[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13643-13658]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this Republican Senate that had such 
promise, according to the Republicans, has been a flop. The Senate 
hasn't kept its word to the Nation. When Republicans assumed the 
majority in the Senate, the Republican leader made grand promises to 
the American people. He pledged bipartisanship. He promised to bring an 
end to the Senate's dysfunction, which he spearheaded.
  As I mentioned this morning on the floor, how many filibusters Lyndon 
Johnson overcame in his 6 years as a majority leader is debatable--
there was one for sure and maybe two--but it is easy to figure out as 
far as when I was majority leader for 8 years. There were 644 
Republican filibusters.
  The Republican leader pledged that the Senate would do its work. For 
all his lofty rhetoric, the Republican leader has failed to fill his 
promises time and time again. There is no better example than the 
Senate Republicans' refusal to consider the nomination of Merrick 
Garland to be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Judge Merrick 
Garland was nominated by President Obama 195 days ago. For 195 days, 
Republicans have blocked this good man from getting a hearing or a vote 
in spite of the fact that Merrick Garland is extremely qualified.
  Some ask, why wouldn't they hold a hearing? It is obvious. Merrick 
Garland would show the American people what kind of a man he is, what 
kind of a judge he would be, and it would be very hard for the 
Republicans to vote against him. So they decided to double down and not 
even allow a hearing. Even Republicans can't dispute his 
qualifications. The senior Senator from Utah, who formerly chaired the 
Judiciary Committee, said that there was ``no question'' that Garland 
could be confirmed and that he would be a ``consensus nominee.'' No one 
questions Judge Garland's education, his qualifications, his judicial 
temperament, his experience, or his integrity, but Senate Republicans 
refuse to give this person a hearing. It is shameful.
  So I ask, where is the bipartisanship? The Republicans and Democrats 
agree that this man is exceptionally qualified. Yet his nomination 
languishes day after day, week after week, now month after month.
  Where is the end of the dysfunction? Where is the regular order? 
There is no bipartisanship. There is a lot of dysfunction. There is no 
end to it. Where is the regular order? It doesn't exist. No Supreme 
Court nominee in modern

[[Page 13644]]

times has waited this amount of time without at least getting a 
hearing. This is unprecedented.
  As legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has noted, there is only dysfunction 
to be found in the Republican leader's actions. This is what he said: 
``Such premeditated obstruction by a Senate leader, aimed at a 
President with nearly a full year remaining in his term, [is] without 
precedent.''
  Where is the hard-working Senate? With Republicans acting as they 
are, we have established that bipartisanship is really elusive. We have 
established that the dysfunction hasn't ended. We have established that 
there is no regular order. Now we have established that we are not 
working hard, and that is an understatement.
  The Senate isn't attending to one of its basic constitutional 
duties--providing its advice and consent on the President's Supreme 
Court nomination. Instead, this Senate has worked the fewest days of 
any Senate in modern history. After we have this next 10-week break, it 
will be the longest break in some 80 years. How about that?
  Chief Judge Garland deserves a hearing; he deserves a vote. Across 
the street from where we are standing now, at the Upper Senate Park, at 
5 o'clock, Democratic Senators will be gathering at a rally in support 
of Merrick Garland. The people there are of good will, only interested 
in our country. At that time, they are going to call on Republicans, as 
we will, to heed their constitutional duty and act on Garland's 
nomination.
  Republicans have another chance to keep the promises they made to the 
American people. Republicans should right this historic wrong on Judge 
Garland. They should give him a hearing and a vote, and they should do 
it right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with what the Democratic leader 
said. We have waited far too long.
  I would like to give some history. Eleven years ago this week, 
following the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Senate confirmed 
John Roberts to the Supreme Court and as Chief Justice. He had his 
Judiciary Committee hearing in September and was given full and fair 
consideration by the Senate. He was confirmed about 2 weeks later, 
September 29. All of us, whether or not we supported John Roberts, felt 
it was important to get this done so that the Supreme Court was not 
missing a Justice when it began its term on the first Monday in 
October, as it always does. The Senate acted responsibly. That was 11 
years ago. There was a Republican in the White House. I was one of 
those who voted for Chief Justice John Roberts. There are others who 
voted against him, but he was confirmed. That is what we did then with 
a Republican President but not today. In fact, under Republican 
leadership, the Senate is deliberately leaving the Supreme Court 
shorthanded. None of us, whether for or against Justice Roberts, felt 
we should delay and have the Court come into session with a four-four 
makeup.
  I believe Chief Judge Merrick Garland deserves the same consideration 
that Chief Justice Roberts received 11 years ago. What is the 
difference? There was a Republican President then, a Democratic 
President now. This is playing politics with the U.S. Supreme Court, 
and it hurts the credibility of our whole Federal court system.
  Like Chief Justice Roberts, Chief Judge Garland is eminently 
qualified. Like Chief Judge Roberts, he hails from the Midwest. He is a 
D.C. Circuit judge who has earned the respect and admiration of those 
who work for him. But, unlike Chief Justice Roberts, who was confirmed 
in about 2 months, Chief Judge Garland has been pending before the 
Senate for more than 6 months. I mentioned that to my colleagues. I 
went back and checked the history. No Supreme Court nominee in the 
history of our country has waited that long. There has been no hearing, 
no vote, no consideration at all by the Senate because the Senate 
refuses to do its job--the job we are required to do under the 
Constitution.
  Maybe the Republicans feel this somehow benefits their party. It 
doesn't. Our independent judicial branch is fundamental to our 
constitutional system of government. The Senate's duty to consider 
judicial nominations under the Constitution is not a political game. 
This Republican obstruction has consequences for all Americans. Because 
Senate Republicans refuse to do their jobs, the Supreme Court has been 
repeatedly unable to uphold its essential constitutional role as a 
final arbiter of the law. The uncertainty in the law has been harmful 
to businesses, and it has been harmful to law enforcement and to 
families and children across our country.
  I don't know if the American people realize how much this refusal of 
the Republican leadership to do their jobs has hurt them. This term, 
the Supreme Court will consider cases that will impact our voting 
rights--all of us--our religious rights, our access to fair housing, 
even the ATM fees we pay. The Court may also decide to hear important 
cases on the right of transgender students to be treated equally, 
environmental protection and climate change, women's reproductive 
health, and money in politics. The Supreme Court should be at full 
strength and provide the American people certainty and clarity of our 
rights under the Constitution.
  The same Republicans who expedited consideration of Chief Justice 
Roberts have since February used the excuse of the election year to 
justify their unconstitutional, prolonged obstruction. Yet there is no 
election-year exception in the Constitution for the President's duty to 
nominate Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution says the President 
shall nominate. The President did that. It also says that every one of 
us who held up our hand and took a solemn oath to uphold the 
Constitution--it says that we shall give advice and consent on these 
nominations. There is no election-year exception in the Constitution. 
None of us hold up our hands and say we will uphold the Constitution, 
so help me God, except in an election year. There is no election-year 
exception in the Constitution for the Supreme Court's role as the final 
arbiter of the law. Our history proves this case.
  There have been more than a dozen vacancies in election years--in 
fact, most recently, Justice Kennedy. I was here. We had a Democratic-
led Senate. It was President Reagan's last year in office. It was a 
Presidential election year, and it took a Democratic Senate just over 2 
months to confirm Justice Kennedy.
  President Obama's nominee, Chief Judge Garland, has been pending in 
the Senate with no action for 195 days; 195 days and we haven't done 
one solitary thing. When we had a Democratically controlled Congress 
and a Republican President's last year in office, we confirmed him in 
65 days.
  The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in the examination of 
Supreme Court nominees, reviewing the nominee's records and holding 
public hearings so that the American people can hear from that 
individual. Ever since the Judiciary Committee started holding public 
confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees more than a century 
ago, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and 
a vote. The current Republican leadership has broken with this century 
of practice to make its own shameful history.
  Even when a majority of the committee has not supported a Supreme 
Court nominee, the committee has still sent the nomination to the floor 
so that all 100 Senators can fulfill their constitutional role of 
providing advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. When I became 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 during the Bush 
administration, I and Senator Hatch--who was then the ranking member--
memorialized in a letter this agreement regarding President Bush's 
Supreme Court nominees.
  This is an important point. Senators are free to make their own 
decision to vote against a Supreme Court nominee, but that does not 
justify the complete refusal to provide any process whatsoever. I have 
heard the other side offer

[[Page 13645]]

the example of some Republican Senators pledging to vote ``no'' on 
Justice Fortas's nomination to replace Chief Justice Warren in an 
election year as justification for their obstruction today. That 
example does little to prove their point. In 1968, there was no current 
vacancy on the Court, as Chief Justice Warren's resignation was 
conditional upon the confirmation of his successor. That meant that 
there was never any fear that the Supreme Court would be operating at 
less than full strength. Just as importantly, public hearings went 
forward and the full Senate was able to consider the nomination. 
Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader who also served as the ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee at the time, did not sign on to that 
pledge and proceeded to work with the chair of the committee to move 
forward with hearings.
  We worked across the aisle to ensure that the Supreme Court would be 
fully functioning with Chief Justice Roberts' nomination 11 years ago. 
Thirty years ago, the Senate voted to confirm both Justice Scalia and 
Chief Justice Rehnquist. More than a dozen Supreme Court justices have 
been confirmed in the month of September. That is not surprising given 
that the Supreme Court begins its terms on the first Monday in October.
  By the standards the Democrats gave to Republicans, Chief Judge 
Garland should have been confirmed by Memorial Day. We have had more 
than 6 months to examine his record. It is not as though the Senate has 
been consumed and overworked considering other nominees; the last time 
we confirmed any judicial nominee was on July 6.
  Republicans refuse to allow votes even on uncontroversial district 
court nominees who have been pending more than a year, even those 
supported by Republicans in their States, and our independent Federal 
judiciary is suffering as a result of this unprecedented obstruction, 
as a result of the Senate not doing its job. It is long time past for 
the Senate to do its job. We have to treat our coequal branch of 
government with respect. There is no reason the Senate should not do 
its job in an election year. There is much work to be done.
  Senate Republicans are calling for another very long recess. The 
resolution introduced today by the senior Senator from Connecticut 
would keep the Senate here to do its job for Chief Judge Garland's 
nomination. It should not require a resolution to keep us accountable 
to the oath we all swore to uphold the Constitution. The Senate 
majority leader should let us get to work for all American people. We 
have had more recesses than anytime since I have been here. Why not 
take a few days and immediately consider Chief Judge Garland for the 
Supreme Court of the United States? Our highest Court should not be 
diminished further by Republican obstruction in the Senate. When the 
Supreme Court comes into session on the first Monday in October, the 
American people deserve to have nine members on the Supreme Court. The 
Supreme Court deserves to have nine members, and the American people 
deserve to have us do our job.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to 
from myself and Senator Hatch be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 2001.
       Dear Colleague: We are cognizant of the important 
     constitutional role of the Senate in connection with Supreme 
     Court nominations. We write as Chairman and Ranking 
     Republican Member on the Judiciary Committee to inform you 
     that we are prepared to examine carefully and assess such 
     presidential nominations.
       The Judiciary Committee's traditional practice has been to 
     report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the 
     Committee has completed its consideration. This has been true 
     even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a 
     majority of the Judiciary Committee.
       We both recognize and have every intention of following the 
     practices and precedents of the Committee and the Senate when 
     considering Supreme Court nominees.
           Sincerely,
     Patrick J. Leahy,
       Chairman.
     Orrin G. Hatch,
       Ranking Republican Member.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for coming to the 
floor this afternoon for a historic presentation.
  I just spent this last weekend--an enjoyable weekend--being a 
babysitter. My wife and I were able to babysit our 5-year-old grand-
twins. It is always a kick to hear what is on their minds and have 
conversations. We spend a lot of time discussing the concept of fiction 
and nonfiction. They were trying to figure out which things were 
fiction and which were nonfiction. We went back and forth through 
superheroes and all the rest of it, and it was a lot of fun.
  I thought about that as I came to the floor today because when it 
comes to looking for fiction and nonfiction, the Executive Calendar of 
the U.S. Senate on our desk would have to fall in the category of 
fiction. It is not true because in this calendar, you will find the 
nominations sent from the committee to the floor of the Senate to be 
considered. At least that is what you think you are going to find, but 
instead what we find are the names of 30 nominees to become Federal 
judges and have cleared the committees, such as the Judiciary 
Committee, and languish on this calendar never to be called by the 
Republican majority. Some have been here for a year. They cleared the 
committee with bipartisan votes. Many of them were nominated and 
approved by Republican Senators, but when they come to the floor, it 
comes to a full stop.
  Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, is not scheduling votes for 
Federal judges under President Obama. He argues that whether it is the 
Supreme Court or other Federal district courts, this is a lameduck 
President, and he has no obligation, being of the opposite political 
faith, to give this President anything when it comes to judges. That is 
the Republican Senate position, that is Senator McConnell's position, 
but it is totally inconsistent with two things.
  The tradition of the Senate is the first issue. When George W. Bush 
was in his last term in office and the Democrats were in control, we 
approved 68 judges in that last Congress--in his ``lameduck'' Congress. 
So far this Congress Senator McConnell has allowed only 22 judges to 
come through the Senate, and 30 of them are sitting on the calendar. By 
the tradition of the Senate, where the Senate fills the vacancies when 
they need to be filled, regardless of the President's party or the year 
of his term--Senator McConnell ignores that. We have 91 Federal 
judicial vacancies across the United States that need to be filled. 
Nearly half of them are emergencies. The caseload is overwhelming and 
justice is not being served in those districts, but Senator McConnell 
says no.
  The most egregious example is the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. 
You can almost look through the windows and outside of the doors of the 
Chamber here and see that beautiful building, the Supreme Court, and 
realize that in a matter of days they will reconvene to consider the 
most important cases pending before the United States of America. What 
is different about this Supreme Court is that there are only eight 
Justices seated on the Court. The untimely passing of Antonin Scalia in 
February led to a vacancy on the Supreme Court. President Obama met his 
obligation under the Constitution. Article II, section 2 says the 
President shall nominate someone to fill the vacancy on the Supreme 
Court. President Obama did it. As the Constitution directs him, he sent 
that name to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent 195 days ago.
  Senator McConnell announced he would not fill that vacancy and would 
not even give that nominee, Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit, a 
hearing so he could be asked the basic questions about his service on 
the Court. In fact, Senator McConnell took another step and said: I 
will not even meet with

