[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 652-669]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                      Tribute to Federal Employees

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, in 2014, I began coming to the Senate 
floor almost every month. I came here to highlight some of the great 
work done each and every day by the men and women who serve us in the 
Department of Homeland Security. I continued that effort throughout 
much of last year and plan on coming to the Senate floor every month in 
2016 with a new story to share. There is simply so much good

[[Page 653]]

being done across the Department by the employees, our public servants 
who work there. I don't think I am going to run out of material anytime 
soon.
  As you know, the Department of Homeland Security is made up of some 
22 component agencies and employs over 200,000 Americans. These men and 
women work around the clock to protect all of us, our families, and our 
country.
  One part of the Department is called the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency. We call it FEMA. It has the unique task of keeping Americans 
safe when everything around them has been thrown into chaos. In times 
of crisis, the men and women at FEMA coordinate rescue operations, 
provide emergency medical care, and give shelter to those who lost 
their homes. Simply put, they bring hope back to Americans whose towns 
and cities have been swept away by floods, destroyed by a fire or torn 
apart by a tornado.
  Ten years ago, in the days after Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed 
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. That law completely 
overhauled FEMA from top to bottom. It increased its authority and 
stature within the Department of Homeland Security and provided it with 
needed new resources. This legislation also required FEMA to bolster 
its regional offices and to build stronger relationships with State, 
local, and tribal governments. Taken together, these reforms have 
improved our capability at all levels of government to respond to 
disasters, while also improving FEMA's capacity to support State, 
local, and tribal governments as they rebuild.
  Over the past 10 years, the men and women of FEMA have worked 
countless hours to improve our preparedness for, response to, and 
recovery from disaster. Bad things still happen. In the aftermath of a 
tornado, wildfire or even a snowstorm like the nor'easter we saw on the 
East Coast this week, we still see the images of destruction and lives 
turned upside down on our television screens. Most of the work that the 
men and women at FEMA do 365 days a year to prepare for these events 
and make them less damaging rarely ever get discussed.
  Every day the men and women at FEMA create evacuation plans, stock 
emergency shelters with food and medical supplies, and they partner 
with law enforcement and first responders in every state to improve 
preparedness through exercises and drills. In addition to training 
first responders, one of FEMA's top priorities is to educate and train 
all of us on what to do in case of disaster. The more you and I and our 
families know, the more likely it is that we will be safe and will stay 
together during a disaster.


                               Milo Booth

  One FEMA employee charged with helping some of our most vulnerable 
communities prepare for disaster is a fellow named Milo Booth who 
serves as FEMA's tribal affairs officer. Milo is an Alaskan Native from 
Metlakatla, AK. It is an Indian community on the southernmost tip of 
Alaska.
  After graduating from Oregon State University with a bachelor of 
science degree in forestry and minor in economics, Milo returned home 
to serve as the Metlakatla Indian community's director of forestry and 
land resources, working to protect his hometown for the next 16 years.
  After 2 years with the U.S. Forest Service, Milo moved to FEMA to 
serve as the National Tribal Affairs Advisor, and that is what he does 
today. In this role, Milo works to communicate disaster preparedness to 
reservations, Alaskan Native villages, and tribes across the country. 
These communities, some of the most remote and isolated in the country, 
are also most at risk in times of disasters. Ensuring that these 
communities are educated in preparedness helps some of the most 
vulnerable among us.
  As a FEMA liaison and an advisor to Indian Country, Milo doesn't just 
help the communities prepare for disaster. He also educates senior FEMA 
officials in the Department of Homeland Security tribal affairs staff 
on how FEMA could better prepare for and respond to hazards. In times 
of planning, Milo leads workshops and trains FEMA staff. He advises the 
senior leadership on tribal policy, and he works every day to build 
strong relationships between FEMA and tribal leaders and their 
communities. In times of crisis, when disaster strikes, Milo 
coordinates with tribal emergency managers and FEMA regional managers 
on the best ways to help and support these communities. In only 2 years 
at FEMA, Milo has visited more than 2 dozen reservations and Alaskan 
Native villages and has met with more than 100 tribes at trainings and 
regional tribal meetings.
  Perhaps more important than any of this technical work that Milo does 
in planning is the work he has done in building relationships and 
earning the trust of tribal leaders.
  When asked their thoughts on Milo, tribal leaders described him as 
accessible, responsive, and understanding, but most importantly, they 
described him as trustworthy. They trust that in Milo, their 
communities have a voice at FEMA.
  When Milo isn't working in Washington, DC, he returns home to Alaska 
with his wife and two children, where he enjoys spending time with them 
outdoors. One of his favorite activities these days is going trout 
fishing with his young son, who says he wants to grow up to be just 
like his dad.
  Milo is just one shining example of the thousands of dedicated men 
and women at FEMA who work to protect hundreds of communities across 
our Nation, treating every one of them as if it were their own 
hometown.
  The Presiding Officer will remember that Pope Francis addressed a 
joint session of Congress last September at the other end of this 
Capitol Building. He invoked the words of Matthew 25, which call for us 
to help the least among us, saying:

       I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was 
     thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger 
     and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I 
     was sick and you looked after me.

  These have become known as the works of mercy or the acts of mercy. 
Milo Booth and all of his colleagues at FEMA perform these acts of 
mercy each and every day. They protect our children and our homes, 
saving lives and doing truly remarkable deeds. And for the thousands of 
civil servants at FEMA and the tens of thousands of others across the 
22 components of the Department of Homeland Security, these acts of 
mercy are their life's work.
  For all these things you do, for all these things all of you do, to 
each and every one of you, I wish to say thank you from all of us. God 
bless you.
  The Senators from Alaska and Wyoming are on the floor. Good to see 
them both.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague.


                           Amendment No. 2953

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time, I call up amendment No. 
2953.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2953.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of January 26, 2016, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')


                Amendment No. 2954 to Amendment No. 2953

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
Cassidy amendment No. 2954.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for Mr. Cassidy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2954 to amendment No. 2953.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page 654]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for certain increases in, and limitations on, the 
         drawdown and sales of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve)

         At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 2102. STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE DRAWDOWN AND SALE.

       Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Public 
     Law 114-74; 129 Stat. 589) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) Increase; Limitation.--
       ``(1) Increase.--The Secretary of Energy may increase the 
     drawdown and sales under paragraphs (1) through (8) of 
     subsection (a) as the Secretary of Energy determines to be 
     appropriate to maximize the financial return to United States 
     taxpayers.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary of Energy shall not 
     drawdown or conduct sales of crude oil under this section 
     after the date on which a total of $5,050,000,000 has been 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury from sales 
     authorized under this section.''.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time, we will resume the 
consideration of S. 2012, which is the Energy Policy Modernization Act. 
Senator Cantwell and I have had an opportunity to speak, as well as the 
Senator from Texas, and now the Senator from Wyoming has joined us. He 
has been a leader on these issues. He sits next to me on the energy 
committee and has worked on so many of the issues we have contained 
within this good bill, but the piece on which he has probably been most 
aggressive and shown his leadership is what we have done to help 
facilitate the export of our resources with regard to liquefied natural 
gas.
  I am pleased to turn to my colleague from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the energy committee. She does a remarkable job, and she has brought 
many people together on this bipartisan piece of legislation. It passed 
the committee 18 to 4. People are energetic about this Energy bill 
because it is so critical and important to our communities and our 
economy.
  As the Senate is discussing this important energy legislation, I come 
to the floor today because energy is one of those issues on which we 
should actually all be able to agree in terms of the basic idea. The 
basic idea and my goal for this Energy bill is that we make energy in 
America as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it in ways that 
don't raise costs on American families. I think most of us would 
consider that to be a worthy, commonsense goal. That is why the Energy 
bill before the Senate today is so important and why it has such broad 
bipartisan support. As I said, the bill passed the committee 18 to 4. 
And this is a bill that actually takes concrete steps to help our 
country produce the energy we need.
  I think one of the good ideas in the bill is a provision to speed up 
permitting for the exportation of liquefied natural gas. Six Democrats 
have cosponsored this language on the LNG exports as a separate piece 
of legislation, which is now incorporated into this Energy bill. That 
is because Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance 
of natural gas to our economy and to our national security.
  America has the world's largest supply of natural gas in terms of 
what we are able to produce today. We also have the resources to be a 
major exporter of this clean and versatile fuel. It is estimated that 
liquefied natural gas exports can contribute up to $74 billion to 
America's gross domestic product by the year 2035. All we need is for 
Washington to give producers some regulatory certainty--certainty that 
is not there today.
  To liquefy and to export natural gas requires special production and 
special export terminals, places to get it done. Under President Obama, 
the Department of Energy has been very slow and very unpredictable 
about approving these projects. The Energy bill would expedite the 
permit process for LNG exports to countries around the world and 
countries that right now do not have free-trade agreements with the 
United States. It opens it up to new markets, new customers, people who 
are friends and allies who want to buy a product we have right here for 
sale.
  This legislation would require the Energy Secretary to make a final 
decision on an export application within 45 days after the 
environmental review process is completed. It would also provide for 
expedited judicial review of legal challenges to the LNG export 
projects because things can get tangled up in legal challenges that can 
go on for months and years.
  Finally, the bill requires that exporters publicly disclose the 
countries to which the LNG is delivered so the American people know 
whom we are selling to.
  This legislation doesn't force the administration to approve the 
projects, it doesn't shut down the environmental reviews, and it 
doesn't take away anybody's right to voice their opposition; it just 
says that the Obama administration should do its job in an accountable, 
timely, and predictable way.
  This legislation would help create jobs. It would help to reduce our 
trade deficit, which is something President Obama has said is a 
priority of his. It would also help the security of America and our 
allies. That is something which should be a priority for all of us in 
this body. Speeding up American exports of liquefied natural gas will 
give our allies an alternative for where they can get the energy they 
need. It would help our allies reduce their dependence on gas from 
hostile places, many of whom are now getting it from Russia. Remember, 
Russia invaded Ukraine largely to get control of the gas pipelines 
there.
  Now Iran wants to step up its natural gas business as well--Iran. The 
Iranians have been working on a liquefied natural gas export plant that 
is almost complete. Construction had stalled a few years ago because of 
the economic sanctions against Iran. Now that the Obama administration 
has lifted the sanctions against Iran, Iran can start construction 
again. The managing director of the National Iranian Gas Export Company 
says that it could start shipping liquefied natural gas to Europe in 2 
years. That was in an article in the Wall Street Journal today. The 
headline is ``Iran Seeks Ways To Ship Out Gas As Sanctions Ease.'' This 
is today. What we are discussing on the floor of the Senate is 
incredibly timely. When you read through the article, it says that 
European companies are promising billions in new deals in Iran as 
Iranian President Ruhani visits Europe this week to revive trade and 
political ties. So Iran is on the move.
  The Obama administration, as of right now, is shackling American 
natural gas, shackling the production, shackling the export. At the 
same time, the President, through his agreement with Iran, is enabling 
Iran to move forward and seek ways to ship out gas as sanctions ease.
  If our allies are dependent on gas from Russia or from Iran or from 
both, how does that make the world a safer place?
  This administration has been dragging its feet on approving liquefied 
natural gas exports. It has blocked North American energy projects in 
the past, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline. That would have created 
thousands of jobs. Then, earlier this month, the Secretary of the 
Interior halted all new leases on mining coal on Federal land. This 
action by the administration is alarming, it is drastic, and it is 
destructive. Forty percent of all the coal produced in the United 
States comes from Federal land. The Interior Secretary wants the coal 
to stay in the ground, wants it to become a stranded asset. With this 
new rule, she took one more step toward wiping out the jobs of 
thousands of Americans, and then she staged a press conference to brag 
about it. If that weren't bad enough, last week the administration 
announced new restrictions on oil and gas operations on Federal land 
and on Indian land.
  The unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats of the Obama administration 
have been relentlessly attacking American energy producers with new 
rules, new regulations--costly--hurting our economy, hurting jobs. They 
are costing American workers and families billions of dollars, and they 
will do great damage to American energy reliability. Reliability is 
key. We need a different approach.

