would argue has now reached a point 
of crisis.
  Time and again, we tell young people that the path to the American 
dream runs through a college campus. Young people get this, and they 
respond to it. They overwhelmingly want to go to college, and they work 
hard to get there.
  But the cost can be more than many students bargain for, especially 
once they leave school, with a degree or without, and get hit with 
student loan payments. Young people are graduating with more debt than 
ever before. For the past several years, as springtime rolls around and 
graduates get ready to cross the stage, we hear reports that average 
debt loads have increased yet again. Each new class seems to set a new 
record. The average graduating senior in the class of 2014 held $28,950 
in student loan debt. Indeed, over the past decade, student loan debt 
has quadrupled. Total outstanding student loan debt held by 40 million 
Americans is now over $1.3 trillion. That makes student loans the 
second highest type of consumer debt after home mortgages. Student 
loans are more than both credit card debt and car loans. Rhode 
Islanders alone owe upward of $3.6 billion. Students who graduate from 
4-year colleges and universities in Rhode Island emerge with an average 
of $31,841 in student loan debt.
  I asked my colleagues, most of whom graduated many decades ago, can 
you imagine starting out in your life that deep in the red? This is the 
reality for so many Americans today. It is the reality for so many 
Rhode Islanders I have met with.
  Tammy is a childcare provider from Warwick, RI. She spoke at a 
roundtable discussion Senator Reed and I held in Rhode Island to hear 
firsthand from our constituents about the challenges they face in 
repaying student loan debt. Tammy has a master's degree in child 
development and early childhood education. The original principal 
balance on her student loan was $43,530.56. But even with a master's 
degree in child development and early

[[Page 1184]]

childhood education, the pay has not been great. We went through that 
Wall Street-caused financial crisis and now, 16 years later, her 
balance has grown to $88,000. Instead of making headway on her debt, 
she slips further into the red.
  Danielle from Narragansett, RI, racked up roughly $60,000 in student 
loan debt between her undergraduate and master's degrees from the 
University of Rhode Island. Now, she says, the burden of that debt is 
affecting the decisions her son, Talin, is making about his own college 
education. When a parent works and studies to make a better life for 
her child, the last thing she expects is for the cost of her education 
to limit her son's opportunities.
  Ryan, also from Warwick, is a special education teacher. He was my 
guest at the State of the Union Address. He is going back to graduate 
school to become an even better educator. ``I've made a conscious 
choice,'' he says, ``to invest in my education and my ability to make a 
difference in the lives of my students as a teacher.'' But his loans 
are a heavy burden on his finances. He works a second job on top of his 
teaching job to help cover his expenses and pay down his loans. His 
debt is affecting his life decisions about things like marriage or 
buying a home. Why should becoming a better teacher mean postponing the 
dreams of adulthood?
  Young people should enter the workforce ready to get their lives 
started--to earn, to create, to invest. College should be a path to 
opportunity, not a decades-long sentence of debt and instability, not 
deferred dreams of starting a family or buying a house.
  The average age of the Senate today is just over 60, meaning most 
Senators were in college about 40 years ago. So we have no idea. 
Between then and now, the cost of college has increased more than 1,000 
percent. According to Bloomberg Business, from 1978, when the records 
began, through 2012, the costs have increased by twelvefold--1,120 
percent. Going to college in the seventies generally didn't leave 
students with insurmountable debt. Today it is a fact of life. We must 
work not just to stop but to reverse these trends.
  It is because of this crisis in college affordability that my 
Democratic colleagues got together to create the Reducing Education 
Debt Act, or the RED Act. This important bill would do three vital 
things:
  First, it would allow students to refinance their outstanding student 
debt to take advantage of lower interest rates. That would put billions 
of dollars back into the pockets of people who invested in their 
education. Refinancing would help an estimated 24 million borrowers 
save an average of almost $1,900.
  Second, the RED Act would make 2 years of community college tuition-
free, helping students earn an associate's degree, the first half of a 
bachelor's degree, or get the skills they need to succeed in the 
workforce, all without having to take on so much debt. Free tuition at 
community college would save a full-time student an average of $3,800 
per year and could help an estimated 9 million college students.
  Third, the RED Act would help ensure that Pell grants--named for our 
great Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell--keep up with the rising 
costs by indexing part of the Pell grant to inflation permanently. By 
indexing the Pell grant, compared to current law, the maximum Pell 
grant award would increase by $1,300 for the 2026-2027 school year, 
resulting in larger awards for over 9 million students, helping to 
reduce their debt.
  We think the RED Act is a critical step toward an essential goal: 
debt-free college.
  The American middle class was built in part on the opportunity 
provided by higher education. Believe it or not, it was once common to 
be able to go to college and graduate with no debt. We owe it to 
today's college students to be able to leave college and begin to build 
their lives free of debt and ready to achieve their dreams.
  We look forward to bipartisan participation on this issue in the 
Senate, although regrettably it has virtually never appeared in the 
Republican Presidential debates as an issue. There are 40 million 
students with $1.3 trillion in debt--not interested, not compared to 
Benghazi. So I am hoping we will do better than those candidates in 
this Chamber and be able to pull a bipartisan solution together that 
will relieve that burden of debt on our next generation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I see the senior Senator of Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I commend Senator Whitehouse, my 
colleague from Rhode Island, for his very thoughtful leadership on this 
issue of education and particularly the situation where so many young 
people are so deeply in debt after a college education.
  It was Senator Whitehouse who organized a meeting in Rhode Island. I 
was there and I listened to the story he just related. It is 
astounding, the debt these young people and in some cases middle-aged 
people are shouldering. We have to do something. I would like to 
commend and thank him for his leadership and urge a bipartisan effort 
in this regard.
  Mr. President, I was on the floor last week, and I spoke about a 
series of two amendments that I was working with Senator Heller on, and 
they are all focused on enhancing energy storage. I thank Senator 
Heller for his efforts in so many ways but particularly this bipartisan 
effort to enhance the Energy bill that is before us. Indeed, earlier 
this week, we were able to pass one of these amendments, No. 2989, that 
we introduced together to improve coordination of Department of Energy 
programs and authorities in order to maximize the amount of money that 
goes toward energy storage research and development.
  Let me particularly thank Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
chairperson Lisa Murkowski and ranking member Maria Cantwell for their 
great efforts overall and particularly for their help in getting the 
Reed-Heller amendment through. They have done an extraordinary job on 
this legislation.
  As I have indicated, we have two amendments. I have also joined 
Senator Heller on another amendment. He is the lead author. This 
amendment would amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act--or 
PURPA, as it is known--to require industry and State regulators to 
consider energy storage when making their energy efficiency plans. By 
encouraging energy storage usage by public utilities, we will help 
expand the reach of this needed technology.
  There are many technical, financial, and security benefits to energy 
storage, including: improving grid utilization by storing and moving 
low-cost power into higher priced markets, thereby reducing the amount 
we all pay on our utility bills; increasing the value and the amount of 
renewable energy in the grid, thereby reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions; and enhancing the security of the grid, thereby ensuring 
critical access to power in an emergency. We are all each day much more 
cognizant of the threat not just through natural disasters but through 
particular cyber intrusions which could affect our energy grid. This 
would be another way in which we could not only protect ourselves but 
respond more quickly in the case of any of these natural or manmade 
disasters.
  I want to conclude by again thanking my colleague and friend Senator 
Heller and urge our colleagues to work with us in a bipartisan fashion 
to adopt this amendment.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank you.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________