[[Page 13646]]

him. How many times has that happened in the history of the U.S. 
Senate? Never. Politicians are careful when they use that word--
``never.'' We have never had a President submit the nominee to fill a 
pending vacancy on the Supreme Court who has been denied a hearing in 
the Senate--never.
  Why? Senator McConnell says: Well, President Obama is leaving soon, 
as if he were elected only for a 7-year tenure and isn't entitled to be 
President in his eighth year, but the real reason is pretty obvious. 
Senator McConnell and the Republicans are praying that Donald Trump 
will be able to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court. After watching 
the performance last night, can you imagine that man choosing a Justice 
for life on the Supreme Court? That is what they are counting on. That 
is why they are leaving these vacancies open, too, so that Donald Trump 
can fill those vacancies.
  It is a sad moment in the history of this country. It is the most 
accurate reflection of the dysfunction of the U.S. Senate I can think 
of--that the Senate Republican leadership would ignore the Constitution 
and the traditions of the Senate, leave these poor judicial nominees 
languishing for up to a year on the calendar, and refuse to meet their 
constitutional obligation to give Merrick Garland--even though the 
American Bar Association deemed him as being unanimously ``well 
qualified''--his time to come before the Senate for an open hearing, 
answer questions under oath, and receive a vote on the floor of the 
Senate.
  The Republicans in the Senate want to brag about their great record 
of performance this year as the party in control of the U.S. Senate, 
but what they cannot explain or live down is the embarrassment they 
brought to this institution by refusing to meet their constitutional 
responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
join my colleagues who have already noted that we are now at an 
unbelievable, unprecedented 195 days--over 6 months--since the 
President nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
  Do you know what else could have happened in this time period? We 
could have gone through the confirmation process for the last 
Republican-nominated Justice twice and still have 11 days leftover. We 
could have sailed around the world almost four times or flown to the 
moon and back 30 times, but Senate Republicans have refused to even 
hold one hearing for Judge Merrick Garland.
  By allowing this absurd political game to continue, Republicans are 
preventing the rest of us from upholding our constitutional duty to 
consider the Supreme Court nominee. Senate Republicans will not say 
that their historic obstruction is because they are opposed to Judge 
Garland; they are just refusing to consider him, even though many 
Republicans have met with him and admitted that Judge Garland's 
distinguished career and work history show that he is, without a doubt, 
someone who deserves fair consideration by all of us here in the U.S. 
Senate. He deserves a hearing and a vote. I should add that by refusing 
to do their jobs and by saying they want to leave it to the next 
President, Republicans are telling the American people they would 
rather save the seat for their Presidential nominee to fill than give a 
strong nominee a fair hearing and a vote. We all know what that means.
  This is far too important to the people of this country to hold off 
any longer. They have now seen the results of a short-handed Supreme 
Court with split decisions and continued uncertainty about important 
issues. The Court is now days away from beginning its October session. 
With every day that goes by and every Supreme Court decision that comes 
down without a full bench, the need for action is clearer and clearer. 
This gridlock and dysfunction that has dominated too much of our time 
and other work here in the Congress should be pushed aside right now. 
Republicans blocked the Zika emergency funding bill for 7 months, and 
the gridlock has once again brought us far too close to another 
manufacturing crisis--a government shutdown.
  I hope Republicans will realize how ridiculous this partisan gridlock 
is. After 195 days of being one Justice short on the Supreme Court of 
the United States, I urge our colleagues to fulfill our constitutional 
responsibility, hold a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, and give him 
a vote. We owe that to the people we represent, and it is simply the 
right thing to do.
  Washington State families should have a voice. Families across 
America should have a voice. They have waited long enough--nearly 200 
days--to have nine Justices serving on the highest Court in the land, 
and they deserve better.


                   Shooting in Burlington, Washington

  Mr. President, while I have the floor, I want to bring another issue 
to my colleagues' attention, and that is the anguish of the people in a 
community in my home State of Washington, the city of Burlington. This 
is yet another community that is hurting after another senseless act of 
violence in a mall--a shooting that left five people dead. This is a 
headline that has become all too common in our country.
  I urge everyone listening today to keep the victims, their families, 
their friends, and their coworkers in their thoughts and prayers. I 
implore everyone in this Chamber to come together and address the 
scourge of gun violence that has devastated one too many communities 
once again. Enough is enough.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for 
her remarks. As for me, this is the third time this month that I have 
come to the Senate floor to speak about the Supreme Court nomination 
currently pending before the judiciary and the judicial vacancy crisis 
as a whole in our country.
  It has been 7 months since Chief Judge Merrick Garland's nomination 
to the Supreme Court, and it is still pending. It has been about 19 
months since Judge Julien Neals was nominated to the District Court of 
New Jersey, and it is still on hold.
  As was the case in the last two times I have come to the floor to 
speak, our country is not only operating with an incomplete Supreme 
Court, but it is also operating with a judicial vacancy crisis across 
the Nation in multiple Federal courts.
  The Supreme Court's term is about to begin next week, and without 
action to schedule a vote and confirm Judge Garland's nomination, the 
Supreme Court will still be operating without a ninth Justice, just as 
it has been for the past 7 months. I do not believe that was the 
intention of our Framers. I do believe that because this body is not 
doing anything about this nomination, it is having a material effect on 
another branch of government, which I believe is a subversion of the 
framing of our Constitution and the functioning of our government.
  By failing to hold the vote on Judge Garland's nomination, we are 
continuing to cripple one of our coequal branches of government. It is 
unacceptable that we would consider taking a 7-week break from the 
business of the Senate before ensuring that one of our coequal branches 
of government is operating as it was intended by our Framers.
  There is no credible reason for the refusal of a vote for Judge 
Garland's nomination, and this kind of wait for a Supreme Court 
Justice's confirmation is unprecedented in our history.
  Republicans and Democrats have clearly stated over the years how well 
qualified Judge Garland is as a nominee. In fact, we have seen multiple 
people remark that he is not just well qualified, but in the grand 
scheme of the partisan divides in our country, he is relatively 
moderate in his judicial history. Unfortunately, though, with that, we 
are still failing to see an up-or-down vote in this body.
  There is no reason this distinguished body should not confirm Chief 
Judge

[[Page 13647]]