[[Page 655]]

  It is essential that we create as much energy as possible here at 
home, and it is essential that we be able to export American energy to 
our allies as well, people who want to get it from us. That is why 
energy is called the master resource, and that is why this Energy bill 
is so important.
  This legislation is a good start toward making sure America has the 
energy we need to keep our economy growing. There are things we could 
do to improve this legislation. We could use this bill to protect 
Americans from President Obama's reckless attempt to end coal leases on 
Federal lands. We can also make sure the Obama administration stops its 
unwise new rule on natural gas and oil operations. We can actually 
capture more energy while we reduce waste and emissions from this kind 
of oil and gas production.
  I have introduced bipartisan legislation that is going to expedite 
the permitting process of natural gas gathering lines on Federal and 
Indian land. These are pipelines that collect unprocessed natural gas 
from oil and gas wells and ship it to a processing plant and then on to 
interstate pipelines. Today a lot of that gas is flared off right at 
the well. You can see that at the well, the flames. One of the reasons 
that is happening is because the Obama administration has been so slow 
in granting the permits for the natural gas gathering lines on Federal 
land. People want to build them; they want to use this natural gas. The 
President opposes the flaring. More gathering lines would mean less 
flaring. It is good for energy producers, it is good for the 
environment, and it is good for taxpayers.
  We need the energy. Keeping it in the ground is not the answer. The 
answer is making energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without 
raising costs on American families. I believe that is a better 
approach. A bipartisan group of Members of this body knows it is a 
better answer. It is time for the Obama administration to join us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Energy Policy 
Modernization Act. Along with a broad, bipartisan group of my 
colleagues, I supported this bill as a member of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. I thank Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, and their staff for their commitment and hard work in 
producing a bill that could earn a strong bipartisan vote in the 
committee.
  There were other proposals that I would have liked to have seen 
included in the bill, such as the national Renewable Electricity 
Standard introduced by Senator Udall, which I cosponsored, and there 
were other proposals included in the bill that I would not have 
supported on their own. However, I was willing to support a compromise 
that provides positive direction for our country in the midst of an 
energy transformation.
  Now that the full Senate is considering the bill, I would like to 
remind my colleagues of the effort that went into reaching this 
compromise. We should not squander the opportunity before us with 
amendments that will simply erode bipartisan support for the bill or 
draw a Presidential veto.
  So much has changed in how energy is produced and consumed since the 
Senate passed its last energy bill in 2007. Our country is in the 
middle of a transformation toward cleaner sources of energy and greater 
energy efficiency in our vehicles, homes, and businesses. Hawaii is 
leading the way on many fronts in this transformation. Hawaii has 
already set the most ambitious electricity standard of any State, and 
that is 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045. Our State has 
already more than doubled its use of renewable electricity in 6 years 
to 21 percent.
  Making sure that we have clean and affordable power for families and 
businesses will require a more modern and reliable electricity system. 
The Energy Policy Modernization Act tackles research, job creation, and 
innovation on a number of fronts. Let me highlight some of the bill's 
important provisions.
  This bill includes provisions from my Next Generation Electric 
Systems Act that would establish a Department of Energy grant program 
for projects to improve the performance and efficiency of electrical 
grid systems. These grants could assist efforts in Hawaii and around 
the country to make greater use of renewable energy, energy storage 
systems, electric vehicles, and other innovative energy technologies.
  The bill also provides $500 million over 10 years to support the 
energy storage research, demonstration, and deployment program from 
Senator Cantwell's Grid Modernization Act, which I cosponsored. Energy 
storage will help smooth the delivery of power from renewable sources 
so that it is available even when the sun is not shining or the wind is 
not blowing. Greater use of energy storage systems could help cut 
energy bills by reducing the need to build expensive powerplants that 
operate only at times of highest demand and avoiding blackouts.
  Thanks to Chair Murkowski, the bill also promotes the development of 
microgrid systems for communities that are not connected to the grid, 
so that isolated communities in places like Hawaii and Alaska can also 
use alternative energy and energy storage to secure more reliable and 
affordable sources of power.
  The bill includes my amendment to ensure that the U.S. Territories 
and the District of Columbia can join Hawaii and other States in being 
eligible to participate in a Department of Energy loan guarantee 
program to help States support new investments in clean energy 
projects. For instance, Hawaii could expand its Green Energy Market 
Securitization--or GEMS--Program to make rooftop solar systems and 
other clean energy improvements more affordable for renters and other 
underserved consumers.
  The bill authorizes research and development in promising renewable 
energy technologies like marine and hydrokinetic energy, which harness 
the power of the ocean's waves, heat, and currents. In partnership with 
the U.S. Navy, the Hawaii National Marine Renewable Energy Center at 
the University of Hawaii-Manoa is one of three federally funded centers 
for marine energy research and development in the Nation, including a 
wave energy test site at Kaneohe Bay on Oahu.
  The bill will help people find well-paying jobs in the energy and 
energy efficiency fields by establishing a $10 million grant program 
for nonprofit partnerships that train workers to earn energy efficient 
building certifications. It also creates a $20 million energy workforce 
training grant program for colleges and workforce development boards. 
This program will focus on helping workers earn industry-recognized 
credentials. I will be offering amendments to ensure that our veterans 
can take full advantage of these programs to speed their transition 
into the civilian workforce.
  The bill will also help boost energy efficiency. Hawaii set a goal 
requiring a 30-percent improvement in energy efficiency by 2030. 
According to the Hawaii State Energy Office, that standard has resulted 
in the equivalent of $435 million in energy savings for Hawaii's homes, 
farms, and businesses.
  Finally, the bill strengthens our protection of public lands by 
permanently reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund--LWCF--a 
fund that, throughout its 50-year history, has financed over 40,000 
projects across all 50 States and protected public lands that support 
our Nation's $646 billion outdoor recreational industry. In Hawaii 
alone, the LWCF has directly provided $195 million to our local 
conservation efforts, and, as most people know, we in Hawaii go to 
great lengths to protect and conserve our native ecosystems. LWCF funds 
will support Hawaii's ``Island Forests at Risk'' proposal. These funds 
will expand Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and Hakalau National 
Wildlife Refuge by a total of 12,000 acres. These two locations host a 
total of nearly 2 million visitors each year and protect some of 
Hawaii's most beautiful and sensitive habitats. The bill also 
permanently reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund and creates a 
new National Park Maintenance and Revitalization Fund. The new national

[[Page 656]]

park fund will help reduce the backlog of $11.5 billion in repairs and 
maintenance needed in our national parks, including the $127 million 
backlog of maintenance at Hawaii's national parks. This much needed new 
fund will ensure that people can enjoy the beauty of our parks for 
generations to come.
  In addition to improving energy usage in our homes and businesses, we 
must ensure that government takes full advantage of new energy and 
energy efficient technologies. For the fourth consecutive year, the 
State of Hawaii led the Nation in per capita use of energy performance 
contracting for State and county buildings, resulting in the creation 
of over 3,000 jobs and an energy savings of over $989 million.
  I would like to expand the use of energy contracting at the Federal 
level to save taxpayer dollars and support the use of cleaner sources 
of energy. I will be offering an amendment to allow all Federal 
agencies to use long-term contracts to reduce their energy bills, as 
the Department of Defense is allowed to do under current law.
  I also plan to offer an amendment to establish a pilot project to 
expand the use of Federal energy savings performance contracts to 
mobile sources such as federally-owned aircraft and vehicles. The 
guaranteed energy savings will mean taxpayer savings.
  With oil accounting for 80 percent of the energy needs of our State, 
the people of Hawaii are acutely aware that there must be new 
alternatives to the volatile prices and vulnerable supply of the global 
oil trade. Hawaii, which for too long has been paying the highest 
electricity rates in the country, recognizes that we have renewable 
resources in our own State that should be developed so that we keep at 
home more of the $5 billion per year we currently spend to import oil. 
That is more money circulating in Hawaii's economy, creating jobs, 
raising wages, and helping families make ends meet.
  For all the reasons I have mentioned, I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill and those amendments that will be offered that move our 
country forward, not backward, to a future with affordable, clean, and 
reliable energy.
  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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Solitary Confinement

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe it was in April of 2009 that I 
picked up a New Yorker magazine and read an article that had a real 
impact on me. It was an article written by Dr. Atul Gawande, a 
practicing surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, an 
amazing man. In addition to his medical responsibilities, he is a 
person with a very inquisitive mind and a real knack when it comes to 
investigating challenging issues.
  The article that I read in the New Yorker by Dr. Gawande examined the 
human impact of long-term solitary confinement and asked, ``If 
prolonged isolation is--as research and experience have confirmed for 
decades--so objectively horrifying, so intrinsically cruel, how did we 
end up with a prison system that may subject more of our own citizens 
to it than any other country in history has?''
  Dr. Gawande's article inspired me--motivated me--to begin to look 
into the issue of solitary confinement in prisons. I was amazed to 
learn that the United States holds more prisoners in solitary 
confinement--about 100,000--than any other democratic nation in the 
world. So in 2012, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, I held the first-ever 
congressional hearing on solitary confinement.
  At the hearing, we took a look at the serious fiscal impact of 
solitary. We learned that it costs almost three times more to keep a 
Federal prisoner in segregation than in the general population. We also 
discussed the significant public safety consequences of widespread 
solitary confinement, given that the vast majority of inmates held in 
segregation will ultimately be released to the community someday. And 
we heard testimony about the human impact of holding tens of thousands 
of women, men, and children in small, windowless cells 23 hours a day--
for days, months, even years--with very little, if any, human contact 
with the outside world. Clearly, such extreme isolation can have a 
serious, damaging psychological impact. I will never ever forget the 
compelling testimony of Anthony Graves. In the year 2010, after 18 
years in prison--and 16 of those years in solitary confinement--Anthony 
Graves became the 12th death row inmate to be exonerated in the State 
of Texas.
  At the hearing, Mr. Graves testified about his experience. The room 
was silent. He stated:

       Solitary confinement does one thing, it breaks a man's will 
     to live. . . . I have been free for almost two years and I 
     still cry at night, because no one out here can relate to 
     what I have gone through. I battle with feelings of 
     loneliness. I've tried therapy but it didn't work.

  In 2014, I held a follow-up hearing on the issue. I called for an end 
to solitary confinement for juveniles, pregnant women, and inmates with 
serious mental illness. At the hearing, we heard from Damon Thibodeaux. 
He had spent 15 years in solitary confinement at the Louisiana State 
Penitentiary before being found not guilty and released. Mr. Thibodeaux 
testified:

       I do not condone what those who have killed and committed 
     other serious offenses have done. But I also don't condone 
     what we do to them, when we put them in solitary for years on 
     end and treat them as sub-human. We are better than that. As 
     a civilized society, we should be better than that.

  In recent years a number of experts and State and Federal officials 
across the country have questioned our Nation's overuse of solitary 
confinement. In 2014, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy testified 
to Congress: ``Solitary confinement literally drives men mad.''
  Last year, Justice Kennedy again brought up the issue in a powerful 
concurring opinion. He wrote: ``Research still confirms what this Court 
suggested over a century ago: Years on end of near-total isolation 
exacts a terrible price.''
  He went on to say:

       The judiciary may be required . . . to determine whether 
     workable alternative systems for long-term confinement exist, 
     and, if so, whether a correctional system should be required 
     to adopt them.

  Pope Francis, who spoke to a joint session of Congress a few months 
ago, has also criticized solitary confinement. In a 2014 speech at the 
Vatican, he referred to the practice of extreme isolation as 
``torture'' and ``a genuine surplus of pain added to the actual 
suffering of imprisonment.''
  The Pope went on to say:

       The lack of sensory stimuli, the total impossibility of 
     communication and the lack of contact with other human beings 
     induce mental and physical suffering such as paranoia, 
     anxiety, depression, weight loss, and significantly increase 
     the suicidal tendency.

  In light of the mounting evidence of the dangerous and harmful 
impacts of solitary confinement, several States have led the way in 
reassessing the practice. Colorado has implemented a number of reforms, 
including no longer releasing offenders directly from solitary to the 
community, and ensuring that inmates with serious mental illness are 
not placed in solitary confinement. As a result of the reforms, inmate-
on-staff assaults are at the lowest levels in Colorado in 10 years, 
incidents of self-harm have decreased among the inmates, and most 
inmates released from solitary do not return.
  In the State of Washington, a focus on rehabilitation and programming 
for inmates in solitary confinement has led to a reduction of more than 
50 percent in the segregated population.
  The Association of State Correctional Administrators--a group 
representing the heads of all 50 State prison systems--recently called 
for limits on the use of long-term solitary confinement. In a 
statement, they said:


[[Page 657]]

       Prolonged isolation of individuals in jails and prisons is 
     a grave problem in the United States. . . . Correctional 
     leaders across the country are committed to reducing the 
     number of people in restrictive housing. . . .

  Progress has been made at the Federal level since our first hearing. 
A substantial percentage of those in solitary confinement are no longer 
serving in that situation. After my first hearing on the issue, I asked 
the Bureau of Prisons to submit to the first-ever independent 
assessment of its solitary confinement policies and practices.
  The assessment, released last year, noted that some improvements have 
been made since the 2012 hearing, the initial hearing we had on the 
subject. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has reduced its segregated 
population by more than 25 percent and continues to look for more 
reductions.
  Despite this, there is a lot of work to be done. That is why I was 
pleased to see President Obama's announcement this week that he has 
accepted a number of recommendations from the Department of Justice to 
reform and reduce the practice of solitary confinement in the federal 
prison system.
  In an op-ed published yesterday in the Washington Post, the President 
explained how the Department of Justice's review of solitary 
confinement policy led to the conclusion that the practice should be 
used rarely, applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints.
  The President's recommendations included: banning solitary 
confinement for juveniles, diverting inmates with serious mental 
illness to alternative forms of housing, diverting inmates in need of 
protection from solitary confinement to less restrictive conditions, 
reducing the use of disciplinary segregation, and improving the 
conditions of solitary confinement by increasing inmates' out-of-cell 
time and access to services.
  I welcome these changes. I commend the President for his actions. I 
look forward to working with the Bureau of Prisons and the Department 
of Justice on this issue.
  In the course of studying this issue, I decided I had to see it 
firsthand. I went to Tamms prison in Southern Illinois. It was the 
maximum security State prison in the State. I went in, met with the 
warden, and I took my tour. Then I said to her: I want to see the most 
restrictive solitary confinement. She took me into an area where five 
men were in solitary confinement. I had a chance to speak to each of 
them. One of the men I will never forget. I asked him: How many years 
are you in for?
  He said: Originally 20, but they added 50 to that.
  I said: Fifty additional years?
  He said: Yes. He said in a very calm voice: I told them that if they 
put another prisoner in my cell I would kill him, and I did.
  I thought to myself, be aware, Senator, there are ruthless and 
vicious people and violent people who really need to be carefully 
scrutinized and carefully imprisoned in a situation where they can't 
harm other inmates or the personnel, but still, even in that 
circumstance, we have to look to the most humane way to treat them in 
the course of their imprisonment.
  The President's decision to address the use of solitary represents a 
major step forward in protecting human rights, increasing public 
safety, and improving fiscal responsibility in our federal prisons. 
Still, we have the highest per capita rate of incarceration in the 
world--the United States, the highest rate of incarceration in the 
world.
  President Obama noted yesterday that changing our approach to 
solitary confinement is just one part of a larger set of reforms we 
must pursue. Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Chuck 
Grassley of Iowa, and I worked with a bipartisan coalition of Senators 
to introduce the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. The bill passed 
the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 15-to-5 bipartisan vote several 
months ago.
  In order to comprehensively address the problems facing our Federal 
prisons, we should bring this bipartisan criminal justice reform 
legislation to the Senate floor and work with our colleagues in the 
House to send a bill to the President this year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today marks the 125th time I have come 
to the Senate floor to ask this body to wake up to the threats of 
climate change. This week is a little different because we are 
currently debating the bipartisan Energy Policy Modernization Act. The 
bill was crafted by my colleagues, Senators Murkowski and Cantwell, and 
it may become our first comprehensive energy efficiency legislation 
since 2007. While the base bill is a good start, we have much work to 
do before we come anywhere near meeting the challenges we face as a 
result of our decades of carbon pollution.
  As we begin debate on this legislation, calls for bold action on 
climate continue to mount. The World Economic Forum released its 
``Global Risks Report 2016,'' which for the first time ranked an 
environmental risk--climate change--as the most severe economic risk 
facing the world. The report found that a failure to deal with and 
prepare for climate change is potentially the most costly risk over the 
next decade.
  Cecilia Reyes, chief risk officer of Zurich Insurance Group, said: 
``Climate change is exacerbating more risks than ever before in terms 
of water crises, food shortages, constrained economic growth, weaker 
societal cohesion and increased security risks.''
  Some of my Republican colleagues have begun to wake up to these 
risks. It was just last year that Chairman Murkowski said: ``What I am 
hoping that we can do now is get beyond the discussion as to whether 
climate change is real and talk about what to do.'' The chairman 
deserves credit for reporting a bill that has solutions a broad 
majority of the Senate can support; however, she has been handicapped 
by the fact that many in her party still refuse to take seriously that 
human-caused climate change is real and that it presents a significant 
and growing risk to our economy, our national security, and our way of 
life.
  Many of the provisions in this bill are not new. We saw much of it in 
the Shaheen-Portman Energy bill that Republicans twice before have 
filibustered. With so many Republicans seemingly incapable of 
supporting responsible energy legislation, those of us who want to 
promote energy efficiency and a clean energy economy sometimes feel a 
little bit like Charlie Brown, hoping that this time Lucy won't yank 
the ball away yet again. These issues are too important, and I am 
hoping this time will, in fact, be different.
  The bill contains commonsense reforms, such as reforming building 
codes to improve energy efficiency and directing the Secretary of 
Energy to establish a Federal smart building program to demonstrate the 
costs and benefits of implementing smart building technology. It 
reauthorizes the weatherization and State energy programs that States 
such as Rhode Island rely on and the Advanced Research Projects 
Agency--Energy. That has shown the importance of government investment 
in new energy technologies. It will modernize and secure our electric 
grid and enhance cyber security safeguards.
  My State, Rhode Island, is a national leader in promoting energy 
efficiency, so we know how programs like these are good for consumers, 
businesses, and the environment. In fact, I came here to the floor 
after a meeting with our grid operator. She said Rhode Island was the 
leading State when it comes to efficiency. Rhode Island has had energy 
policies guiding electricity and natural gas efficiency standards since 
2006. We have consistently ranked in the top

[[Page 658]]

five States when it comes to energy efficiency. We do this as one of 
the founding members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative--or RGGI 
for short--the Northeast's carbon pollution cap-and-trade program. 
States that belong to RGGI are proving that we can grow our economies 
at the same time we cut our emissions. Between its founding in 2005 and 
the report of 2012, emissions in the RGGI States decreased by 40 
percent, while the regional economy grew by 7 percent, so we won on 
both sides. Putting a price on carbon and plowing that money back into 
clean energy projects is, in fact, saving us billions of dollars while 
helping to reduce carbon pollution.
  I hope this bill will be a small step forward toward solutions that 
will begin to help reverse the devastation carbon pollution is wreaking 
on our climate and particularly on our oceans.
  I have to ask my Republican friends, what is your best bet on whether 
this climate and oceans problem gets better or worse in the next 20 or 
40 years? I ask this seriously because a great party's reputation is on 
the line here. How are you going to bet--with the 97 to 98 percent of 
the scientists and 100 percent of the peer research? Do you want to bet 
the reputation of the Republican Party that suddenly all of this is 
going to magically get better?
  Right now the American public sees what is going on. The American 
public knows that the Republican Party in Washington has become the 
political wing of the fossil fuel industry. There has always been a bit 
of this within the Republican Party, but since the Republican 
appointees on the Supreme Court gave the fossil fuel industry that 
great, fat, juicy gift of its Citizens United decision, the fossil fuel 
industry menace looming over the Republican Party in Congress has 
become near absolute.
  Trapped by the fossil fuel industry, the Republican vision for energy 
policy has been stuck in the past. Most of the time, it is just 
complaints and obstruction: Oh, the President's Clean Power Plan is no 
good. Oh, the States should engage in massive civil disobedience 
against the President's Clean Power Plan. Oh, we should defund the EPA.
  It will be no surprise if they try to block the Department of 
Interior's plan to reform a coal leasing program that has not been 
updated in over 30 years. It doesn't matter to them that the way we 
price the extraction of fossil fuel on Federal lands is a massive 
taxpayer giveaway to fossil fuel companies and it is based on a market 
failure that ignores the costs those fuels impose on taxpayers and our 
climate. Conservative and progressive economists alike agree on that 
market failure point. Indeed, Republicans defend all the subsidies we 
give to the fossil fuel industry. There is no subsidy to the fossil 
fuel industry that does not earn constant Republican support.
  Rather than gambling on more oil and gas production, I suggest we 
make the safe bet on a strategy that cuts emissions, encourages 
American investment in American clean energy, saves taxpayers billions 
of dollars, and creates and supports millions of jobs.
  There is an old hymn that the Presiding Officer probably knows. It 
says: ``Turn back, O man, forswear thy foolish ways.'' Well, it is time 
to turn back and forswear our foolish fossil fuel ways. If we don't, 
there will be a day of reckoning and a harsh price to pay.
  Remember what Pope Francis told us:

       God always forgives. We men forgive sometimes, but nature 
     never forgives. If you give her a slap, she will give you 
     one.

  We have given our Earth one heck of a slap.
  I will leave the Chamber with this: Last week, NASA and the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 2015 was the 
warmest year on record globally. That is not a fluke. Fifteen of the 
warmest 16 years recorded occurred during this century, which, by the 
way, has had 15 years. They are all in the warmest 16 years ever 
recorded. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the most 
recent 5-year period--from 2011 to 2015--was the warmest 5-year period 
ever recorded. You can see that the long-term trend is going in one 
direction and one direction only--hotter. There is no pause. The pause 
was a trick. These changes are primarily driven by the excessive carbon 
pollution we continue to dump into our atmosphere and oceans.
  By the way, for all of this measured heat, 90-plus percent of the 
heat actually goes into the oceans. There is little change in the 
oceans but big changes here. As the oceans stop absorbing as much 
warmth, I don't know where that will lead.
  As we bring our ideas to the floor during our discussion about 
modernizing our electric grid, we have an opportunity to also have a 
real conversation on climate change. We still have a real 
responsibility to act.
  It is time for this body to wake up.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Donald Trump

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are some things I shouldn't joke 
about. I tried to be funny an hour ago at my weekly stakeout and I 
guess it wasn't very funny--at least I don't think so.
  The danger Donald Trump's candidacy poses to our country is not a 
joke. Since he launched his bid for the Republican nomination, Donald 
Trump has proven over and over again that he is a hateful demagogue who 
would do immeasurable damage to our country if elected. I have come to 
the Senate floor many times to decry his hateful comments.
  Donald Trump threatens to diminish the integrity of our democracy 
around the whole world. If he wins the nomination of the Republican 
Party to run for President of the United States, the Republican Party 
will never recover from the damage he will inflict on conservatism.
  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. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Nomination of Robert Califf

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to Dr. 
Robert Califf, the President's nominee to be the Commissioner of the 
FDA.
  I do this with all respect for Dr. Califf, his expertise, and all the 
work he has done. He is a quality human being. I am sure the 
administration is going to be able to find a position for him that 
suits his background better than being the head of the FDA, and I say 
that with all due respect. We had a thoughtful conversation when he 
came to visit with me.
  I do not believe he can be the leader we need to change the culture 
of the FDA. I say that coming from a State that has been ravaged by 
this opiate addiction. It is going to take someone who is totally 
committed through and through to make the changes that need to be made.
  The No. 1 priority of the FDA and its Commissioner should be public 
health. It is inappropriate for the FDA Commissioner to have such close 
financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry. I will give a little 
bit of background on this because what he has done I think is what most 
of them do.
  Between 2010 and 2014, Dr. Califf received money through his 
university salary as well as his consulting fees from 26 different 
pharmaceutical companies, including opioid manufacturers. Dr. Califf 
has described FDA regulations as a ``barrier''--not a safeguard--to 
public health. That is troubling in itself.
  In 2008, the FDA's approval of new marketing claims for existing 
drugs was 56 percent. In the first 8 months of 2015, it was 88 percent. 
This includes just last year approving OxyContin for children as young 
as 11 years old. At a time when opioid deaths are killing tens of 
thousands of Americans every day, our FDA would like to give these