Garland so that we have a full complement of Justices on the Supreme 
Court when the next term convenes. We also know that across the 
country, as I said earlier, Federal judges are overworked and, of 
course, understaffed because of the vacancy crisis.
  The last time I came to the floor on this issue, I noted that we 
faced 90 judicial vacancies in our courts across the country, 35 of 
which have been deemed judicial emergencies. A judicial emergency is 
not some subjective conclusion; it is an objective conclusion by 
judicial experts and judicial staff that has nothing to do with the 
partisan politics of our land. Yet we are seeing no action being taken.
  There are 30 nominations currently pending on the Senate Executive 
Calendar, and all but two were voted out of committee by unanimous 
vote. That includes 20 district court nominees. Both Republicans and 
Democrats in this body gave a unanimous vote in the Judiciary 
Committee. The nominations pending on the Executive Calendar are from 
States all across the country, from east to west. These places include 
New Jersey, New York, California, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, 
Utah, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Indiana, 
North Dakota, South Carolina, and Idaho. Today, when we are perhaps 
days from adjourning for another long recess--7 weeks--I rise, as I 
said, for the third time not only to ask Republicans with great respect 
and reverence for all nominations going on in the Senate, but also to 
ask that we push this bipartisan package of well-qualified nominees 
that includes two people who are next on the list, Ed Stanton and 
Julien Neals, the two longest waiting judicial nominees from Tennessee 
and New Jersey, as well as nominees from New York, California, Rhode 
Island, and two nominees from Pennsylvania, again supported in a 
bipartisan fashion in the Judiciary Committee. The nominees from New 
Jersey and Tennessee are the two longest waiting nominees currently 
before the Senate, and as such, deserve to be the next two scheduled 
nominees up for a vote. I have rejected or stood up in opposition to 
any efforts to skip those two nominees.
  Mr. Stanton is the nominee for the Western District of Tennessee. He 
is highly qualified, and his experience will suit him well as a judge 
in the Federal court. Mr. Stanton is a highly regarded member of the 
Memphis community and someone recommended to the President by my 
colleague Senator Lamar Alexander.
  Judge Neals is the nominee for the U.S. District Court for the 
District of New Jersey, possessing undeniably strong qualifications. He 
possesses significant legal experience, a distinguished judicial 
career, and an unwavering commitment to justice. His skill, legal 
aptitude, and unique thoughtful perspective are needed on the Federal 
bench now more than ever. I know Julien Neals personally. I worked by 
his side for close to a decade when I was a mayor--7 years to be 
exact--and I have seen the thoughtfulness of this individual. He is one 
of the more impressive people I have met in my professional journey.
  There is no reason why Judge Neals or Edward Stanton, the two longest 
waiting nominees, have had to wait so long to be confirmed. So I 
hopefully and simply ask that the Senate promptly vote on the next two 
nominees in line, making sure our judicial system is functioning at its 
highest capacity. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an 
American issue.
  I have been honored to serve people in New Jersey in the Senate for 
nearly 3 years. During my time in this body, I have been surprised, 
inspired, and challenged by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but 
I have come to a point of hope and hopefulness that when it comes to 
real issues, such as the functioning of another branch of government, 
we can come together, and we have the capacity to do the right thing.
  I know this body is better than a tit-for-tat process, where we 
measure how many nominees President Bush got versus President Obama. 
This was not the intention of the Constitution, not the intention of 
our Framers, and it is not something that has been the tradition of our 
country.
  I know the good the Senate can do for Americans across the country. 
Part of our obligation is to ensure a functioning judicial system that 
can deliver justice for America. This Senate is failing to uphold its 
duty now and has plunged our Nation into a level of judicial crisis 
that is unacceptable. We can and we must do better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
  Today I join my colleagues in rising to remind the Republican 
majority of its abject failure to fulfill its constitutional duty.
  I first spoke on the floor urging the majority to schedule a hearing 
and vote on the vacant Supreme Court seat on February 23 of this year, 
over 7 months ago. Just to remind everyone, that was before Judge 
Garland was even nominated by the President. We shouldn't forget that, 
even before the nominee was named, the Republican majority told the 
American people they were planning to ignore their responsibility to 
consider a Supreme Court nominee. That is the one promise they have 
actually kept.
  Unlike their promise to ``get the Senate back to work,'' they have 
kept their promise not to do their jobs when it comes to the Supreme 
Court and so many other issues. It certainly is not because they have 
been too busy. In the last 200 days since the President nominated Judge 
Garland, instead of giving him a fair hearing and vote, the Republican 
Senate has taken the longest recess in 60 years; spent time fighting 
partisan battles over Planned Parenthood, instead of combatting Zika; 
neglected to act on economic issues for working families, such as 
college affordability; done nothing to address the influence of special 
interest money in politics; and failed to take action to keep guns out 
of the hands of terrorists. Make no mistake, the Republican Senate has 
not done its job, and that failure has real consequences.
  With the Nation's highest Court shorthanded and often deadlocked, it 
has been unable to serve its constitutional function as the final 
arbiter of the law. Because of Republican obstruction, the Court was 
unable to reach a decision on the final merits in seven cases in its 
last term, leaving millions of families and children, law enforcement, 
and businesses uncertain of the law. From immigration to consumer 
privacy to a case about whether lenders can discriminate against 
married women, the Court has been unable to produce a final verdict.
  The Supreme Court handles ``the people's business'' as President 
Reagan put it. Every day that goes by without a ninth Justice is 
another day the American people's business is not getting done.
  Now we are only a week away from a new Supreme Court term, during 
which it will hear another docket of important cases involving voting 
rights, racial discrimination in housing, and cases that will impact 
women's reproductive rights and the rights of transgender children in 
schools. Because Republicans will not schedule a hearing and a vote on 
Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will again go 
into these cases shorthanded.
  Seven months later, I again say to my Republican colleagues, to the 
distinguished majority leader, and to the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee: Schedule a hearing and a vote on Judge Garland. Because you 
refuse to do your job, the people's business is not getting done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak again 
about the dangerous effects of leaving the current vacancy on the 
Supreme Court unfilled and the real consequences that the current 
vacancy has caused for this country.
  It has now been more than 6 months since President Obama nominated 
Judge Merrick Garland to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court, 
and we still haven't had a hearing,

[[Page 13648]]

much less a vote. As a result, Judge Garland is now the longest pending 
Supreme Court nominee in history.
  Since the Senate has not acted, the Supreme Court will still be 
without a full complement of Justices when it begins its October term 
next week. There is a lot at stake in the Supreme Court's upcoming 
term. The cases that the Court will hear focus on significant issues 
that affect Americans' everyday lives.
  Among those cases are important questions involving voting rights and 
discrimination in housing. The Court will also take up cases on 
immigration and environmental protection that would impact millions of 
people across the country. We know they have been taking less cases, 
and we also know there have been a number of split decisions, including 
a recent one on a death penalty case.
  Further delay in the confirmation of a new Justice will compromise 
the Court's ability to resolve these questions of law effectively. If 
we do not have a fully staffed Court in the next term, we risk more 
cases in which the Court is unable to issue binding precedent and in 
which access to justice is denied for too many Americans. In some 
decisions where there is a 4-4 split, the result is effectively the 
same as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case. That is 
certainly not what our Founding Fathers intended with the Constitution.
  But more split decisions are not the only risk that we are facing 
here. The current vacancy on the Supreme Court also has implications 
for the number of cases that the Court is able to take in the first 
place. We saw this played out many times last spring. In March of last 
year, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on eight cases. This year, 
it only did so for two. Indeed, we have seen time and again over the 
Court's last term that the Supreme Court simply cannot function well 
without a ninth Justice--with split decisions, diminished decisions, 
delayed decisions, and no decisions.
  With only eight Justices, the current Court could not reach a final 
decision on the merits in seven cases during its most recent term. In 
five of these cases, the Court deadlocked in split decisions with four 
Justices on either side. In the other two cases the Court had to remand 
the case back to the lower courts when it was unable to render a 
decision on the merits.
  The lower courts rely on the Supreme Court as the final 
decisionmaker. There are courts all over the Nation that may have 
different decisions, and they are waiting for the final word from the 
Supreme Court. That is how our system of justice has worked. But what 
is most important is that in each of these cases the Court was unable 
to carry out its constitutional obligation.
  The potential for worse during the Court's next term is real. For 
instance, what if some of the landmark cases that are familiar to 
citizens, such as Miranda v. Arizona, were a 4-to-4 decision? Or an 
emergency case like Bush v. Gore--what if that were 4 to 4? Or Brown v. 
Board of Education?
  Former President Ronald Reagan recognized the importance of having a 
fully staffed Supreme Court in 1987. He said: ``Every day that passes 
with the Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's 
business in that crucially important body.''
  President Reagan made that statement around the same time he 
nominated Justice Kennedy, who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, 
which was controlled by the opposite party--the Democratic Party--in 
the last year of a Republican Presidency.
  Over the past several months, I have tried to put myself in my 
colleagues' shoes, and I asked myself: What if we had the opposite 
case? What if we had a Republican President and a Democratic-controlled 
Senate? What would I do? Well, I would demand a hearing. I would never 
let a nominee float out there for 6 months while we have less 
decisions, diminished decisions, and no decisions.
  I don't know how I would vote on the nominee. I would like to ask the 
nominee questions and decide if they were qualified to serve on the 
Supreme Court.
  Our job under the Constitution is to advise and consent. It is not to 
advise and consent only after a Presidential election has occurred. 
This has been our practice in the Senate for more than a century. For 
more than 100 years the Senate has had a process that worked under both 
Democratic and Republican Presidents and even in--yes--Presidential 
years. Through World War I and World War II, through the Great 
Depression, through the Vietnam war, through the economic downturns, we 
were somehow able to make it as a democracy. We were somehow able to do 
our job to advise and consent.
  I would also add in closing my remarks about Judge Garland's widely 
credited ability to draft thoughtful, narrow legal opinions and build 
consensus among his colleagues on the bench. The President was well 
aware when he nominated Judge Garland that he would need to nominate 
someone who had that ability, and, with the kind of votes that we have 
seen in the Senate, someone who is a fine man. He deserves the 
opportunity to make his case to the Senate, and the public deserves the 
opportunity to see the kind of Justice he would be.
  It remains my sincere hope that he will have that opportunity for a 
hearing to prove himself in the months to come.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise today to join my Democratic 
colleagues on the floor in opposition to this Chamber's inability to do 
its job and fulfill our constitutional obligation by holding a public 
hearing and taking a vote on President Obama's nomination of Chief 
Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  As this body appears to apparently head home for the next month and a 
half, let me share yet another reason why it is so important that we 
put partisan politics aside and do our jobs. As a member of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the opportunity to travel to 
many other countries. Just this past June, I spent a week in South 
Africa to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's 
``Ripples of Hope'' speech in Cape Town. Robert F. Kennedy, a former 
Senator himself, inspired the early, nascent anti-apartheid movement in 
South Africa with this uplifting and challenging speech.
  Just earlier today, I had a chance to meet with a friend from South 
Africa with whom I connected on that trip. I had a reminder in our 
conversation--a reminder that what we do teaches, engages, and 
challenges much of the rest of the world. The United States and South 
Africa, although we are very different countries with different 
histories, are similar in important ways.
  What struck me on this trip to South Africa back in June and in the 
months since has been some of our important similarities and our 
important current challenges. We share powerful foundational 
commitments to our original documents--to the Freedom Charter in South 
Africa and to our Declaration of Independence here--and to our 
respective constitutions. We have historically shared a strong respect 
for the rule of law. We share deep understanding of the importance of 
capable and independent judiciaries to preserving our multiparty 
democracy.
  But, today in the United States, as in South Africa, divisiveness and 
dysfunction are beginning to genuinely challenge the institutions that 
protect our constitutional order. Here we need look no further than the 
matter that drives us to the floor today--the vacancy on the U.S. 
Supreme Court that is now approaching 200 days without any sign of 
promise or compromise from our Republican colleagues, without any 
expression of a willingness to do what has been done routinely for a 
century here.
  On the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, we have not had a 
hearing, and we have not had a vote. I have heard no significant issues 
or questions raised about the qualifications of Chief Judge Garland. 
Frankly, I don't think one could raise significant questions. This is 
one of the most seasoned, most experienced judges ever nominated to