[[Page 659]]

dangerous drugs to kids. Someone at the FDA needs to change this way of 
thinking. They are giving all of the excuses in the world, and it makes 
no sense whatsoever to me.
  Dr. Califf's past involvement with the pharmaceutical industry shows 
that he will not be able to be this person--the person of change who is 
needed. He will not have the impact or leadership capabilities that 
this Nation needs to stem the tide of the opioid crisis.
  These are the facts of what this horrific pain reduction, if you 
will--pain suppressor, opiates--does to Americans. With 51 Americans 
dying every day due to an opioid overdose--51 Americans die every day--
the FDA, now more than ever, needs a champion who is committed to 
dramatically changing the way this agency handles opioids. Every other 
Federal agency is fighting to address opioid addiction.
  Let me tell my colleagues about addiction. There is not one of us in 
the Senate, there is not one person who works here who doesn't have 
someone in their immediate family or extended family or a close friend 
who has been affected by prescription drug abuse or illicit drugs, but 
the FDA continues to approve stronger and more dangerous opioid drugs, 
endangering the public.
  In 2014, 18,893 people died due to a prescription opioid overdose. 
Again, as I have said, that is 51 people every day. That is a 16-
percent increase from 2013 and it increased every year before that. We 
have lost almost 200,000 Americans to prescription opioid abuse since 
1999.
  The FDA Commissioner is an important figure in the fight against 
prescription drug abuse, and he or she must be a public health official 
whose top priority is stopping the opioid abuse epidemic.
  We need to change the culture of the FDA to make them address the 
crisis seriously. That will not happen if the person at the helm is not 
a strong advocate--and I say a very strong advocate--who is committed 
to pushing back against the pressure to continually approve new opioid 
medications given the significant risks to public health, just for 
meeting a business model or a business plan.
  I believe the FDA needs new leadership, a new focus, and a new 
culture. This is not disparaging anybody who is there or who wishes to 
be there. When I talked to Dr. Califf, I found him to be most qualified 
and will do a good job in some other position, I am sure.
  I believe the FDA must break its close relationship with the 
pharmaceutical industry and instead start a relationship with the 
millions of Americans impacted by prescription drug abuse. It is just 
human nature for a person that basically has had all his research 
funded for many years from this industry, and it is going to be hard to 
change.
  It is because of this that I will filibuster any effort to confirm 
Dr. Califf instead of voting to confirm a nominee who will not address 
the concerns of the people of West Virginia and all of America. I will 
come to the floor and read letters from those who have had their lives 
devastated by opiate addiction. I will read letters from children who 
have seen their parents die from an overdose. I will read letters from 
grandparents who have been forced to raise their grandchildren when 
their kids went to jail, rehab, or the grave. I will read letters from 
teachers and religious leaders who have seen their communities 
devastated by prescription drug abuse. I will read letters from West 
Virginians who need help from the FDA--not by putting more of these 
opiate killers on the market.
  I urge all of my colleagues to examine the financial support Dr. 
Califf has received throughout his research career and ask themselves 
if he is the right person to change the culture of the FDA. This 
Senator is confident that when looking at all the facts, you will agree 
that we need a new nominee, one who will join us in the fight against 
this horrible epidemic affecting every nook and cranny of this country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know we are waiting for other 
colleagues to come to the floor to speak to the Energy bill itself or 
perhaps to offer amendments. I certainly would encourage that, as we 
are trying to get the process going with the Energy Policy 
Modernization Act.
  Before my colleague from West Virginia leaves the floor, I want to 
thank him for his leadership on this issue. We have had conversations. 
I traveled to West Virginia at his invitation to view how West Virginia 
deals with its energy issues. They have a little bit of everything 
there in West Virginia, and I was able to see that.
  One of the sad stories I learned, though, is what we were seeing in 
his State as it relates to opioid abuse--OxyContin and meth at that 
time. Our States share some similarities in that there are very rural 
characteristics in both West Virginia and Alaska. Even though we are 
far removed from most of the other States in this country, we are not 
immune or insulated from what we are seeing with this epidemic of 
opioid abuse brought on initially by access to prescription drugs and 
now being replaced in a horrible way with heroin that is impacting our 
kids, young people, and folks who are ages that would surprise many. It 
is deeply troubling.
  When you use words like ``epidemic'' or ``pandemic,'' those are very 
strong words, but I think that is what we are seeing in this country, 
and it is reaching from one end of the country to the other.
  I want to acknowledge my colleague for the issues he has raised.
  Mr. MANCHIN. If I may, Mr. President, let me first of all thank the 
Senator from Alaska for her leadership on the Energy bill. It has been 
a long time since we have had one on the floor, working in a most 
rational, commonsense approach trying to bring all parties together. 
She has done a great job working with Maria Cantwell, the Democrat on 
our side from the State of Washington.
  I think we are finding there is a little bit of something for 
everybody, understanding that the energy policy should be an all-in 
policy. I come from a fossil fuel State and she comes from a fossil 
fuel State, and people think they can live without it. I think they can 
live better with it if we use technology, and that is what we have 
tried to push in this piece of legislation.
  On the opiate issue, I have a passion. I have watched it, and it is 
devastating. When you have young kids coming to you and telling you 
that they have watched their parents die of overdose, they have watched 
their families split up, with the kids taken in different directions, 
it makes your heart bleed and makes you think about future generations 
and what we are going to face.
  Then to have the Food and Drug Administration--I will give one 
example. It took them working 3 years to get all opiates to be 
reclassified from a schedule III to a schedule II. It took 3 years to 
get that done. To show the success we have had, millions of 
prescriptions have been reduced because now it is a 30-day mandatory, 
but let me tell you, it is still a problem that we have. Not everybody 
needs 30 days. Unless we start doing a whole reeducation of the doctors 
who basically write the prescriptions to understand sometimes you need 
it only for 1 or 2 days of assistance, we are over-prescribing and the 
pharmaceuticals are over-enticing, if you will, with stronger and 
stronger medications.
  This Senator believes we need an FDA cultural change. That is it. I 
think if we can't do it here, if we don't drive it on the inside, then 
there is no one expected to do it on the outside.
  In States that do the heavy lifting--Alaska, West Virginia--people 
are going to get injured from time to time. They have pain, and they 
need help. There are other methods. We are trying to go in a different 
direction.
  I thank the Senator for recognizing that, but I also thank the 
Senator for coming to our State. We enjoyed having her, and I enjoyed 
being in her State.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my colleague from West Virginia is 
always welcome to come back and learn more.
  On the issue of Dr. Califf, let it be known that I, too, have 
concerns about

[[Page 660]]

his nomination, and it has nothing to do with opioids. It has 
everything to do with fish, and basically what we have referred to as a 
fake fish, a genetically engineered fish. All this Senator is looking 
for is an assurance from the FDA that if they are going to put this 
genetically engineered product out there for human consumption then 
there should be an appropriate labeling. I do not think that is too 
much to ask. I have asked for that, and the difficulty is getting folks 
within the FDA to have a full and important conversation about the 
import of that. So it is a different issue from what the Senator from 
West Virginia has discussed, but I think it goes to the issue of 
needing to have some communication within the FDA.
  The FDA is an agency that has considerable authorities, and we in the 
Congress need to know that we can have a good level of dialogue and 
discussion going back and forth. I think we have seen a real lack or 
shortfall, and until I get certain assurances from the FDA as well, I 
am not planning on removing the hold that I currently have on this 
nominee, and we will be working with other colleagues on this.
  My friend, the Senator from Colorado, has arrived to the floor, and I 
know he wishes to speak on the Energy Policy Modernization Act. The 
Senator from Colorado has been a great Member of the U.S. Senate since 
he came. He was a leader on energy issues when he was over at the 
House, and he has continued that in a very constructive and robust way. 
We can talk about energy matters that come from producing States like 
ours, but a recognition that Senator Gardner's approach is not just 
that he comes from a fossil-fuel producing State; he is also looking to 
make sure that we move to a clean energy future. He is also very 
conscious and considerate about what we do with conservation. His 
leadership has been greatly appreciated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her 
leadership on the bipartisan Energy bill. It is a bill that came out of 
committee with an 18-to-4 vote, strong support on both sides of the 
aisle.
  This is a bill that has components in it from grid reliability, to 
transparency, accountability, and clean energy. On the floor there are 
opportunities for amendments that will be discussed and brought out, 
including an amendment that is important to Senator Shaheen and I that 
will be discussing the impact the recreation economy has--the amount of 
dollars raised and generated through the recreation economy, spending 
money in the great outdoors, how it impacts our States, and the jobs it 
creates.
  We know people come to States such as Colorado, New Hampshire, and 
Alaska to hike, fish, climb, ski, and partake in all of the great 
incredible recreational benefits we have year-round in Alaska, 
Colorado, and the rest of our many States with so many recreational 
offerings. I look forward to these discussions, and over the next few 
days I look forward to coming back to the floor to discuss other ideas 
in the bill right now, such as renewable energy, energy efficiencies, 
including my legislation to expand the use of energy savings 
performance contracts which could save this country $20 billion without 
spending a dime of taxpayer money. These are incredible opportunities.
  At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Remembering U.S. Capitol Police Officer Vernon Alston, Jr.

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise today in memory of Vernon Alston. 
Vernon Alston, Jr., was a member of the U.S. Capitol Police. On Sunday, 
January 24, Officer Alston passed away after suffering from a heart 
attack. As was so common for Officer Alston, his concern had been for 
others that day. He spent the morning by serving those around him, 
helping those in his community shovel the incredible amounts of snow 
the area received.
  Day after day, the men and women of the Capitol Police work to 
protect us all, not just the Members and staff, but anyone who comes to 
the Nation's Capitol to share in the history, heritage, and traditions 
of this place.
  For two decades, Officer Alston dedicated himself to his work, and I 
am grateful for his many years of dedicated service on the Capitol 
grounds. This building stands as a representation of the values our 
Nation was founded on, and it is in this building that we continue to 
uphold the values of democracy.
  The Capitol Police are often called America's police. They protect us 
as we carry out this work and safeguard those who travel from around 
the world to experience this living piece of American history which 
serves as the stage for our future. Their support for us is invaluable 
and unwavering, and this week it is our turn to support them as they 
mourn the loss of a dear colleague and friend.
  Whether it is September 11 or the ricin attacks or anthrax or 
somebody who is here visiting who has a health issue, we know the 
support and the pride that every member of the Capitol Police Force 
brings to the job each and every day. They are never the first to flee, 
they are the last to leave, and for that we are eternally grateful.
  My deepest condolences go to Officer Alston's wife Nicole, their 
children, and his family members. We will always honor his work and 
legacy. He is a member of our Capitol community, and he will truly be 
missed.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Minnesota.


                Tribute to Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to honor the outgoing Canadian 
Ambassador to the United States, Gary Doer. Soon Ambassador Doer will 
return home to Manitoba, but, lucky for us, he will be a frequent 
visitor to Washington, DC, as the new cochair of the Wilson Center's 
Canada Institute Advisory Board. We are glad the Ambassador will 
continue to be an influential voice in shaping U.S.-Canada relations.
  Over the last 6 years, I have had the privilege of getting to know 
the Ambassador. I knew we would get along well when I learned he was a 
longtime fan of Bud Grant, an incredible athlete who became the head 
coach of the Minnesota Vikings. From a Canadian perspective, he first 
coached the Winnipeg Blue Bombers of the Canadian Football League.
  Bud Grant is adored in Minnesota and is still adored many years after 
he left coaching. In fact, it was during a recent playoff game that we 
remember well--in Minnesota versus the Seahawks--where Bud Grant came 
out in 17-below-zero weather and flipped the coin with no jacket on.
  What I will also never forget is attending an event at the 
Ambassador's home. I walked in the door, and he had a framed photo of 
Coach Grant right next to a framed photo of the Prime Minister of 
Canada. We like that in Minnesota.
  The Ambassador served for 6 years--or double-overtime, as he likes to 
call it. This is longer than his two predecessors combined. Ambassador 
Doer's long tenure and the fact that he served Prime Ministers from 
different political parties are testaments to his professionalism and 
character. Ambassador Doer is also well known in Washington for his 
humor and good nature, and I am sure that helps.
  Minnesota shares a long border with Canada--in fact, about 547 miles. 
As I like to say, I can see Canada from my porch. That must be why 
early on in my Senate career Leader Reid asked me to head up the 
Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, along with Senator Mike 
Crapo of Idaho. Together we have come to understand what an important 
geopolitical partner Canada is to the United States. I am a Minnesotan 
who is proud to share a border with Canada. I appreciate the country's 
friendship, culture, and beauty.
  Not only is Canada America's biggest trading partner, but it is the 
only country with an embassy that at one point draped a sign that said 
``friends, neighbours, partners, allies.'' I will never forget how 
gracious Ambassador

[[Page 661]]

Doer was for hosting my swearing-in celebration at the Canadian Embassy 
in 2013. I am the only Senator in recent history to choose the Canadian 
Embassy as a site for my Senate reelection swearing-in party, and a lot 
of that had to do with the Ambassador.
  President Kennedy said this to the Canadian Parliament in 1961:

       Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us 
     friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has 
     made us allies.