[[Page 13649]]

the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet no progress--no hope of progress--seems to 
be heard on our committee or here on the floor.
  Even if we were to confirm Chief Judge Garland today, I think we need 
to realize that our inaction has already had a significant impact. All 
around the world, what the United States says and does sends a strong 
message. It matters what we say. It matters what we do. In this case, 
it matters deeply what we aren't doing.
  This Chamber alone cannot heal a divided country with a single 
committee hearing. We cannot heal congressional dysfunction with just 
one vote, but these actions could serve as the first in a series of 
concrete steps to help repair the dysfunction and the division in our 
Senate. We should start by holding public hearings, by letting the 
people of the United States understand what, if any, questions or 
concerns there might be about this talented, capable, decent man, Judge 
Merrick Garland, who has been nominated to the Supreme Court, and then 
build on that momentum by giving timely, thorough consideration to the 
President's other nominees for judgeships across the country. With 89 
judicial vacancies--with 89 current judicial vacancies--from district 
courts to courts of appeals, to the U.S. Supreme Court itself, our 
inaction doesn't just create uncertainty for those involved, it impairs 
our courts and actively harms our constitutional commitment to justice.
  From Justice Marshall to Justice Warren, to Justice Scalia himself, 
the Supreme Court has been home to many icons of American 
jurisprudence, men and women whose work, writings, and reflections are 
known around the world, but as I suspect they might themselves have 
been the very first to remind us, nations don't endure because of 
unique or historic individuals, free nations endure because of 
institutions.
  When it comes both to ensuring the proper functioning of our 
treasured American institutions and to ensuring its future independence 
and liberty, we are not doing our job. We are failing to fulfill our 
constitutional obligations and, in doing so, we are directly 
challenging the strength of our constitutional order.
  We must not forget that everything we do here and everything we do 
not do here sends forth a message to the rest of the world, to those 
who we hope watch and imitate our democracy. This inaction is something 
I hope they do not imitate.
  If we were to take action on Chief Judge Garland's nomination, we 
would have the opportunity not only to strengthen our own institutions 
but to return to setting a constructive and positive example for the 
rest of the free world. We must leave no doubt that our democratic 
institutions can handle all the challenges they face.
  I urge all my colleagues to seriously consider the consequences of 
this tragic inaction, for nearly 200 days, to consider this able and 
qualified nominee.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am proud to join my colleagues who 
have come to the floor, including the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware and my friend and colleague from the great State of Vermont, 
and with other colleagues who will follow us in saying, very simply, we 
should do our job and avoid the damage to our democracy that will 
result from our dereliction of duty if we leave town without a hearing 
and a vote to fill the vacancy created by the tragic death of Justice 
Scalia.
  I know something about the Supreme Court, having clerked there for 1 
year with Justice Harry Blackmun, having argued cases there as attorney 
general of the State of Connecticut. I walk by or ride by the U.S. 
Supreme Court every day as I come to work at the Capitol, and I have 
tremendous respect, in fact, reverence, for the U.S. Supreme Court. Its 
power derives from its credibility and trust. It is being above 
politics. It has no armies, no police force. Its decisions are 
enforceable and enforced simply because the American people have 
confidence in its credibility.
  The reason for that credibility was well stated by Chief Justice John 
Roberts, who said: ``We don't work as Democrats or Republicans, and I 
think it's a very unfortunate impression the public might get from the 
confirmation process.''
  That confirmation process is stymied and stopped, stalled now by 
bipartisan paralysis that reinforces the misimpression among the public 
that the Supreme Court may simply be another part of the political 
process.
  The Supreme Court should be above politics. This dysfunction and 
dereliction of duty does damage to our democracy because it drags the 
Supreme Court into the muck and morass of partisan politics and 
deprives it of the credibility and trust that are the underpinning of 
its force as a democratic institution. Think of it for a moment. There 
are two elected branches, the President and Congress, and then an 
unelected one, appointed for life, totally dependent on its being above 
politics.
  We have a constitutional duty to advise and consent, not when it is 
politically convenient, not when it fits into our schedules but when 
the President makes a nomination. We have fulfilled that duty 
consistently during the last 100 years, taking action on every pending 
nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
  The current impasse has real, practical consequences in depriving 
individuals in this Nation of justice they need and deserve. It has 
real consequences for real people. As we saw last term and as we are 
about to see on Monday with the beginning of a new term, issues of law 
essential to a functioning democracy and basic fairness will be left 
unresolved because of a deadlocked Court. The resulting uncertainty 
causes harm across the land and across our economy, creating confusion 
among businesses that need to know what the rules of the road are going 
to be. If money is borrowed, when does it have to be repaid? If 
regulation is to be challenged, will it be upheld?
  These kinds of decisions are, in fact, real cases before the U.S. 
Supreme Court. The uncertainty and confusion resulting from deadlocked 
Court decisions and the lack of law--because indecision means a lack of 
resolution of legal issues--have consequences that impede job creation 
and economic growth in this country. By refusing to do its job, the 
Senate of the United States is precluding others from doing their jobs, 
from creating jobs, and from growing our economy, as all of us would 
like to see done.
  I am not arguing that any individual Senator has an obligation to 
vote for Merrick Garland. I believe he is preeminently qualified. I 
have known him for years. I have tremendous respect for his 
intelligence and integrity. I believe he will convince other of my 
colleagues that he is extraordinarily well qualified to serve as the 
next Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  That job of convincing our colleagues is his to do. He should be 
given an opportunity to do it in a hearing, as he has done for many of 
us in his individual conversations with us. Unfortunately, our 
Republican colleagues have denied him even a hearing, not to mention a 
vote.
  It adds insult to injury when this body not only stonewalls Judge 
Garland's nomination but departs for lengthy breaks, as we did in 
August and as we will now do again, without giving him consideration. 
This year, the Senate has worked fewer days and taken a longer recess 
than in the past 50 years, despite leaving our constitutional duty 
unfulfilled.
  That is why I am proud to submit today, along with 42 of my 
Democratic colleagues, including Senator Leahy of Vermont, the ranking 
member on the Judiciary Committee, along with my colleagues on the 
Judiciary Committee, a resolution that says to the Senate of the United 
States: Do not leave town for a recess until we have provided a hearing 
and a vote on the pending Supreme Court nomination. Do not leave town 
without doing your job. Do not leave town without fulfilling your 
constitutional duty to advise and consent.
  That is what we should be doing.
  I am not going to read the resolution, but it essentially says the 
President

[[Page 13650]]

has the obligation to nominate. We have the obligation to advise and 
consent. We have done so in past years. We should do so now. I will 
quote this one sentence: ``Whereas forcing the Supreme Court to 
function with only 8 sitting justices has created several instances, 
and risks creating more instances, in which the justices are evenly 
divided as to the outcome of a case, preventing the Supreme Court from 
resolving conflicting interpretations of the law from different regions 
of the United States and thereby undermining the constitutional 
function of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the law.''
  Paraphrasing: Be it resolved that the Senate should not adjourn, 
recess, or convene solely in pro forma session until we have taken 
action on the pending nomination through holding a hearing in the 
Judiciary Committee, holding a vote in the Judiciary Committee, and 
holding a vote in the full Senate.
  Some of the threats to our democracy come from outside this country, 
from violent extremists or military aggressors who mean to do us harm, 
but the threats to our democracy can also include self-inflicted 
wounds--unintentional, perhaps.
  I know my colleagues--and I say this with the greatest respect--
believe they are justified in what they are doing. We have legitimate 
disagreements. We may disagree whether Merrick Garland is qualified to 
be on the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe, without question or 
reservation, he would be a great Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, and 
he will be, but let's at least give him a vote. Let's do our job and 
avoid the self-inflicted damage to our democracy that will result from 
our leaving without upholding our constitutional duty.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator 
Blumenthal on the floor this afternoon as a cosponsor of his 
resolution. I share his concerns that Merrick Garland has not yet 
gotten a hearing nor a vote in this body on his nomination to be on the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  Since the beginning of our Nation, the U.S. Senate has respected an 
important, bipartisan tradition of giving timely and fair consideration 
to Supreme Court nominees, even during the years when there is a 
Presidential election.
  Sadly, this year the majority party has broken that tradition by 
refusing even to hold a hearing on the nomination of Judge Merrick 
Garland to serve as a Justice. The current vacancy was created more 
than 200 days ago. President Obama nominated Judge Garland more than 7 
months ago. I am joining my colleagues on the floor this afternoon to 
urge the majority party and the leadership of this body to give Judge 
Garland a hearing, to give him a vote. It is time to extend to Judge 
Garland the same fair treatment the Senate has given to every other 
person previously nominated to the Supreme Court by an elected 
President during a Presidential election year.
  The majority party's refusal, to date, to consider the nomination of 
Judge Garland is a shocking break with Senate tradition. Article II, 
section 2 of the Constitution is unambiguous about the respective 
duties and responsibilities of the President and the Senate when there 
is a Supreme Court vacancy. I do not believe the Founders intended that 
these rules should be optional or should be something that could be 
disregarded. Article II states that the President ``shall hold this 
office during the term of four years''--not 3 years, not 3 years and 1 
month, but 4 full years.
  Time and again, Senators have done their constitutional duty by 
considering and confirming Supreme Court Justices in the final year of 
a Presidency. Most recently, Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 
the last year of President Reagan's final term in February of 1988. 
Indeed, it was a Senate with a Democratic majority that confirmed 
President Reagan's nominee, Justice Kennedy, and they did it 
unanimously--97 to 0.
  The Senate Committee on the Judiciary began holding public 
confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominees back in 1916. In the 
100 years since then, never before has the committee denied a hearing 
to a nominee to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. So never before in 
our history have we seen this happen, that the majority party in the 
Senate has refused to conduct a hearing.
  Since 1975, the average length of time from nomination to a 
confirmation vote for the Supreme Court has been 67 days because our 
predecessors in the Senate recognized just how important it is for the 
Supreme Court to be fully functioning. This bipartisan tradition 
regarding the Supreme Court has been put at risk by the majority's 
actions this year, but the Senate will have another opportunity to act 
on the nomination of Judge Garland when we reconvene after election day 
during the lameduck session. Once we get through this election, I hope 
that the majority party will honor the Senate's tradition, that it will 
do the right thing, that it will give Judge Garland the hearing and the 
floor vote he deserves.
  We all know that, as Senators, we have sworn to support and defend 
the Constitution. Our oath doesn't say: Uphold the Constitution most of 
the time or only when it is not a Presidential election year. The 
American people expect us, as Senators, to be faithful to our oath of 
office, and they also expect us to do our jobs regardless of whether it 
is an election year. So let's respect that oath of office. Let's do the 
job we were sent here to do by the American people. Let's follow the 
Constitution.
  As former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor--a Justice nominated by a 
Republican President--said just days after the current vacancy occurred 
back in February, ``I think we need somebody [on the Supreme Court] now 
to do the job, and let's get on with it.'' Well, let's get on with it. 
It is time for us to do our jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, on other judicial business, today 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard 
oral argument in West Virginia v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
which is the case that will determine the fate of the EPA's Clean Power 
Plan. As that court considers our national plan to reduce carbon 
pollution from powerplants, which is our largest source of carbon 
emissions, I rise now for the 148th time to urge us all to wake up to 
the threats of climate change.
  In the runup to today's argument, Leader Reid, Senator Boxer, Senator 
Markey, and I released a report entitled ``The Brief No One Filed'' 
highlighting who is behind the legal challenge to the President's Clean 
Power Plan. Our report, which is structured as an amicus brief, 
although not filed with the court, shows how State officials, trade 
associations, front groups, and industry-funded scientists in the case 
are connected to the fossil fuel industry. In short, the court of 
appeals has been barraged with briefs by amici curiae and parties who 
are funded by oil, gas, and coal interests. I hope the court considers 
the appalling conflict of interest these briefs present when it 
considers this case.
  Let's begin with why there is such a big effort by the fossil fuel 
industry to launch its proxies in this case. A working paper by the 
International Monetary Fund puts the effective subsidy of the fossil 
fuel industry in this country at nearly $700 billion per year. For the 
record, that is billion with a ``b.'' That includes the climate harm 
they get away with for free.
  To protect this massive subsidy--perhaps the biggest subsidy in the 
history of the world--the fossil fuel polluters have concocted a 
complex web of climate change denial. The web includes deceptively 
named nonprofits and fake think tanks--to use Jane Mayer's apt phrase, 
``think tanks as disguised political weapons''--whose purpose is to 
propagate phony science, manipulate public opinion, and create an echo 
chamber of climate science denialism. The polluters also wield their 
influence in our election campaigns, with especially devilish effect 
since the dreadful

[[Page 13651]]