  During his tenure in Washington, Ambassador Doer has been a strong 
champion for Canada and Canadians and an effective diplomat who gets 
things done. Through his successful 10 years as Premier of Manitoba and 
his efforts as Ambassador to engage leaders and citizens across the 
United States, the Ambassador has strengthened the already robust 
friendship and partnership between our two great nations.
  His list of accomplishments is impressive. He has worked tirelessly 
on tourism and trade while ensuring the safety and security of the 
border between our two countries.
  The Ambassador championed the agreement on the new bridge that will 
link Detroit and Windsor. This bridge is destined to become the most 
important border crossing between our two countries. For too long there 
has been complete gridlock on the bridge linking our countries. I know 
how hard the Ambassador has worked on the Windsor bridge, and for a 
while it looked as though it wouldn't get done. But the Ambassador 
never stopped fighting for it and refused to be satisfied until the 
deal was done, often using an old Gordie Howe saying that ``you don't 
put your hands in the air until the puck is in the net.'' That is a 
hockey analogy between Minnesota and Canada. The Ambassador made sure 
the puck was in the net.
  The Ambassador was also instrumental in the U.S.-Canada preclearance 
agreement, a new agreement that will facilitate travel, create jobs, 
and encourage economic growth in both countries, while ensuring a 
secure border. This initiative reaffirms the commitment of the United 
States and Canada to enhancing security, while facilitating economic 
activity, and will help move more than $2 billion in goods and services 
and an estimated 300,000 people across the longest border in the world.
  I know that the Ambassador considers it an accomplishment that he 
helped to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic redtape, making it easier 
for businesses and agencies to operate by working to align regulatory 
systems and practices in health, safety, and the environment.
  The Ambassador also strengthened Canada's role as a world leader in 
renewable energy when he worked to harmonize vehicle emission standards 
between our two countries, which will ultimately improve air quality on 
both sides of the border. In addition, the Ambassador fought for the 
Environmental Protection Agency Clean Power Plan, which provides 
Canadian hydroelectricity as a renewable energy that U.S. States can 
import and use to comply with new Federal emission rules.
  Ambassador Doer ensured that the surviving members of the World War 
II joint American-Canadian First Special Service Force, nicknamed the 
``Devil's Brigade,'' received the Congressional Medal of Honor for its 
part in ending World War II.
  Like all friends, sometimes our nations have differences, but with 
his experience, tact, and plain-spoken pragmatism, Ambassador Gary Doer 
has ensured that these differences are bridged so that our two 
governments can move forward together.
  In a 1943 address, President Roosevelt said this to the Canadian 
Parliament:

       Your course and mine have run so closely and affectionately 
     during these many long years that this meeting adds another 
     link to that chain. I have always felt at home in Canada, and 
     you, I think, have always felt at home in the United States.

  Ambassador Doer, your service has added another strong and important 
link in the chain that connects our two countries. And as you have said 
many times in the past in Gordie Howe hockey terms, it is only safe to 
put your hands in the air after the puck is in the net.
  Ambassador, you have put a lot of pucks in the net, and now you 
deserve a moment to put your hands in the air to celebrate your work. 
In hockey parlance, you have scored for your great country of Canada.
  I am proud to have worked with the Ambassador during his time in the 
United States, and I hope he will always feel at home in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with a number of Members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, today I come again to the floor to speak 
about the ongoing challenges that we face in our relationship with 
Iran, about some of the benefits that we have seen through the JCPOA--
the joint comprehensive agreement on the nuclear program that Iran has 
now significantly set back--and some of the challenges that we face 
going forward.
  We will hear from a number of my colleagues in the next 45 minutes, 
and I am grateful that they, too, are coming to the floor today to talk 
about the balance, what there is that we can recognize about the 
progress we have made under the JCPOA and what there is that remains to 
be done and that remains as a challenge.
  There are some who believe that having reached so-called 
implementation day means that we have settled our scores with Iran, 
that there are no more concerns we have, and that we can now expect a 
complete and positive change in its behavior. But in my view this 
couldn't be further from the truth. Now more than ever, we cannot 
afford to take our attention away from Iran.
  My colleagues and I are on the floor today to explain why we must do 
more to strictly enforce this deal and to aggressively push back on 
Iran's bad behavior outside of the parameters of the nuclear deal. My 
personal concern is that if we don't, if we don't do this effectively, 
this important landmark nuclear agreement may not survive even into 
next year.
  Let me at the outset say that there have been some encouraging 
developments in recent days. It is hugely encouraging to see an 
American, a U.S. citizen such as Jason Rezaian from the Washington 
Post, return to United States soil and be reunited with his family. He 
is someone who had been unjustly detained and sentenced without 
foundation. He is now once again free. A journalist--the best and 
brightest of American journalism--is now free and back in the United 
States.
  I also want to recognize former marine Amir Hekmati, who was arrested 
while visiting his grandmother in Iran. He was also unjustly arrested 
and detained and is now also free in the United States.
  I wish to move to another topic by way of introduction. In the past 
week alone, the Iranians have signaled that Iran is open for business 
again as Iran's leaders have hosted Chinese's President Xi Jinping, and 
Iranian President Ruhani has traveled to Europe to meet with the Pope 
and with leading officials from the French Government and the Italian 
Government.
  Just a few weeks ago, Iran was still an international pariah. 
Business deals with the Iranian Government were illegal. Today, some 
foreign governments--some who are supposed to be our vital partners in 
enforcing the JCPOA--at times seem all too eager to resume business 
ties with the regime. At the outset I might caution those allies of 
ours to be mindful that American sanctions remain in place against 
Iranian bad behavior--whether it is their support for terrorism, their 
human rights violations, such as arresting and detaining Americans 
without foundation, or their illicit ballistic missile program.
  So to further expound on the challenges that we face and the 
importance of having the resources in the U.S. Government and in the 
international monitoring agency called the IAEA

[[Page 662]]

that we need to be successful in enforcing this deal, I wish to invite 
my colleague from the State of New Hampshire to rise for a few minutes 
and to share with us her thoughts, having served on the Foreign 
Relations Committee, having closely studied this deal, and having 
looked forward to what the opportunities and challenges are for us in 
the weeks and months ahead.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am delighted to be able to be here to 
join my colleague from Delaware to talk about what is happening with 
enforcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
  If we want this to succeed, one of the things we need to do is to 
make sure we support the IAEA, the international agency that is charged 
with monitoring and verifying Iran's compliance with the agreement. I 
want to address that first, and then I wish to talk about some national 
security nominees who are also critical as we think about how we 
enforce this deal.
  First, we all know that the IAEA is absolutely critical to the 
international nonproliferation system and to the enforcement of the 
JCPOA. Their employees are working day in and day out to verify 
critical aspects of the implementation of the agreement that prevents 
Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
  For example, on December 28, Iran shipped more than 12 tons of low-
enriched uranium to Russia, where the fuel is stored in a facility that 
is guarded by the IAEA. The IAEA has increased the number of its 
inspectors on the ground in Iran. They have deployed modern 
technologies to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities, and they have set up 
a comprehensive oversight program of Iran's nuclear facilities.
  The IAEA is constantly enhancing and improving its efforts. For 
example, earlier this month they installed the online enrichment 
monitor, or OLEM, to verify that Iran keeps its level of uranium 
enrichment at up to 3.67 percent, as they committed to under the JCPOA 
to keep it at that 3.67-percent level. This prevents Iran from 
enriching uranium to a point where it could conceivably be used in a 
nuclear weapon.
  This is new technology. It was developed by the IAEA with significant 
support from American scientists at our Department of Energy national 
labs.
  As a result of the JCPOA, this new system can be used in Iran.
  The IAEA resources devoted to verification and monitoring are also 
increasing considerably with personnel devoted to monitoring Iran's 
nuclear program increasing by 120 percent and the number of days 
monitors spend in the field by 100 percent. If we want the IAEA to be 
successful in making sure this agreement is successful, we need to 
provide robust financial support so that they can deploy the best 
scientists in the world for inspections and so that they can deploy the 
best equipment to monitor Iran's compliance.
  IAEA Director General Amano has called on member states to provide 
long-term funding for the IAEA's additional activities in Iran that are 
estimated at approximately $10 million a year. If we think about this 
cost, that is a very good investment for America as we prevent Iran 
from getting a nuclear weapon.
  I have other colleagues on the floor who wish to speak. So I can wait 
and talk about nominees after they have had a chance to speak, if that 
makes sense.
  

  Mr. COONS. That would be fine. I think there is a strong point being 
made by my colleague from New Hampshire that I will just briefly 
expound upon and then invite my colleague from New Jersey to join in 
this conversation.
  Earlier this month, I traveled with a number of my Senate colleagues 
to the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency and heard 
from them directly the same sorts of concerns my colleague from New 
Hampshire just laid down. They are struggling with how to ensure that 
they have the resources, the staffing, and the equipment to take on 
this remarkably broadened scope of inspections.
  One of the underappreciated, positive benefits of the JCPOA is that 
the IAEA now has unprecedented 24/7 access not just to Iran's nuclear 
enrichment sites but to its centrifuge production workshops, its 
uranium mines mills, the entire so-called fuel cycle for the production 
of nuclear material within Iran. So I believe, as does my colleague 
from New Hampshire, that the IAEA needs and deserves greater funding, 
more reliable funding, more robust and long-term funding.
  The oversight and monitoring mechanisms of the JCPOA, if strictly 
enforced, can serve as a viable deterrent to Iran's cheating and, in a 
worst-case scenario, provide the international community with early 
warning and enough time to respond if Iran decides to break out and 
dash to a nuclear weapons capability. But access to all of these sites 
is only valuable if the IAEA has the resources it needs and has asked 
for to conduct thorough inspections.
  So my colleagues and I will be working together with the 
administration and others of our colleagues in the months ahead to 
authorize not just an adequate level of funding of 1 year or 2 years in 
advance but to put in place a long-term, reliable source of funding. As 
my colleague from New Hampshire said, there could be no better 
investment than in ensuring deterrence through vigorous and 
comprehensive inspections to prevent Iran from ever renewing its dream 
of access to a nuclear weapon. We will press the administration to work 
with all of us on this and to make this a higher priority going 
forward.
  The idea that we have world-class nuclear scientists in the United 
States and that the IAEA has world-class nuclear inspectors and 
together they have developed new technologies and can deploy highly 
skilled teams to do this monitoring in Iran is a great opportunity, but 
it is only meaningful if we contribute the resources to ensure that 
those inspectors do their jobs.
  So let me turn to our colleague from the State of New Jersey who 
wants to speak about some of the pros and cons of this critical 
turning-point implementation.
  Mr. BOOKER. I thank my colleague, and Senator Shaheen as well, for 
emphasizing what I think needs to be emphasized, which is that we have 
in the IAEA an ability to do the most intrusive inspections ever before 
seen on the planet Earth. That agency--an important point Senator 
Shaheen was making--needs to be funded and funded well. We need to make 
sure the international community is standing there, and America needs 
to lead in that way.
  I anticipate hearing Senator Shaheen also make the point, though, 
that it is the height of malfeasance for us here in this country not to 
have people in the right places to do the other things necessary to 
hold Iran accountable. We can't sound like a hawk around the debate 
over the JCPOA and then sound like a chicken when it comes to putting 
the funding forward necessary to prevent them from engaging in 
destabilizing activities in the region. I am grateful Senator Shaheen 
will make that point further, but I just want to review again what has 
been accomplished come implementation date because it is still an 
extraordinary victory for diplomacy, taking the spectre of a nuclear-
armed Iran and evaporating, eviscerating, pushing it back at least for 
15 years.
  In that region, we now have the spectre of a nuclear-armed Iran 
pulled back, and we have the ability of moving forward with greater 
diplomacy. In order to get there, some pretty extraordinary things have 
happened. We have now effectively blocked Iran's uranium pathway to a 
bomb, with 12 tons of enriched stockpile--virtually all of its 
stockpile--shipped out of its country, and two-third of Iran's 
centrifuges have been taken offline. So there has been a significant 
removal of Iran's pathway.
  In addition, we have blocked the plutonium pathway. The heavy water 
reactor in Iran has been filled with concrete. It is no longer 
operational. It has been permanently disabled. This makes sure that 
pathway to producing weapons-grade plutonium has been eliminated for 
the foreseeable years in the future.