Citizens United decision of 2010. A lot of this fossil fuel apparatus 
has turned up in the DC Circuit.
  If we examine the Members of Congress filing amicus briefs against 
the Clean Power Plan, we find massive funding to them from the fossil 
fuel industry. The Center for American Progress Action Fund and the 
Center for Responsive Politics report that since 1989, Member amici 
signing these briefs have received over $40 million in oil, gas, and 
coal campaign contributions. Thirty-four Senators opposing the Clean 
Power Plan received over $16 million in direct contributions, and 171 
Representatives opposing the Clean Power Plan received nearly $24 
million. And that is just direct spending to candidate campaigns. On 
top of that come fossil fuel-related political action committee 
contributions, over $42 million more to Member amici since 1989--nearly 
$12 million to the 34 Senators and nearly $31 million to the 171 
Representatives.
  In total, the fossil fuel industry's disclosed political spending to 
Members on these briefs amounts to nearly $83 million, with 
approximately $55 million split among 34 Senators and nearly $28 
million split among 171 Representatives. And, of course, Citizens 
United opened the door to unlimited spending that is not disclosed as 
well. So we actually don't know the full amount or the full effect of 
fossil fuel political spending above and beyond that disclosed $83 
million.
  The CAP Action Fund has labeled 135 of the 205 Member amici as 
``climate deniers'' based on their past statements and their voting 
records. Climate deniers reject the overwhelming consensus of peer-
reviewed science about the causes and effects of carbon in our 
atmosphere and oceans, often, interestingly, contradicting the research 
of scientists and academic institutions in their home States, even as 
to the effects of climate change manifesting in their home States. In 
this path, climate deniers are not following their constituents. Seven 
in ten Americans in a nationwide survey released this month favor the 
Clean Power Plan. More than 80 percent acknowledge the health benefits 
of the plan.
  Of course, the big polluters don't spend just to influence 
legislators at the Federal level, they also spend big on State 
officials, and they prop up trade associations, think tanks, and front 
groups willing to push their anti-science agenda. Many of these State 
politicians, trade associations, and front groups sure enough showed up 
in the Clean Power Plan litigation.
  From the 27 States currently challenging the Clean Power Plan in 
court, the CAP Action Fund has identified 24 climate-denying attorneys 
general and Governors based on their own past statements. These State 
officials have received over $19 million in contributions from the 
fossil fuel industry since 2000. One small example of this: Documents 
obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy show that Murray Energy, 
a coal company, donated $250,000 to the Republican Attorneys General 
Association in 2015 and received a closed-door meeting with State 
prosecutors to discuss the Clean Power Plan. According to research 
director Nick Surgey:

       It's no coincidence that GOP attorneys general have mounted 
     an aggressive fight alongside the fossil fuel industry to 
     block the Clean Power Plan. That appears to be exactly what 
     the industry paid for.

  Other energy companies and trade groups that gave money last year to 
the Republican Attorneys General Association include Koch Industries, 
ExxonMobil, Southern Company, and Cloud Peak Energy.
  Then there are the industry trade groups, such as the American 
Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the National Association of 
Manufacturers also petitioning against the EPA. To pick just one, the 
National Association of Manufacturers has been described as a ``trade 
association and corporate front group that has a long history of hiring 
lobbyists to promote anti-environmental, pro-industry legislation.''
  Other front groups, such as the Energy and Environment Legal 
Institute, have also filed briefs. E&E Legal advances what it calls 
``free-market environmentalism'' using strategic litigation. It has 
made it its hallmark to harass climate scientists who work at public 
institutions and are vulnerable to State and Federal FOIA requests. E&E 
Legal received significant funding from the fossil fuel industry to 
engage in this harassment.
  Documents made public in the bankruptcy proceedings of three separate 
coal companies--Arch Coal, Peabody Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources--
reveal payments to E&E Legal or to its senior fellow, Chris Horner, a 
gentleman who has written not one but two books on why global warming 
is a hoax. E&E Legal is also an associate member of the State Policy 
Network, which the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch 
describes as an ``$83 million right-wing empire'' that in turn receives 
money from a Koch family foundation and from the identity-scrubbing 
Donors Trust and Donors Capital, organizations set up to launder the 
identities of big donors. Such is the web of denial.
  Madam President, I could go on. Our report contains substantial 
detail on the network connecting the opponents of the Clean Power Plan 
to the fossil fuel companies behind their effort. ExxonMobil's CEO may 
pretend concern about climate change and mouth support for a carbon 
fee, but on his political gun decks, all their cannons are aimed to 
protect the freeloading, polluting status quo. And the Koch brothers 
don't even pretend; they will send us off a climate cliff to enforce 
their extremist ideology and to maintain their power to socialize their 
costs. These Koch brothers are fine capitalist free-marketeers when it 
comes to extracting private profits, but when it comes to imposing 
public costs, they are more socialist than Trotsky. The fossil fuel 
powers whistle, and the hounds all come running to bay at the court. 
Before the court of appeals takes their arguments seriously, it should 
consider the industry's financial relationship with so many of the 
Clean Power Plan opponents, it should consider their sordid record of 
deceiving Americans about climate science for years, and it should 
consider the massive, massive conflict of interest of the industry 
lurking in the shadows behind their front groups.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                Remembering George ``Flip'' McConnaughey

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, last week I lost my chief of staff whom I 
have worked with in various roles for over 40 years. A member of my 
staff, Ron Hindle, wrote a remembrance on behalf of the staff that 
begins with this:

       September 21st was a day that my fellow Enzi staffers and I 
     will never forget. It was on that day we learned that George 
     McConnaughey, or Flip, as we all knew him, had lost a valiant 
     battle he had waged against cancer for the past year. His 
     loss has made these past few days a time of reflection and 
     remembrance for us all about Flip and his life.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be 
printed in the Record following my comments.
  Yesterday we had a celebration in Casper, WY. It was well attended. 
It turned out to be a kind of reunion of people who had been touched by 
his life and his actions and particularly those who had worked with 
him. I am sorry I can't share the video we all got to see of him 
growing up and his interactions with family and others, particularly 
since family meant so much to him. Since we can't see that video, I 
will share some of my remembrances, some of my memories.
  In the end, there is only faith, family, and friends. Flip was one of 
the richest men I know in all three categories.
  Flip had faith. Senate Chaplain Black lists Flip as his hero because 
of Flip's faith, in spite of the fight that went on inside him. 
Chaplain Black drove out to Flip and Sheila's home when they were 
moving back to Wyoming to do an anointing. I think that helped Flip 
make the long drive to Wyoming.
  Flip quietly shared his faith with others. Flip participated in the 
Chaplain's weekly Bible study. Flip attended a men's prayer breakfast 
on

[[Page 13652]]

Saturdays. Flip attended church faithfully. Flip had strength through 
his faith.
  Flip knew the importance of family. His closest friend, of course, 
was his wife Shelia. He knew how lucky he was that she said yes when he 
proposed. He said it was the best thing that ever happened to him. He 
also said his parents liked her better than him.
  Flip knew about cancer since he was the caregiver through Shelia's 
bouts of chemotherapy. Then, she was the caregiver and researcher 
through his operations, tests, and treatments. Her research saved his 
life more than once. Her love kept him going.
  Flip knew family as a son, as a brother, as a husband, as a father, 
and especially as a grandfather. He filled all those roles well, and he 
was an example to others. My wife Diana and I feel like we are part of 
his family and his family is part of our family. Flip has been a caring 
brother to me, and Flip has also always treated staff as family.
  Now, I didn't know Flip when he was the center for the Glenrock 
Herders football team, and I wasn't there when his dad lost the race 
for mayor by one vote and years later found out that his own wife 
didn't vote for him. I didn't know Flip when his dad found out he had 
skipped school for a few days, and his dad was on the school board. He 
loved his parents, but he revered his mother and he feared his father.
  I didn't know him when he graduated from the University of Wyoming, 
or when he married Shelia, or when he got the job as Casper's assistant 
city manager. I didn't get to know him until I was mayor of Gillette. 
As an accountant, I ran on a balanced budget plan and attended council 
meetings. Then I found out--and you can imagine the shock I had when I 
learned that as mayor you had to learn about sewer and sewer treatment, 
garbage, police, fire, parks, not to mention water, which in Gillette 
smelled and was color-coded and in short supply, or that the town owned 
its own dilapidated electrical system.
  Now, it is hard to entice somebody with knowledge of those issues to 
come to a boomtown, but I was able to persuade Flip to pull up roots 
and become Wyoming's first city administrator. It wasn't until he had 
bought a house and moved Shelia to Gillette that he found out the 
ordinance he was to work under was only through the first of three 
readings and that the mayor had to break the tie with a vote to get it 
that far.
  Flip and I have gotten a lot of things done working together over 40 
years, starting with that job in Gillette. Flip has never worked for 
me, he has always worked with me. As a team, we used his city skills. I 
was just a salesman.
  I remember when his son Jeff was born and then his daughter Sarah. I 
remember their excitement for each of these gifts of Heaven. I also 
remember when our two sons discovered Star Wars and each wanted a 
Millennium Falcon transporter. We were able to find models, and Flip 
and I spent our lunch hours for 2 weeks helping each other with the 
difficult instructions to meet the Christmas deadline.
  As a team in Gillette, we also negotiated industrial siting 
agreements with 12 coal mines. We insisted that the companies provide a 
town that their employees would want to live in and to work from. Some 
of those companies were hard to convince. In their first trip to city 
hall, they would bring a small plan. I would look at it, suggest that 
they weren't serious, and then throw their plan in the garbage as I 
left the room. Flip would be the good guy and stay behind to put them 
on the right track. I am sure those old-line company execs wondered 
about negotiating with two kids just 30 and 27 years old.
  Earlier I mentioned the color-coded smelly water that was in short 
supply. Thanks in large part to Flip, the town got a water system for 
30,000 people, with only 10,000 people to pay for it. Together we were 
able to convince Standard & Poor's and Moody's that we had a sound plan 
for the system. What made our job more difficult at the time is that we 
were taking this on while New York City was facing bankruptcy.
  Flip had to put back together a town, too, that was ravaged by a man 
on a stolen D9 Cat. The man drove over cars. He particularly didn't 
like sports cars, and he would go over them and back again. He pushed 
over power lines. He ripped up sprinkler systems and gas lines. He 
drove through a bank drive-up and through a schoolyard, and he wound up 
in an apartment basement after the D9 Cat pushed the building off its 
foundation. The Governor was in China at the time and sent the article 
about the incident in Chinese. My college roommate was in Saudi Arabia 
at the time and sent an article about the D9 Cat in Arabic--those were 
both a little hard to read.
  Madam President, I also mentioned garbage. That is always a huge 
problem in towns and cities. In Gillette we had a landfill that was 
about full, and we needed another site. We made our annual visit to the 
county commissioners to request $25,000 from the county people for the 
use of the landfill. The chairman said: Why, with that amount of money, 
we could run the whole thing. Flip said: We would be willing to pay you 
$25,000. They agreed. Flip had the paperwork to them that afternoon and 
had it signed. It saved the city millions. After that, everywhere Flip 
went, other towns would ask: Now, how were you able to get the county 
to take that landfill over? I can tell you, it hasn't happened since.
  Even recently, reflecting on the lack of money we saved and the 
problems we worked to solve, he said, only partly joking: We can 
finally tell about all the things that happened since the statutes of 
limitation have run out. I think Gillette was the test case in court 
for every new way the State suggested that towns could operate.
  After our time together in Gillette, Flip got a job as city manager 
in Laramie--an actual city manager. You know he did his usual excellent 
job because his 15 years of serving there set a new record for 
longevity. He was a leader in other ways, including by serving on the 
board of the Wyoming Association of Municipalities until he came to 
Washington. He attended conferences for, spoke to, and was a part of 
the International City Management Association for the rest of his life. 
In Washington, his municipal reputation followed him. Any State with a 
city or town problem referred the administrators to Flip, and he 
usually could work with them to find a solution. He also counseled city 
managers, often resolving their situation--although sometimes also 
helping to find them a more suitable occupation.
  Let me tell you how he came to be in Washington. When I was elected 
Senator, I had over 500 applications to be my chief of staff. Flip had 
not applied. He was the only one I could picture working with in that 
role--organized, focused, a superb manager; he knew how I liked to 
operate, could find good people, was able to successfully juggle 
multiple crises. So my son Brad and I drove to Laramie. I caught him at 
the office after everyone else had left, which was normal for Flip.
  I said: Flip, I need you to come to Washington and be my chief of 
staff. He said: I never went to Washington. I don't like Washington. I 
don't want to go to Washington. I won't go to Washington. So we visited 
about our families. Then, as Brad and I left to drive home, Brad said: 
I think you got him. In disbelief I asked: What part of ``absolutely 
no'' do you think was yes? But Brad turned out to be right. I got a 
call the next day from Flip, who said: If that job is still open and I 
can get a few answers, Shelia and I talked it over, and we might be 
interested. Well, I got the answers, and he and Shelia came to 
Washington, and he and I were a team again for the next 20 years.
  Flip knew the importance of working with everyone and co-founded the 
bipartisan chiefs of staff organization here in the Senate. He 
organized and managed a Senate team that helped pass a record number of 
bills.
  Flip was also the best planning meeting facilitator in the country. 
He led our staff in an annual planning session to focus everyone on 
what they would be expected to get done the next year, and then he 
pushed to get those things done. He insisted that we never call it a 
planning retreat. He would emphatically slap his hand on the desk and 
say, like General Patton: We never retreat.

[[Page 13653]]

  Flip was also competitive. I remember a contest between him and my 
first legislative director, Katherine McGuire, to see who could take 
the most spice in their Mongolian barbecue--without beer.
  Sometimes Flip traveled with Diana and me on the weekends and the 
Wyoming work periods. Now, you know, in Wyoming that can include bad 
weather. One time Flip was driving us in a blizzard that hit us between 
towns, and it was one of those wet, heavy storms--the kind that clogs 
up your windshield and you have to stop your car every few miles and 
clean the wipers off and clean the windows off. We were wondering if we 
would ever get to Kemmerer. He stopped once, then quickly got back in 
the car, laughing vigorously. It was very un-Flip. I got out to see 
what was so funny. We had almost run over the sign that said: ``Welcome 
to Kemmerer.'' What a relief.
  Flip was always quick to take the blame for any setbacks. That 
infuriated me, since I usually knew who really set us back. But he 
always got to the source, and like a good father, he turned the 
employee error into a teaching moment. Flip was a people person. He was 
a brother to me, and through the years he provided me with teachable 
moments too. I can still hear him say: ``Mike, that is something you 
really need to do.'' Of course, if it was a really tough assignment to 
talk me into, he knew to enlist my wife Diana.
  Everyone learned to listen closely to Flip's commonsense instruction. 
He always downplayed his role. The most prideful thing I ever heard him 
say was ``Not bad for a butcher's son from Glenrock.''
  I mentioned faith, family, and friends. Let me conclude with a few 
notes from friends, as I ask you, the staff, his friends, to jot down 
any and all memories that you can think of about Flip and share them 
with Sheila and the rest of his family. I assure you, that is the best 
way to fill the hole of the hurt we all feel.
  From Leader McConnell's chief of staff: ``He had a great knack for 
knowing when to encourage, when to kid and when to make you laugh 
through the stresses we all face.''
  From a new leader of the chiefs of staff:

       Our beloved friend, colleague and fellow chief, Flip has 
     passed after a long and courageous battle with cancer. We 
     appreciated Flip's self-deprecating humor, straight talk and 
     professionalism. We were witness to tremendous character, 
     faith and courage as he walked through the blow of cancer. He 
     was a friend and mentor when I was a young chief of staff. I 
     was privileged to be part of a weekly prayer group with him.

  From Steve Northrup, who was the health policy director of the HELP 
Committee:

       What Flip went through these last several months would have 
     broken the spirit of a lesser man. We can take solace knowing 
     he is with God now, with no more pain, only peace. He was a 
     friend and mentor and an inspiration as a public servant. He 
     was a ``scary man'' when he needed to be, but he was always 
     there when I needed support, advice, or [to give you] a kick 
     in the pants.

  So you can see that Flip had friends everywhere he went and even ones 
whom he didn't know because he served and he listened. Many people have 
mentioned that he actually heard what they said.
  Flip, we know you have been welcomed into your Heavenly home and the 
Lord has told you: Well done, my good and faithful servant.
  Flip, I thank you for calling me in your last hours to say goodbye. 
We miss you, Flip.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From the Staff of Senator Enzi]

                Remembering George ``Flip'' McConnaughey

       September 21st was a day that my fellow Enzi staffers and I 
     will never forget. It was on that day we learned that George 
     McConnaughey, or Flip, as we all knew him, had lost a valiant 
     battle he had waged against cancer for the past year. His 
     loss has made these past few days a time of reflection and 
     remembrance for us all about Flip and his life.
       If we could turn back the hands of time and take a trip to 
     Casper, Wyoming on September 10, 1947, we would arrive just 
     in time to witness Flip's birth and see the pride on the 
     faces of his parents, George and Phyllis.
       Although I never had a chance to meet or get to know his 
     parents, his Dad was a part of our everyday life. Over the 
     years, George had collected quite a collection of sayings and 
     colorful phrases and Flip had acquired them and kept them 
     close to his heart. Whenever a time came that brought one of 
     those reflections to mind he would share them with us. ``My 
     Dad used to say,'' became a phrase we would not only hear 
     quite often, but look forward to, as well.
       Now that Flip has been taken from us all too soon, it means 
     even more to me and to all our staff that our boss has shared 
     so much with us about his life and their history together. It 
     really is a remarkable story.
       When Flip was still in college he met the person who was to 
     completely change his life and get him pointed in the right 
     direction from that day to the end of his life. Her name was 
     Shelia and I don't think we have ever met anyone quite like 
     her. Flip took a great deal of pride in her and her 
     willingness to go along with him on a number of adventures.
       That was important because, after graduation, Flip found 
     his calling when he took on the responsibilities of 
     Administrative Assistant and Assistant City Manager in 
     Casper. The job of a City Manager isn't easy. It's his 
     responsibility to make sure the resources of the town are 
     used wisely in the present to take care of current needs, and 
     a reserve is put aside to take care of future demands.
       While Flip was taking those first steps as a local 
     official, Mike Enzi and his wife Diana were busy running NZ 
     Shoes. A set of interesting circumstances would soon bring 
     them together. It all began with Mike's decision to run for 
     Mayor and his subsequent election.
       Mike knew that winning the election would turn out to be 
     the easy part of the job. He now had an agenda of challenge 
     and change before him and he needed someone with the 
     experience and the knowledge that could help him make 
     Gillette a better place to live. That someone was Flip 
     McConnaughey.
       As the story goes, when Flip was offered the job, he was 
     less than enthusiastic. He had achieved a reputation for his 
     skills and knowledge already and he had a good future in 
     Casper. All he had to do was to keep doing what he was 
     already doing.
       It was either Mike's way with words or Shelia 
     McConnaughey's willingness to take on an adventure, or a 
     combination of both, but soon Flip and Shelia were heading to 
     Gillette to take on the job of bringing that town from a 
     small town to a city of 30,000 plus.
       In many ways, Gillette was fortunate. They had the jobs and 
     they had the people. What they needed to do was to ensure 
     they had the infrastructure in place so that people would 
     have good homes in which they could raise their families. A 
     survey showed them that they needed a lot of things--roads, 
     sidewalks, schools and so much more. They couldn't get any of 
     that done, however, without a short term plan and long term 
     goals.
       Flip was now to be the first City Administrator in Wyoming. 
     He had a vision for what could be done and how to accomplish 
     it that proved to be invaluable. The boom he helped guide the 
     city through lasted seven years. Thanks to Flip, not only 
     were they able to get those first projects done, they set off 
     on a more long term plan to provide city services of every 
     kind, especially water, and oh, yes--garbage collection--to 
     30,000 people while upgrading the whole city-owned electrical 
     system.
       Somehow it was all done. Then, when Mike headed to the 
     State Legislature to continue to serve the people of the 
     community of Gillette, Flip went to Laramie where he became 
     the longest serving City Manager.
       While Mike was serving in the State Legislature, Al Simpson 
     announced his retirement from the Senate. After some thought, 
     Mike decided to take on what some thought would be a very 
     difficult campaign with no promise of success.
       Once again, he took on the challenge with his family. Once 
     again, somehow he got the job done.
       He probably knew--once again--that winning the election 
     would be the easy part. What he needed now was someone who 
     could once again help him put together a team that would face 
     a very different challenge--running a Senate office.
       That was the perfect job for Flip. At least Wyoming's 
     newest Senator thought so. It turned out that Mike would be 
     number 100 on a roster of 100. The beginning of his service 
     in the Senate wouldn't be easy, but if he could convince Flip 
     to work with him as his Chief of Staff it still might work.
       Flip was less than enthusiastic. Actually, I'm told that 
     Flip said something to Senator Enzi like--absolutely not! He 
     was flattered to be asked, but he and Shelia had established 
     a routine in their lives and they were enjoying life in 
     Laramie. I think Flip would have considered it but he didn't 
     want to completely disrupt their lives in Wyoming. He knew 
     Shelia loved Wyoming and probably wouldn't want to leave.
       I will always believe that at this point Flip must have sat 
     down at the kitchen table for a cup of coffee and some 
     serious conversation with Shelia. I also think Shelia 
     expressed

[[Page 13654]]

     her willingness to do whatever she could to make the whole 
     thing work.
       Soon, Flip was in Washington spending part of his time 
     setting up our Senate office and the other part looking for a 
     new home for the McConnaughey's--Flip and Shelia.
       It seems like yesterday when they arrived in Washington, 
     but it was years ago--just about 20 years in fact. That's 
     when I and our Washington staff met Flip. For each of us 
     there was a moment as we got to know Flip in which we 
     understood why Mike knew there was no more valuable part of 
     his Senate team than Flip.
       Flip had an amazing ability to understand people and to 
     help them grow professionally and personally. He was a mentor 
     in every sense of the word. All of us feel very fortunate to 
     have had the chance to know him and to work with him.
       Over the years we would often continue to hear stories 
     about Flip's father and a saying or two he or his Dad had 
     collected would shortly make their appearance. One of his 
     favorites was ``if you like what you do, you never have to 
     work a day in your life.''
       That is a good description of Flip and the way he lived his 
     life. Flip accepted every moment with the same determination 
     and focus and none of us ever heard him complain--about work, 
     life and just about everything else that came his way.
       One of his great contributions to the office was his 
     commitment to annual planning meetings. Each year he would 
     lead us--Washington and Wyoming staffs--on a nearby adventure 
     where we would settle in to a local hotel or meeting place--
     where we would come up with a plan for the coming year that 
     would build on the previous year's successes.
       Our first session produced our Mission Statement. Those 
     words would stay with us from that day on as we proudly 
     displayed its message on the walls of our offices. Here is 
     the text as we worked on it together--


                         Statement of Principle

       We have been given a sacred trust to work for our families, 
     grandparents and grandchildren. We will respect the wisdom of 
     those before and the future of those to follow. We will 
     discharge this trust through our legislative policy, our 
     constituent services and the way we treat each other, guided 
     by these three principles:
       Doing What Is Right.
       Doing Our Best.
       Treating Others as They Wish to be Treated.