[[Page 663]]

  Again, it has established unprecedented monitoring. The IAEA has 
gained unprecedented 24/7 access to all of Iran's nuclear facilities, 
including the pathway toward a weapon. Now we have intrusive monitoring 
and intelligence-gathering capabilities we never had before.
  Most recently, Secretary Kerry was able to call upon his Iranian 
counterpart to secure the release of sailors. The reason why I say that 
is the quick turnaround of the sailors being released shows that these 
historic steps of the JCPOA have put us in an environment where 
diplomacy works in other critical areas.
  Now, let's be clear, and these are important points I want to make. 
We must remain vigilant as a Congress and we must be vigilant in this 
body to make sure that other areas of Iran's activities are being 
watched in every single way and that there are repercussions for any 
Iranian violations of its nuclear agreements. This first step is 
impressive and historic and has really done a lot of good in removing 
that nuclear threat for at least 10 to 15 years, but it must come with 
real repercussions for any violations. The only way to ensure that the 
path of diplomacy is validated is to hold Iran accountable. It must 
meet all of the commitments--not just those for implementation day but 
during the whole process of the JCPOA for the many years ahead.
  Again, the oversight and engagement of Congress on monitoring 
provisions of this agreement are absolutely vital. That is in many ways 
a chorus of conviction amongst my colleagues speaking here tonight to 
make unmistakably clear that we have eyes and ears on this agreement. 
All of my colleagues are saying on the floor today that we expect Iran 
to test the bounds of the JCPOA, but if there are signs that Iran is 
not abiding by the terms of the agreement, we are firm in our 
conviction that Congress must not hesitate to levy new economic 
sanctions, isolate Iran diplomatically and financially, and use 
security and military measures if that is what it takes to keep them 
from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
  Iran's obligations under the JCPOA are ongoing and must be 
continually verified. It is one thing for Iran to cooperate 
sufficiently to achieve the transfer of frozen assets and the 
dismantling of the international sanctions regime; it is quite another 
for it to cooperate in an ongoing basis after these aims have been 
achieved. That is the responsibility of the administration and this 
Congress.
  The JCPOA must serve as one part of a larger strategy with Iran. This 
is about the nuclear agreement and pushing back the spectre of a 
nuclear-armed Iran. But this is just one part--it must be just one part 
of a larger strategy with Iran. The diplomatic success with the JCPOA 
is commendable, but tensions between our closest partners in the region 
and Iran remain high. I was just there, and we saw the concerns of the 
Israelis, of Saudi Arabia, of Turkey. Iran is continuing its 
destabilizing activities, testing ballistic missiles, and further 
flaming tensions in the region. These events demand that we be even 
more attentive and engaged so that our allies and others know that the 
United States will not hesitate in the face of Iran's continued 
defiance of international rules. The implementation of the JCPOA is 
again an important step, but as a stand-alone strategy, it is just not 
enough.
  In addition, Iran has been a bad actor in nonnuclear areas, and the 
United States needs to hold it responsible. Therefore, in addition to 
the accountability measures we are taking with the nuclear regime, 
there must be an understanding that we cannot allow the Iranians to 
grow the shadow of this agreement to cover all their other nonnuclear 
destabilizing activities. Congress and the administration must be 
prepared and must be willing to levy appropriate economic sanctions 
needed to respond robustly to these destabilizing activities.
  I believe it is unacceptable for us to move forward in any way that 
allows Iran to flaunt international law to violate any of the balance 
of the agreements we have made. We need to make sure we meet them. Iran 
could try to use the additional funds they receive through this deal to 
do things that undermine regional security. That cannot be allowed. We 
must continue to work closely with our allies and respond to every 
single bit of Iranian aggression that undermines international order 
and violates international regions.
  With that, I turn back to Senator Coons to continue this dialogue.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey.
  I wish to emphasize a point he made. We need to remain vigilant. We 
need to remain ready to impose additional sanctions on those actions by 
Iran that are outside the JCPOA. We saw two launches of ballistic 
missiles by Iran late last year, designations recently having been made 
of those involved in supporting Iran's ballistic missile program.
  There is other bad behavior by Iran--violations of human rights that 
led to the long and unjust detention of Amir Hekmati and also 
potentially their increased support for terrorism in the region.
  I invite my colleague from New Hampshire to help us understand what 
barriers there might be to the administration vigorously enforcing the 
sanctions that remain on the books here in the United States if we as a 
body don't act to do our part in making sure the administration has the 
resources they need.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank Senator Coons.
  As we know, one of the challenges is having people in place in the 
various agencies who can enforce this agreement and hold Iran 
accountable. That is where I think we have a real challenge because we 
have a number of nominees who need to be approved, but there are three 
who stand out as particularly important. First is Tom Shannon, who was 
nominated to be the State Department's Under Secretary for Political 
Affairs. Second is Laura Holgate, who is nominated to be the U.S. 
Ambassador to U.N. offices in Vienna. Included in those offices is the 
IAEA. The third and maybe even the most important as we think about 
future sanctions on Iran is Adam Szubin, who has been nominated as the 
Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial 
Crimes.
  Shannon was nominated on September 18. This nomination is currently 
on the floor. Holgate was nominated on August 5. Her nomination is 
pending in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Szubin was nominated 
on April 16, and his nomination has been held up in the Banking 
Committee despite the support he has from the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee.
  I know a number of my other colleagues are going to speak to these 
nominees, but I would like to point out that last week we had a hearing 
in the Foreign Relations Committee on the implementation of the JCPOA, 
and one of the witnesses who had not been a supporter of the 
agreement--Michael Singh--was a witness at that committee hearing. I 
asked him about Adam Szubin. He described him as a ``good guy who had 
done great work for the country'' and as someone whose nomination 
should go forward because it would allow us to continue to look at the 
sanctions regime and what we need to do.
  The reality is--and I am sorry to say this because I think it 
contributes to what the American public is concerned about when they 
look at us in Washington and what we are doing. I think these 
nominations are being held up for purely political reasons. It has 
nothing to do with the background of these candidates, with their 
expertise, or with what they would do on the job; this is about 
individuals within this body who are trying to hold up these people for 
their own political gain. I think this delay is harming the national 
security interests of the United States. It is something every one of 
us ought to be concerned about, and we ought to be yelling about this 
because it is long past time that we confirm these individuals, let 
them do their jobs, and continue to do everything we can to protect 
this Nation's national security.
  I thank Senator Coons for organizing all of us to come to the floor 
today to

[[Page 664]]

talk about what we need to do as we are implementing the joint plan of 
action.
  Mr. COONS. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
  I want to emphasize again that these three nominees--Tom Shannon, 
Laura Holgate, and Adam Szubin--have been waiting for months. In 
particular, Adam Szubin is a nonpartisan career professional, having 
served in both the Bush and Obama administrations. Being the lead 
enforcer, the lead investigator in sanctions, he has now been nominated 
to take on the top role at the Department of Treasury in making sure 
our sanctions have bite and stick.
  Why wouldn't we proceed on a bipartisan basis to give this 
administration the senior officials and the resources it needs to 
enforce sanctions, to keep us safe, to make sure this nuclear deal is 
enforced? Whether we voted for or against it, supported it or opposed 
it, I can't comprehend why any Senator would consent to the ongoing 
months-long delay in these vital nominees being confirmed so that the 
administration can do the job that I believe all of us want them to do, 
which is to enforce sanctions against Iran for its bad behavior.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. COONS. Of course.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. It is my understanding that Adam Szubin has been held 
up and we have never heard a reason why he is being held up in that 
committee. Is that the Senator's understanding as well?
  Mr. COONS. That is my understanding as well. There is no publicly 
articulated basis--certainly no basis that has anything do with his 
qualifications, skills, experience or relevance to the job--as is the 
case with all three of these nominees.
  There are many other nominees we could be talking about, whether for 
judgeships, ambassadorships or senior positions. These three we have 
chosen to focus on today because they are so directly relevant to 
America's national security and to the successful enforcement of this 
complex nuclear deal with Iran.
  As I said, and Senator Shaheen and Senator Booker said earlier, the 
IAEA has incredibly broad scope to investigate what is going on in 
Iran, but if we don't have the senior people in our government, in the 
administration, that can take action when things are discovered in Iran 
that we want to be active in taking on or when there is bad behavior 
outside of this nuclear agreement, we have no one to blame but 
ourselves as a body for failing to provide our administration with the 
senior leadership and the skills and the resources needed to really 
defend America.
  I wish to encourage and invite my colleague from the State of 
Connecticut to add, as he wishes today, both the positives about 
implementation day and the concerns he might have going forward, such 
as these vital national security nominees whom Senator Shaheen and I 
have been discussing.
  Senator Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY. Senator Coons, thank you for convening us.
  I think it is important to restate the progress we have made. I know 
it has been said before, but frankly not enough attention has been paid 
to the fact that since implementation day Iran has shipped 12 tons of 
enriched uranium out of Iran and kept enrichment at that 3.67 level, 
which is significantly below what is necessary to create a bomb. They 
filled the core of the Iraq plutonium reactor with concrete, preventing 
them from producing weapons-grade plutonium. They started to allow the 
IAEA access to the entire nuclear fuel cycle or uranium enrichment, 
including their centrifuge production shops and uranium mines and 
mills.
  Of course, as has been stated before, the IAEA has been given an 
unprecedented level of access to the entirety of the supply chain 
leading up to any future potential development of a nuclear weapon. 
That is an unprecedented level of access that will require an 
unprecedented level of support. We are talking about an additional 
$10.6 million per year that the IAEA is going to need to carry out 
these oversight responsibilities. The United States puts up a 
percentage of IAEA's funding, but it is still the minority of funding.
  One development that we need to guard against are attempts in 
Congress to undermine this agreement in very quiet, subtle ways. There 
is a bill that has been introduced in the House of Representatives that 
would disallow the United States from funding the IAEA unless it grants 
the United States access to the contents of proprietary bilateral 
arrangements. That would have the results of stripping the funding 
necessary to carry out this agreement. If the IAEA doesn't get U.S. 
funding, it simply can't have the purview it has been granted, by 
virtue of this agreement, of the entire field cycle throughout the 
country.
  As important as it is to get the personnel in place who can enforce 
this agreement, who can root out the ways in which Iran may take money 
they get by virtue of this deal and support terrorism in the region, it 
is also important to make sure the IAEA is properly funded as well.
  Senator Coons, the only comment I would add to this discussion is 
this. I think for those of us who supported this agreement--I will 
speak for myself. I supported it because this was the most effective 
way to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon--period, stop. With 
this agreement, we were much more likely to prevent Iran from obtaining 
a nuclear weapon than we were without this agreement, but we certainly 
accepted the premise that it is in our long-term security and strategic 
interest as a country to facilitate the transition of power within Iran 
from the hardliners who have chosen a path of Iranian foreign policy to 
be simply a provocateur and an irritant in the region to the more 
moderate elements who would like to see Iran reengage on big questions 
of both regional and global security.
  I don't think you can count on that happening. I don't think anybody 
should have voted for this agreement or supported this agreement 
because they were counting on that being the end result, but you have 
started to see a different level of engagement, whether it is with the 
release of the prisoners as you spoke about, whether it was about the 
resolution of the detainment of U.S. personnel, and we will shortly see 
whether this battle that plays out almost every day inside Iran is 
ultimately accruing to the benefit of the moderates. We will have 
elections next month in Iran.
  I think we should support this agreement because it strips from Iran 
the ability to rush to a nuclear weapon, and you see the evidence 
already in the steps they have taken since the implementation 
agreement, but I think we should read with some level of positive 
interpretation some of the resolution of crises that we have seen just 
in the time passed over the course of 2016. That doesn't mean there 
aren't still enormous issues still at stake, but it is in our security 
interests, and it was part of the discussion of this agreement to 
ultimately bring Iran to a place in which the will of the vast majority 
of that country be expressed in the leaders who speak to the world 
community.
  I thank Senator Coons for continuing to bring us down to the floor. I 
think as important as it is to talk about the positive steps that have 
been taken since implementation day, it is also important to note that 
we have a lot of work undone--whether it be funding the IAEA, 
confirming these important positions--and we have a lot of work to do 
in terms of remaining vigilant about the quiet, subtle ways that may be 
undertaken in this body and across the hall in the House of 
Representatives to try to undermine this deal that is working.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. COONS. I wish to thank my colleague from Connecticut for his 
active leadership role on the Foreign Relations Committee and his deep 
interest in this topic.
  By way of transition to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I briefly 
want to point out this picture of the Arak heavy water reactor in Iran. 
To me, it