                          Statement of Purpose

       In all that we do our purpose will be to allow the family 
     to be strengthened by keeping more of what they earn, 
     assuring jobs and their future with sound financial policies; 
     restoring common sense to law and regulation; and, to promote 
     decision-making at the level closest to the people--our 
     communities, counties, school districts and most importantly 
     our homes.
       I know we missed a year here and there, but for the most 
     part we found time to get away for a strategy session every 
     year.
       One thing I will always remember is how much he hated to 
     hear us say we needed to ``communicate'' better. No, he would 
     say, that is a what--tell me how you're going to do it and 
     more importantly tell me the standards we'll use to grade our 
     success and see if we're making progress.
       Then came that awful day. I can't even put into words how 
     we felt on that day when we learned that Flip had received a 
     diagnosis of cancer. We all thought it was unfair, but Flip 
     was too focused on continuing to live his life day by day 
     with all the strength, determination and enthusiasm he could 
     muster.
       We went on one of those planning meetings earlier this 
     year. It was to be our last with Flip in charge. We were 
     surprised we went on the annual adventure, given Flip's 
     health issues, but Flip would hear nothing of a change in 
     schedule. Having that part of our routine still there for us 
     meant a lot to us, but it meant a lot to Flip, too. It 
     energized him and gave him a sense of routine that helped to 
     bring him a moment of calm in what had been a very difficult 
     and complex time in his life.
       Over the past months, day by day we watched as Flip battled 
     cancer with the strength and determination of a warrior. Now 
     we can see much more clearly what that battle was like, but 
     once again, he never complained or felt he was being treated 
     unfairly by life--or by God. He knew his future was in God's 
     hands--but his present--the day to day of his life--was his 
     to live--each day--as it was given to him.
       Now he has gone home to be with his Lord and Savior, and 
     I'm sure heaven is glad to have him. As the old adage reminds 
     us, God must have needed someone with his skills and 
     abilities to take him from us--well before any of us were 
     ready to say goodbye. Moving on, we will always remember Flip 
     for the way he taught us how to do our jobs--better--how to 
     get along with friends, family and fellow staffers--better--
     and how to live our lives fully focused on what we can do 
     today to make our tomorrows better and brighter.
       In the years to come, that will be Flip's legacy. There 
     will be so many things that will bring him to mind. There is 
     that chicken dish at the carryout he always enjoyed. The park 
     where he would stroll around to give some problem or issue 
     some quiet reflection. His love of his family and especially 
     his grandchildren.
       I know I speak for all our staff when I offer our heartfelt 
     sympathy to Shelia and to all who knew and loved that 
     remarkable guy. He was a good friend, a helpful and 
     supportive coworker and a loving husband, father and 
     grandfather. Flip had one dream his whole life--making the 
     world a better place--and in more ways than we will ever 
     know--he succeeded.
       Well, maybe he had one more dream. There wasn't anything in 
     his life he enjoyed more than going on an adventure with his 
     beloved Shelia. Together they may have grown older, but they 
     never grew up. They loved baseball games, shopping trips, 
     exploring new restaurants and eateries and so much more. In 
     my heart I would like to believe that Flip is sitting in 
     Nationals Park--in the good seats--and waiting patiently for 
     Shelia to join him.
       God bless you, Flip. We couldn't be more proud of all you 
     accomplished in your life and all you made possible for us to 
     accomplish in our own lives. We will never forget you.

  Mr. ENZI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, the Republicans are threatening to shut 
down the government again. In less than 100 hours, the U.S. Government 
will run out of money. Why? What is so important that Republicans are 
willing to destroy thousands of jobs and cost our economy billions of 
dollars the way they did in 2013? The answer is money. Not tax money. 
Not government spending. No. This is all about secret money for 
political campaigns. Republicans who control Congress are refusing to 
fund the government unless everyone agrees to let giant, publicly 
traded companies that spend millions of dollars trying to influence our 
elections keep all that money hidden.
  In just 6 years, the world has turned upside down. Since 2010 when 
the Supreme Court said in Citizens United that American corporations 
are ``people,'' those corporations have been allowed to spend as much 
corporate money as they want to get their friends elected. And, boy, 
have they spent money--more than half a billion dollars from 2010 to 
2015. Today a powerful group of millionaires and billionaires runs 
around tossing out checks for millions of dollars to influence who wins 
and who loses elections. Anyone whose eyes haven't been glued shut can 
see that these waves of money are drowning out ordinary citizens, 
corrupting our politics, and corrupting our government.
  We need to reverse Citizens United and take back our government. We 
need to reaffirm the basic principle that corporations are not people. 
But that is going to be a long haul. The first thing we can do--the 
least we can do, the thing we can do right now--is make sure publicly 
traded corporations at least tell us when they spend money on political 
campaigns.
  Let's be brutally frank about this. Despite the impression that they 
usually give on television and in congressional hearings, public 
companies do not belong to their executives. They are not piggybanks 
for rich CEOs who want to advance their own personal political 
ideologies. By law, these companies can spend money only in ways that 
will benefit their shareholders. So when a public corporation decides 
to spend $1 million on politics, one of two things is true: Either the 
corporation is trying to buy a politician or some government favor or 
it isn't. If it is, then that is corruption, plain and simple, and if 
it isn't, that is a waste of shareholder money, and it is illegal. 
Either way, shareholders and the public have a right to know.
  The next time you buy cookies or shop on a Web site or use a credit 
card, you may be contributing to the profits of a corporation that is 
funneling millions of dollars to political candidates you detest. You 
may be helping some corporation buy a Senator who will help roll back 
environmental regulations or privatize Social Security or

[[Page 13655]]

block a woman's access to birth control. That may be OK with you, but 
if it isn't, you might want to know about it and buy different cookies. 
The Republicans don't want you to know. They are saying they will shut 
down this government before they will let the SEC make corporations 
tell about the secret money they are pushing into political campaigns.
  The American people want to know if giant corporations are buying 
politicians, and the SEC can make those corporations tell. More than 1 
million people and organizations have written to the SEC, asking it to 
issue such a rule. This massive show of support has spooked 
Republicans. After all, there is an election in 6 weeks. At this very 
moment, billions of dollars in secret money are flowing into our 
political system--much of it to prop up Donald Trump and his Republican 
friends in Congress. Just turn on your TV and you will see it.
  Senator Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republicans have 
billions of reasons for keeping this funding secret and billions of 
reasons to defend this rotten system. They are willing to shut down the 
government to do it.
  If Republicans think they can quietly hold the government hostage to 
protect the anonymous corporate donors who want to buy off politicians, 
if they think nobody else will notice, they should think again. If the 
Republicans really think the American people sent us here to protect 
political corruption, then let's get it right out here in the open and 
let the American people see who is standing up for them and who isn't.
  There is a second threat the Republicans have issued. They will not 
help Flint, MI. The people of Flint, MI, have been poisoned by lead 
seeping into their drinking water; poisoned by a rightwing State 
government that decided to play fast and loose with the health and 
safety of a largely African-American town; poisoned by a fraudulent 
coverup that hid what happened while lead built up in the bodies of 
thousands of young children and caused terrible developmental problems 
and chronic health issues that will last for the rest of their lives; 
poisoned by a philosophy that says: Let's give tax breaks to 
billionaires and big corporations and then shrug it off when there is 
no money left to build infrastructure for clean water or provide 
education or opportunity for anyone else; poisoned by a Republican 
philosophy that says: No one matters but me and my children. Your 
children can drink lead; poisoned by the callous indifference of the 
Republicans who control the United States Congress.
  It has been over a year since Flint's water was declared undrinkable. 
It has been 9 months since it was designated a Federal disaster 
eligible for our help. During that time, 100,000 residents of Flint--
mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, children and babies--haven't 
had access to drinking water because of a Republican-State government 
that didn't care about the people living in Flint and a Republican 
Congress that didn't care either.
  Michigan's two Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, have spent 
nearly a year trying to work out some kind of solution--any kind of 
solution--that the Republicans who control Congress would agree to. 
They even got a fully paid for emergency relief package to move through 
the Senate with 95 votes--95 votes in the Senate--only to watch in 
horror as Republicans in the House are trying to tank it.
  Recently, major floods hit Louisiana. Like Flint, Louisiana received 
a Federal disaster declaration to make the thousands of people who have 
lost their homes eligible for our help. Congressional Republicans, 
urged on by the two Republican Senators from Louisiana, have decided to 
give Louisiana the support it needs to recover from this disaster as 
part of the government funding bill, and that is great. The Republicans 
who control Congress said: There will be nothing for Flint. This is raw 
politics. Two Republicans represent Louisiana and two Democrats 
represent Michigan. Congress is controlled by Republicans so Louisiana 
gets immediate help, but after a year of waiting, Michigan gets told to 
pound sand.
  Is this what we have come to? Is this what politics has become? There 
are 100,000 people in Flint, a town where more than half the residents 
are African-American and nearly half live in poverty. They get nothing 
because voters sent two Democrats to the Senate?
  This is not a game. Flint is not a Democratic city or a Republican 
city; it is an American city. The children who have been poisoned are 
American children. The principle of standing up for those in need is an 
American principle.
  I am a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, but I will help the 
Republican Senators from Louisiana. I stand shoulder to shoulder with 
them in their hour of need, but I am sick and tired--I am past sick and 
tired--of Republican Senators who come here and demand Federal funding 
when their communities are hit by a crisis but block help when other 
States need it. Their philosophy screams, ``I want mine, but the rest 
of you are on your own.'' It is ugly, un-American, and just plain 
wrong.
  We must stand with the Senators from Michigan. We must stand with the 
children of Flint, and we must put aside ugly partisanship that is 
literally poisoning a town full of American families. Any Member of the 
House or Senate who doesn't stand with them lacks the moral courage to 
serve in this Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                     Survivors' Bill of Rights Bill

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan piece of legislation. I had hoped to be on 
the floor today to celebrate the passage of the Survivors' Bill of 
Rights; however, as is the case far too often here in Washington, 
political gamesmanship is taking precedence over sound policy.
  The Democratic leadership is holding up this bill for purely 
political reasons. The Democratic leadership is delaying passage of 
this noncontroversial bill despite the fact that it enjoys broad 
bipartisan support. They are holding up this bill despite the fact that 
it is critical to help victims of sexual violence. They are holding up 
this bill despite the fact that the same language passed the Senate 
Judiciary Committee unanimously. They are holding up this bill despite 
the fact that it passed the Senate 89 to 0 and the House of 
Representatives 399 to 0.
  The Survivors' Bill of Rights has been championed by a courageous 
rape survivor named Amanda Nguyen. Amanda is the founder and president 
of an organization that goes by the acronym RISE, a group that worked 
closely with me on the development of this survivors' rights package to 
establish new rights for survivors of sexual assault.
  Amanda was the victim of sexual assault as a college student. Her 
struggle with the criminal justice system in the aftermath of this 
event transformed her into a tireless young advocate for survivors of 
sexual violence. Sexual violence, as you know, impacts millions of 
American women and men in our country every year. Victims of such 
crimes should not face an uphill battle in their pursuit of justice, as 
Ms. Nguyen did, and that is why I included this language in the Adam 
Walsh Reauthorization Act. That bill, which makes grants available to 
help States track convicted sex offenders, unanimously passed the 
Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate just a few months ago.
  I am very proud to have shepherded this bill through the Judiciary 
Committee. It is a commonsense piece of legislation. For months, I 
urged the House Judiciary Committee to pass this very bill. Thankfully, 
that committee and the full House passed this bill just a few weeks 
ago. Now the Senate must act, of course, so we can send it to the 
President. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has chosen partisan 
politics over helping victims of sexual violence.
  Since the House passed this legislation, Amanda has been checking in 
with my office nearly daily on the status of when the Senate will pass 
this