[[Page 665]]

is a symbol of both what implementation day and the JCPOA letter 
promises positively and the unresolved risks it presents.
  Implementation day has only been reached because the IAEA--the 
International Atomic Energy Agency--certified to the world that Iran 
had taken the very core of this reactor, capable of producing weapons-
grade plutonium, and filled it with concrete, rendering it useless for 
the production of significant quantities of plutonium. That is a 
significant step forward, but when a reporter asked me the other day: 
Does Iran still pose a nuclear threat to the United States and our 
vital ally Israel, I said: Of course. When asked why, I said because 
they still possess the knowledge, the resources, the engineering, the 
uranium in the ground, in the mines, in the mills of their country, and 
the engineers and the facilities to at some point enrich once again to 
weapons grade. If we don't stay on this, if we don't fund the IAEA 
effectively to conduct this oversight and these inspections, if we 
don't stay attentive to this issue, we will simply wake up again at a 
point 5, 10, 15 years from now and discover that what we have in Iran 
is a nation that has translated its natural resources, its rich uranium 
deposits, and its engineering know-how into once again being in a place 
to threaten the world.
  I wish to invite my colleague from Pennsylvania to talk about how our 
regional vital allies perceive the path forward and what concerns he 
has and how he sees implementation day.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I first of all thank Senator Coons and my 
other colleagues who are working on this. It is very important to walk 
through where we are in the process. If I had to step back at this 
moment and say: Well, now that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 
is moving forward and we are beyond implementation day, what do we have 
to look for over time? If I had to boil that down to three words--
really three goals we must work toward every day. On some days it has 
to be the United States on its own and other days working with allies, 
those who participated in this agreement and signed it and partners in 
the region--but the three words I guess would be as implementation is 
going forward, we have to focus on three goals: enforce, counter, and 
deter. Enforce, making sure the agreement is enforced at every step. I 
will get to the issue of the consequences for violations of the 
agreement. Counter, meaning countering the Iranian aggression in the 
region. That is why it was so important that the President and the 
administration he leads was very clear about the designation and the 
sanctioning of the Iranian regime as it relates to ballistic missile 
launches and their activity. The third is deter. We have to have a 
deterrence policy that stays in place and, if anything, is strengthened 
over time.
  If we do a good job on those three things over the next several 
decades--literally--enforcing the agreement, countering the aggression, 
and deterring them--we will have the result we want years from now.
  First of all, on the question of consequences, similar to a lot of 
Members of the Senate when I made a decision about the agreement, I 
wrote down page after page walking through my reasons. At the time I 
wrote the following: ``We have to prepare for the possibility that the 
Iranian regime may violate the agreement and may even engage in 
activity constituting significant non-compliance with the JCPOA.''
  That is what I wrote several months ago. That still holds true today. 
We must not trust in Iran's compliance. In fact, some may say that 
using President Reagan's old formula, which was ``trust but verify''--
and I will be blunt about this, these are my words--in this case, until 
proven otherwise, we must mistrust and verify, mistrust the regime and 
verify. That is the nature of where things are right now.
  We have to vigorously verify any asserted reason or action the 
Iranians would take. Also, in the process of doing that, we have to 
work with our partners to ensure that any violations will be met with 
swift multilateral consequences. That means we need other nations to 
help us. We can't do this on our own.
  We cannot know whether and how the Iranian regime might violate the 
agreement. For example, we might see them drag their feet on allowing 
the IAEA access to certain nuclear sites, especially ones where covert 
activity may be suspected.
  I firmly believe hardliners in Iran will be watching how we respond 
to any violation. The best way to condition behavior, the best way to 
impact what they might do, the best way to cause them a second thought 
down the road is to aggressively enforce violations of the agreement.
  It is important we work in lock step with our European partners to 
prepare for these violations. I hope it doesn't come to pass, but I 
think we have to assume, and I will assume, that they will violate the 
agreement. Many of us met with our European friends before making 
decisions about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. We need to 
continue these conversations to ensure that as businesses and business 
ties increase between the Iranian regime and Europe and other parts of 
the world, we have to remain unified in our stance on the potential 
Iranian violations of the deal. That is about violations.
  The second and final point, briefly but so important to our 
deliberations and our actions, our friend and ally Israel, the 
relationship between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. We 
have to make sure that as we move forward with the implementation of 
the agreement, we insist that our policy reflects that unbreakable 
relationship and also continues what has been very strong support for 
Israel for many years, if not generations, now. We have to recognize at 
the same time that Israel faces significant threats from Iran and its 
proxies, especially Hezbollah and Hamas. We also have to assume that 
Iran will continue its aggression in the region. That is why I talked 
about countering that aggression before. And we have to assume that 
Iran will try to expand its support for terrorism.
  We have already taken some initial steps to expand cooperation with 
Israel on defense and homeland security, including beginning 
consultations toward a new 10-year memorandum of understanding, or MOU. 
That memorandum of understanding on defense cooperation is vital in 
initiating new efforts to address, among other threats, the terror 
tunnels Hamas has constructed, which threaten Israel all the time.
  I urge the administration to focus on the capabilities Israel 
requires to face both conventional and asymmetric threats and to ensure 
that the new memorandum of understanding constitutes a transformational 
investment--not just one budget year to the next budget year or 
appropriation to appropriation year--in our bilateral relationship with 
Israel going forward. We should all meet with Israeli leaders to hear 
their firsthand assessments of the threats and to reassert our mutual 
interests in countering Iranian aggression.
  I yield the microphone to my colleague Senator Coons again, but first 
I wish to thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership and for 
what I believe is a bipartisan determination that we have to do 
everything possible to enforce this agreement aggressively, with 
consequences when there is a violation, counter Iranian aggression in 
the region and beyond, and deter, deter, deter over what will be more 
than one generation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for 
his clear-eyed assessment of the challenges that lie ahead as we try to 
move past implementation day and into a positive world where together 
we might be able to provide the administration with the resources they 
need to enforce the agreement, counter Iran's bad behavior, and deter 
Iran from any further illicit or bad behavior.
  I wish to invite my colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, 
Senator Kaine of Virginia, to offer any thoughts he might care to share 
at this point before we bring this colloquy to a close.

[[Page 666]]

  I know Senator Kaine has followed the importance of the inspections 
regime under the JCPOA closely. As Senator Shaheen and I both 
referenced earlier, full and robust funding of the IAEA is the only way 
to ensure they really have the ability to enforce this agreement and 
make sure this heavy water reactor does not somehow get redesigned, 
reengineered, and restarted in the future.
  I invite my friend and colleague from Virginia to offer his thoughts 
on how to make sure we are effectively enforcing this deal.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for taking the floor 
on this important matter. While I serve on the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, I actually want to talk about this issue from my standpoint 
on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  I happen to believe that one of the most valuable military assets we 
have as a nation is information intelligence. In that capacity, what we 
have under the JCPOA is the dramatic ability to learn, sadly, from 
tragic mistakes.
  After more than a decade of war in Iraq and thousands of lives lost, 
we know that operating in an environment where we base national 
security decisions on what we don't know rather than what we do know 
can be tragically costly.
  Over the weekend, there was press about a recently declassified 
report from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on weapons of mass destruction. 
It was submitted to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 
September of 2002, around the time Congress and the administration were 
trying to decide whether to invade Iraq. The report that was given to 
the Secretary of Defense--and it was not widely shared with the 
administration or Congress at the time--confirmed that our officials at 
the very top levels of the intel and military community knew very 
little about the actual status of Iraq's WMD program. The report 
concluded that what we suspect is ``based largely--perhaps 90 percent--
on analysis of imprecise intelligence.''
  While the national security apparatus was acknowledging that it was 
operating in the dark, it was nevertheless planning for war.
  On March 7, 2003, 2 weeks before the beginning of the Iraq invasion, 
the IAEA presented to the U.N. an updated report on Iraq's nuclear 
activities. The report stated that they had conducted 218 nuclear 
inspections at 141 sites and concluded at the time that there was no 
indication of resumed nuclear activities since 1998, no indication that 
Iraq had attempted to import uranium since 1990, no indication that 
Iraq had imported aluminium tubes, and no indication that they had 
sought to import magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment. The IAEA 
said they had no information suggesting that Iraq had a WMD program 
specifically with nuclear weapons.
  We ignored what the IAEA told the U.N., the world, and us, and 
instead we went to war based upon a national intelligence estimate that 
said we didn't know what they were doing. That decision locked us into 
a decade of combat operations which resulted in a tragic cost. We know 
the rest of the story: 4,484 Americans lost their lives in connection 
with the war in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 and another 32,246 Americans 
were wounded. We also know that it turned out the IAEA was right. Once 
the war was waged and we got in and had our own ability to gather 
intelligence and information, we found out that Iraq didn't have a 
program of weapons of mass destruction, so we went to war based upon a 
faulty assessment and we didn't have the information we needed.
  Let's contrast what happened in 2002 and 2003 with the opportunity we 
now have before us as a result of the JCPOA. The agreement of Iran to 
follow for the next 25 years an enhanced inspection regime and be 
inspected by the IAEA to a standard that no other country in the world 
must follow is very unique. It will provide us and all of our 
international partners with significant intelligence about Iran's 
program. After year 25, Iran has also agreed to submit and follow the 
additional protocol of the IAEA, which also guarantees significant 
intelligence and inspections.
  What does that give us? It arms us with information. It arms us with 
facts. It arms us with intelligence. Those are some of the best 
military assets we can have. With intelligence, we obviously hope that 
Iran never makes a move to develop nuclear weapons, but if they do, 
with intelligence we can blow the whistle and inform the world that 
they are violating paragraph 1, page 1 of the agreement where they 
pledged never to seek, acquire, or develop nuclear weapons. With 
intelligence, we can make a wise decision rather than a blind decision 
as to whether we should send American men and women into war to try to 
stop a nuclear weapons program. With intelligence, we can even target 
military action to be more effective. That is what the JCPOA gives us 
that we didn't have before. That is what it gives us that we didn't 
have in Iraq, and we regret that we didn't have it.
  I say to the Senator from Delaware that I noticed during our recent 
visit to Israel that the tone seems to be changing a little bit as far 
as our dialogue with our Israeli allies about this deal because the 
dramatic nature of the intelligence is now being seen by our strong 
allies in Israel as something that is potentially transformative.
  Two days ago, the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces gave a 
speech in Tel Aviv. Gadi Eizenkot spoke on Monday at a national 
security conference in Tel Aviv and basically said that the nuclear 
deal with Iran constitutes a strategic turning point. He didn't 
whitewash it; he said ``many risks but also opportunities.'' What are 
the opportunities? He said the deal reduces the immediate Iranian 
threat to Israel because it rolls back Iran's nuclear capabilities and 
deepens the monitoring capabilities of the international community.
  After all the drama about how it was a historic mistake, how 
refreshing it was to go to Israel a few weeks ago and hear security and 
intel officials talk about what this enhanced intelligence meant with 
respect to Israel's security.
  We know there is no guarantee that a diplomatic deal will work out, 
and my colleagues have laid out the need for strict implementation, but 
we also know--and we have the scar tissue, so this is painful 
knowledge--that we are much safer if we have better information, we are 
much safer if we have better intel, and we will make much better 
decisions.
  I certainly pray that we will never again send American men and women 
into war based on a false intelligence assessment. The only way we can 
guard against that eventuality is to have stronger intelligence. The 
IAEA inspections will give us better intelligence and should help us 
make better military decisions in the future.
  With that, I yield the floor back to my friend from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. We had a 
terrific experience traveling together to Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, 
and Vienna. In Vienna, we met with the leadership of the IAEA. We asked 
tough questions and learned more about their needs and plans for 
thoroughly inspecting every aspect of Iran's nuclear program. We heard 
about the concerns of our close regional allies in Turkey and Saudi 
Arabia.
  We need to strengthen our partnership with regional allies who are 
uncertain about the future with ISIS but who were, frankly, grateful 
for the increased intelligence partnerships between the United States, 
Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, but most importantly with our vital ally 
Israel, as the good Senator from Virginia has recounted. We heard from 
the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, opposition leadership, and 
intelligence and defense community leaders that the partnership with 
the United States is stronger than it has ever been and that they view 
this path forward with Iran as having challenges and opportunities--
opportunities in terms of intelligence to be gained, opportunities in 
terms of pushing back on what was a rapidly advancing Iranian nuclear 
infrastructure and

[[Page 667]]

program, and now a challenge--a challenge to work together and provide 
exactly the sort of oversight and engagement that only a duly-empowered 
and active Congress can take.
  Let me close out the colloquy of six Senators by making a few simple 
observations, if I might. Congress has an essential role to play in 
ensuring that this nuclear deal with Iran moves forward and moves 
forward in our best national interest. Congress should not only provide 
oversight but also take action. The simplest is a point about which 
Senator Shaheen spoke at length--the importance of securing key 
national security nominees essential to the enforcement of sanctions.
  We can also take proactive action here in this Chamber by passing the 
Iran Policy Oversight Act. Its drafting was led by Senator Cardin of 
Maryland, but a dozen other colleagues--some who opposed and some who 
supported the deal--joined in as initial cosponsors. It is a bill that 
would clarify some ambiguous provisions of the JCPOA, establish in 
statute America's commitment to enforcing the deal, engage us in more 
comprehensive efforts to counter Iranian activity in the Middle East, 
and provide increased support to our allies in the region, especially 
our valued ally Israel. This is a step this body can and should take, 
and to do so would be much in the bipartisan spirit we saw in the 
Foreign Relations Committee between Chairman Corker and Ranking Member 
Cardin that produced the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
  I think passing the Iran Policy Oversight Act would be a strong and 
important contribution by this Chamber.
  Speaking for only myself, I will also say that I think we should 
reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act, which is set to expire this year. 
Having that law reauthorized would provide a viable framework through 
which the United States could snap back sanctions if Iran violated the 
JCPOA.
  Each of the ideas we have outlined--confirming vital national 
security nominees; passing enforcement legislation; and fully funding, 
reliably and for the long term, the IAEA, the inspections watchdog that 
is supposed to keep a close and persistent eye on Iran's nuclear 
facilities represents critical--these represent critical, concrete 
steps Congress can take.
  If the United States alone cannot enforce this complex deal, we have 
to keep building international support for the imposition of new 
sanctions to punish Iran for its ongoing human rights abuses, its 
illegal ballistic missile activity, and its support for terrorism in 
the Middle East.
  If we are going to be serious about our constitutional role to 
provide for the common defense and general welfare, I would argue that 
we here in the Senate have a sacred obligation to provide not only 
oversight of this deal but to also take action and enforce its terms 
and push back on Iran's bad behavior and to demonstrate to the world 
that the United States is serious about securing a peaceful, nuclear-
free future, as difficult as that may be, for the Middle East.
  With that, I thank my colleagues who joined me here on the floor and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the bill we have on 
the floor and how important I think it is not only to my State but to 
our United States in terms of our energy security and energy policy 
modernization.
  I rise to support the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016. I 
think this legislation recognizes the critical need to improve our 
Nation's energy infrastructure and how we can use our natural 
resources.
  I commend Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell for their 
hard work to get this bill on the floor. I am honored to be a member of 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The open process they led 
in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as the Presiding Officer 
knows, resulted in a strong bipartisan vote of 18 to 4 in support of 
this bill.
  I think it goes without saying, but this country needs an updated, 
comprehensive policy that brings an ``all of the above'' approach to 
the way we utilize energy. This is the first major energy legislation 
to be considered by the Senate since 2007. This bill will help make our 
homes, our cars, our public buildings--think about how old and 
inefficient a lot of our public buildings are, including our schools--
more energy efficient. It will help improve our parks and lands through 
the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  This bill will enhance our ability to fully utilize our vast natural 
resources so that we remain and become even more energy secure in the 
years to come.
  There are few people who know energy potential better than the people 
of West Virginia. West Virginia's Marcellus region has the largest 
shale gas reserves in the United States. It is really a magnificent 
thing to watch as it is developing. It is a job creator, an excitement 
creator, and a revenue generator. It is a reason to have a revitalized 
part of our State come alive as we participate in the energy economy. 
Coupled with the nearby Utica region, these two shale formations have 
accounted for major increases in natural gas production since 2012.
  West Virginia's natural gas production has nearly quadrupled between 
the years 2008 and 2014. As I said earlier, it has happened fast and 
quick, and it has really exploded throughout the region in terms of job 
creation.
  Unfortunately, despite this unprecedented increase in natural gas 
recovery, our producers have been underserved by a lack of pipeline 
capacity. Nobody knew this existed until just in the last 10, 12 years. 
Our current permitting process for pipelines can take years. It is slow 
and uncertain, which means delayed construction, if we get to 
construction, and, in turn, delayed manufacturing projects and access 
to affordable energy. Many manufacturers across this country rely on 
cheap, affordable natural gas, not just as an energy producer but in 
our chemical industries as feedstock to create.
  Last spring, the Charleston Daily Mail editorialized that ``the big 
gas boom that has increased employment and tax revenue in West Virginia 
has slowed considerably less due to slowing markets than a lack of 
pipeline infrastructure to carry the burgeoning supplies.''
  Earlier this month, the Clarksburg Exponent Telegram, another fine 
newspaper in West Virginia, editorialized that ``the promise of more 
than 18,000 jobs tied to the construction of six interstate gas 
pipelines is the last hope for prosperity for a generation of Mountain 
State residents.'' The paper continued that regulatory delays are 
slowing these important projects.
  West Virginia has been hard hit by job loss in the energy sector. 
Just this week, more than 850 West Virginia coal miners received 
notices that their jobs may be at risk. They join more than 500 other 
West Virginia miners who were informed after the start of this year 
that they would be losing their jobs, not to mention that the whole 
total job loss in the coal economy in my State has been 10,000 direct 
jobs, as miners as well as some other indirect jobs that contribute to 
the mining industry, most recently CSX and Norfolk Southern, are 
announcing cutbacks.
  Moving forward with improvements to our energy infrastructure will 
create construction jobs and economic opportunity in my State, where 
both are desperately needed. That is why I am pleased that this bill 
includes language that I introduced, along with Senators Heitkamp and 
Cassidy, that would address the fragmented and prolonged permitting 
process for pipelines. This provision will streamline the application 
process so pipelines can be constructed in a more timely and efficient 
manner and will meet our energy transportation needs, along with 
meeting the environmental requirements that we feel are proper in order 
to site the pipelines.
  The provision establishes FERC as the lead agency for the permitting 
process. This helps to address any interagency squabbles or disputes 
that can lead to project delay.
  We must make use of our natural resources to grow our domestic 
manufacturing. We should also use our abundant gas reserves to export 
liquefied

[[Page 668]]

natural gas to our allies. A strong export policy will bring jobs and 
revenue to producing States such as my State of West Virginia and to 
many others across the country. It will also help with energy security 
for our allies in Europe and Japan at a time of growing instability 
around the globe.
  This bill includes Senator Barrasso's bill to expedite LNG export 
permitting so that natural gas produced here in America can be sold to 
our allies around the world. Going forward, innovation will be a key 
component in powering West Virginia's energy economy.
  In addition to our rich natural gas reserves, West Virginia has been 
one of the major producers of coal for energy generation in this 
country for decades--centuries. My State and our Nation have faced an 
uphill battle in the administration's war on coal, despite the fact 
that coal still remains America's baseload energy source. We need a 
commonsense approach to coal-fired energy generation, one that doesn't 
simply try to eliminate it but instead incorporates it into a modern, 
innovative energy policy.
  That is why I cosponsored language included in this bill, with 
Senators Manchin and Portman, that will revitalize the fossil energy 
program at the Department of Energy. This program is critical to the 
research and development of new technologies that make fossil energy 
more efficient and more reliable, while at the same time reducing 
emissions.
  One of the most promising advances in fossil energy technology is 
carbon capture utilization and storage. Not only will this technology 
ensure that our significant coal reserves are part of an overall 
strategy, but it could also be used for enhanced oil recovery that will 
further strengthen our energy security.
  A modern energy policy must recognize that coal and natural gas will 
remain a key part of our Nation's energy portfolio for decades to come. 
I think everybody agrees that the baseload needs to be there. By acting 
now to support infrastructure and innovation, we can support jobs and 
grow our economy for future generations.
  I started out my speech talking about the way this bill moved through 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and how bipartisan it was 
and how we worked out the wrinkles. I, again, wish to thank Chairwoman 
Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell for the way they wove through a 
very complicated procedure.
  This bipartisan legislation is critical to all Americans and their 
families. It means more efficient, affordable, and reliable energy for 
millions of people. It makes us energy secure and more competitive with 
other countries in innovative energy and efficiency technologies.
  These are the reasons why I support this important piece of 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak about an 
amendment I have filed and that will soon reach the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, we don't yet know the exact number of the 
amendment because we are refiling a minor correction to it. However, I 
wish to talk about a very critical amendment that I and a number of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle are bringing to the legislation 
today dealing with nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the key 
elements of our national energy policy, and it must be one that is 
strengthened and improved as we move forward into the new global energy 
climate that we are dealing with in this country.
  I wish to start out, however, by going back in time. Sixty-four years 
ago, in a desert plain near Arco, ID, the Idaho National Reactor 
Testing Station used the Experimental Breeder Reactor, known as EBR-1, 
to light four lightbulbs. This was the first time in the history of the 
world that a nuclear reactor was used to generate electrical power. 
This singular event proved that atomic energy could be used to create 
commercial electricity.
  After this momentous event, EBR-1 went on to serve its real purpose, 
proving it was possible to build a reactor that could create more fuel 
than it consumed. Breeder reactors were possible. Another reactor at 
the National Reactor Testing Station named BORAX-III went on to power 
the entire town of Arco, ID. Now, Arco is not a huge metropolis like 
New York City, but there, once again, a nuclear reactor was used to 
provide the electrical needs of an entire city--another energy first 
for nuclear energy in our history. So began the legacy of what would 
become the Idaho National Laboratory, which is now the home of over 50 
one-of-a-kind nuclear reactors.
  Everything the lab did was new. Everything was innovative. The lab in 
Idaho went on to achieve tremendous breakthroughs--breakthrough after 
breakthrough. The imagination, ingenuity and hard work of the 
scientists in Idaho's lab now, along with the same ingenuity of 
scientists at Argonne and Oak Ridge, ensured that the United States was 
the leader in the development and commercialization of nuclear energy.
  Today, many in the industry are focusing on what it takes to keep a 
current fleet of reactors alive and operational. Industry leaders are 
worried about waste issues, the economics of operation, and navigating 
the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Understandably, 
many are not focused on the future of nuclear energy and what lies 
beyond the current generation of reactors.
  Congress must find a way to help deal with the very real challenges 
that the current generation of nuclear reactors face. Congress must 
also address the waste issue, and we must evaluate the safety and cost 
benefits of regulations the government has placed on this industry. 
Many of the burdens on the nuclear industry are government created, and 
so they must be government solved. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to do our part 
in providing sound solutions.
  Congress needs to find a way to multitask. Again, we can't ignore the 
challenges of the current fleet of reactors, but we must not allow 
these challenges to keep us from looking forward. The nuclear industry 
in America is, for better or worse, completely controlled by the 
government. Congress must lead in preparing government agencies to move 
forward into the future and to prepare for the next generation of our 
nuclear reactors. If our government is not able to create an 
environment in which the industry can grow and advance, companies will 
take their technologies overseas. We have seen this begin to happen 
already. Companies are now going to places such as China, Russia, South 
Korea, and India. These countries want to develop exportable nuclear 
technology. If we continue down our current path, these countries will 
take the lead in establishing nonproliferation norms and safety norms 
in the advanced nuclear industry. I would prefer that America continue 
to lead in this area.
  Today, Senators Whitehouse, Risch, Booker, Hatch, Kirk, Durbin, and I 
introduced the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, or NEICA, as 
an amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016. This 
measure is the Senate companion to the House measure of the same name, 
introduced by Representatives Randy Weber, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and 
Lamar Smith. I wish to thank my colleagues for their hard work on this 
measure. As my colleagues can tell from the list I gave, it is highly 
bipartisan. There is broad support for this legislation on both sides 
of the aisle and on both sides of the Rotunda.
  We are all very excited by this legislation, and we all agree that 
innovation within the nuclear industry must continue. America's 
preeminence in all things nuclear must endure.
  The Senate version of NEICA would do four very important things to 
encourage innovation in advanced nuclear.
  No. 1, the bill directs the Department of Energy to carry out a 
modeling and

[[Page 669]]

simulation program that aids in the development of new reactor 
technologies. This is an important first step that allows the private 
sector to have access to the capabilities of our national labs to test 
reactor designs and concepts.
  No. 2, the measure also requires the DOE to report its plan to 
establish a user facility for a versatile reactor-based fast neutron 
source. This is a critical step that will allow private companies the 
ability to test the principles of nuclear science and prove the science 
behind their work.
  No. 3, NEICA directs the Department of Energy to carry out a program 
to enable the testing and demonstration of reactor concepts proposed 
and funded by the private sector. This site is to be called the 
National Nuclear Innovation Center and will function as a database to 
store and share knowledge on nuclear science between Federal agencies 
and the private sector. The Senate version of NEICA encourages the 
Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to work 
together in this effort. We would like to see the DOE lead the effort 
to establish and operate the National Nuclear Innovation Center while 
consulting with the NRC regarding safety issues. We would also like to 
see the NRC have access to the work being done by the center in order 
to provide its staff with the knowledge it will need eventually to 
license any new reactors coming out of the center. If these reactors 
are ever to get to the market, the NRC must be able to understand the 
ins and outs of the science and work behind their development. The NRC 
needs the data in order to make data-driven licensing requirements.
  No. 4, the Senate version of the NEICA requires the NRC to report on 
its ability to license advanced reactors within 4 years of receiving an 
application. The NRC must explain any institutional or organizational 
barriers it faces in moving forward with the prompt licensing of 
advanced reactors.
  As I said earlier, this bill is an important step forward in 
maintaining the United States' leadership in nuclear energy. It is my 
hope this bill will enable the private sector and our national labs to 
work together to create new mind-blowing achievements in nuclear 
science. This bill encourages the smartest, most innovative and 
creative minds in nuclear science to partner together to move the 
industry forward.
  The NEICA is an exciting piece of legislation. I look forward to 
working with my congressional colleagues to help the American nuclear 
energy industry thrive today and prepare for the future.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________