[[Page 13656]]

bill. While Republicans are poised to move forward on this bill, 
Democratic leadership has continued to stall Ms. Nguyen's efforts.
  Among other things, this bill ensures that each and every survivor of 
sexual assault should have equal access to all available tools in their 
pursuit of justice. This includes proper collection and preservation of 
forensic evidence. The Survivors' Bill of Rights also secures a package 
of new rights for sexual assault survivors. Amanda Nguyen has been 
working with both political parties to help fellow survivors.
  It has been an honor to work alongside Ms. Nguyen on this critical 
piece of legislation. I will fight for Amanda and every survivor of 
sexual assault until this bill passes.
  I call on the Democratic leadership to stop delaying this bill 
immediately. We have an important bipartisan opportunity to improve the 
criminal justice system for survivors of sexual assault.
  Today I ask the Democratic leadership to simply put the victims of 
sexual violence on the highest of priorities. Put these courageous 
individuals above partisan politics. We have done this before, and we 
should do it again, particularly in this environment of today's 
speeches from the other side of the aisle, decrying the fact that there 
might be too much partisanship in this body. This is a chance to 
demonstrate not only bipartisanship but also unanimity in the U.S. 
Senate that has already been demonstrated on this piece of legislation 
and get it to the President so we can help these courageous people who 
are fighting to help victims of sexual assault.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today, like many of my colleagues, 
to express frustration and outrage that we are once again considering 
leaving town without helping the people of Flint, MI, and people in 
other communities afflicted by lead poisoning across our Nation. It is 
the height of irresponsibility, and we are neglecting our duty as 
representatives of the American people.
  It has now been over a year since doctors first reported that the 
high levels of lead in children's blood was caused by Flint's water 
supply. It has been 9 months since health officials reported that an 
increase in the cases of Legionnaires' disease was connected to the 
city of Flint after it changed its source of water, but still, the 
100,000 residents of Flint are unable to drink the city's water, so 
they are still tied to bottled water.
  Up to 12,000 children living in Flint now have to live with the 
specter of what their future might be after being exposed to lead in 
their water, and we know what lead does to developing brain cells. It 
leads to lower IQ scores, poor performance in school, inattention and 
impulsive behavior, as well as aggression and hyperactivity. It 
severely damages the prospects of the children it has poisoned.
  This is a tragic story that has outraged our Nation. Yet here we are 
after more than a year, and we still have not taken action.
  What have we done in this last year to help the families of Flint? 
While we have heard speech after speech in this Chamber, we have held 
hearings in which my colleagues have questioned Michigan officials 
about what happened and what needs to be done. There have been press 
conferences, there have been op-eds, there have been media interviews 
discussing the need to take action, but here we are without taking any 
action and without a bill on the President's desk.
  Some here may say: Well, we passed the Water Resources Development 
Act, which did include money to assist the citizens of Flint, but we 
all know that the House hasn't passed their WRDA legislation. We all 
know that if they did pass their bill today, it doesn't have support 
for the citizens of Flint. We all know that a conference committee is 
far into the future since the House hasn't acted; therefore, a solution 
is not nearby. The prospect of a water development bill to aid the 
people of Flint by getting it to the President's desk is simply a hope, 
but it is a hope that is far away.
  We have a better vehicle right here, right now, and that is the 
continuing resolution, which will make sure that the people of Flint 
get the help they need. It is the bird in the hand, not the bird in the 
bush. However, at this moment the continuing resolution before us does 
not contain a single cent for Flint or other communities affected by 
lead poisoning. It does contain millions of dollars for the people in 
Louisiana hurt by the terrible flooding that hit the State, and it is 
certainly the right thing to do to assist the citizens in Louisiana.
  Thousands of families lost their homes, their belongings, and 
everything they owned. There were 60,000 homes damaged by the flood. 
The Coast Guard, National Guard, and local first responders rescued 
more than 30,000 residents, and in the immediate aftermath, more than 
7,000 were living in shelters.
  What happened in Louisiana is a major natural disaster. It was the 
largest to hit our Nation since the devastation brought on by Hurricane 
Sandy. We need to act, but we also need to act on Flint and other 
cities affected by lead poisoning. Louisiana needs our help, and Flint 
needs our help.
  When disaster strikes, we should not weigh our response by whether a 
community's representatives here in Congress are Democrats or 
Republicans. Disaster knows no party. When disaster strikes, we should 
not pay more attention to helping the rich and influential than 
assisting the poor. When disaster strikes, geography should not 
determine one's worthiness to receive assistance. When disaster 
strikes, race should play no part in our response, but when it comes to 
the failure to act on Flint, I believe that we in this Chamber should 
reflect on the role race has played.
  Does anyone here think that it would take more than a year for 
Congress to act if this disaster in Flint had befallen a wealthy White 
suburb of Dallas or Orlando or Chicago or L.A., or if it were the upper 
middle-class White kids of lawyers and doctors and corporate executives 
who had been poisoned by lead? Does anyone here believe that we would 
have sat and done nothing?
  But with Flint, which is a poor African-American community, we have 
done nothing. Our Nation was founded on a legacy of slavery and racism, 
but we were also founded on a vision of equality and opportunity, and 
we have moved step-by-step to put the legacy of discrimination behind 
us and to embrace the vision of equality and opportunity for all. We 
still have a long road ahead of us to achieve that vision in its 
entirety.
  We have often been too slow to respond to the pain, the suffering, 
and the loss of life in our minority communities. That is why the 
phrase ``Black Lives Matter'' resonates powerfully. It is not OK to 
profile Americans based on race. It is not OK to target one community 
with stop-and-frisk tactics. It is not OK to treat one race as a client 
and another as a problem. Black lives matter, and it is time we acted 
like that here in the Senate.
  Let's start by responding quickly from this point forward on this 
crisis in Flint. Let's respond with the same urgency as the crisis in 
Louisiana. The flooding in Louisiana wreaked havoc on Louisiana 
families, but we all know that the poisoned water in Flint, MI, wreaked 
havoc on the families there. If you go to Flint today, you see pallet 
after pallet filled with water, and it is scattered all over the city, 
necessary for drinking, cooking, washing dishes, and brushing teeth. 
They use it because they don't have another choice.
  Yes, the people of Louisiana have suffered a great loss, and I want 
to help them rebuild. But we know the people of Flint have suffered a 
great loss, and I want to help the people of Flint--not at some vague 
point after the election, not at some uncertain future date. They need 
action now. The people of Louisiana need action now, and the people of 
Flint need action now. Well, actually, they needed action a year ago.
  We cannot choose between helping these two American communities. Both 
are suffering, both are in need, and

[[Page 13657]]

both deserve our attention. We cannot play election-year politics with 
people's lives hanging in the balance. We must provide in this 
continuing resolution--the opportunity we have before us at this very 
moment--aid to help the citizens of both tragedies.
  I hope that our leadership from the right of the aisle and our 
leadership on the left of the aisle come together to negotiate a 
compromise that treats the people of Louisiana and the people of Flint 
equally. If it doesn't, I will be voting against this continuing 
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about one of the 
most important responsibilities we have, which is the responsibility to 
help every community in a time of crisis.
  When Sandy struck back in my home State of New Jersey, more than 100 
people lost their lives, 8.5 million people lost power, and more than 
650,000 homes were damaged and 40,000 more were severely damaged or 
destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of businesses were forced to close, 
with a $65 billion pricetag in economic loss in 13 States up and down 
the east coast. Unfortunately, emergency relief languished for weeks as 
some of my colleagues on the other side actually debated the value of 
helping others.
  The junior Senator from Louisiana wouldn't vote for Sandy funding 
because it wasn't paid for, but now it seems he has found Jesus and 
seeks funding for flooding in Louisiana--and I would say rightfully so. 
The fact is that we can't have a disaster policy that says blue States 
have to pay for disasters, purple States have to partially pay, and no 
pay is needed for red States. We shouldn't be playing politics with 
disaster funding. When we do, real people suffer.
  When it came to Sandy, a party that never had a second thought about 
giving billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil and never saw a tax 
break for millionaires they didn't like didn't step up to help families 
recover from one of the most devastating and ferocious coastal storms 
in history.
  The decision to turn the responsibility of government into a 
political calculation is not how this Nation responds to disasters. 
But, unfortunately, the unthinkable is becoming all too common. We saw 
it this summer in a fight over providing Zika funding, which should 
have been a no-brainer. Alarm bells had been ringing for months, but 
instead of being proactive in preparing an adequate and appropriate 
response, Republicans chose to poison our efforts with rightwing 
ideological policy riders that prevented us from appropriately 
addressing these issues. So thanks to the majority, we did nothing 
while 20,000 Americans in Puerto Rico contracted the virus. We did 
nothing while the virus spread to the mainland, forcing the CDC to take 
the virtually unprecedented step of issuing a travel advisory in the 
continental United States--not some third world country but one of our 
Nation's largest and most vibrant cities, Miami. Yet, even after all of 
this, once again we did nothing. Why? Once again three words come to 
mind as they have for the last 8 years, which is Republican political 
obstructionism.
  Now my friends on the other side seem to have moved past their state 
of suspended political animation and dropped their rigid ideological 
opposition to the Zika funding. But there are still serious issues that 
have a major impact on children's health that we have not acted on--
namely, the lead crisis confronting not only those in Flint but those 
in our schools in New Jersey.
  It took 3 full months for the victims of Sandy to get relief. It has 
taken months for this Congress to act against a clear threat of Zika. 
Here we are, 1 year after we learned about Flint, and yet the 
Republicans in Congress have done what they do best, which is 
absolutely nothing.
  I have even heard the lame counterargument: ``Well, Flint was a man-
made disaster, not a natural disaster--so we don't have an obligation 
to help--others.'' Seriously? We don't have an obligation as a nation 
to help others? I reject that argument.
  The Federal Government always has an obligation to help a community 
facing a crisis, whether leading the initial response to the BP oil 
spill, responding to wildfires, superstorms, tornadoes, floods, or 
manmade disasters such as the failure of the levies in Hurricane 
Katrina. We were there as a nation. The question should not be manmade 
versus natural disaster. It should be the relief of human suffering in 
any event.
  Last week, one of my colleagues dismissed the crisis in Flint as 
``other people's grief.'' Other people's grief? That is a pretty 
stunning statement, shocking in its blatant disregard in our 
fundamental mission to protect every American.
  In this Chamber there is no ``other people's grief.'' We are all 
Americans--one Nation, one community, indivisible--and in the community 
there is no room to brush off the crisis as ``other people's 
problems.'' In the case of Flint, the other people are 100,000 fellow 
Americans, the majority of whom are African Americans. Forty percent 
live in poverty, and 1 in 10 are unemployed. The so-called other people 
are children facing a lifetime of challenges, poisoned by a substance 
that we have known is toxic for decades. The other people are parents 
whose hearts are heavy with the thought that one of life's most basic 
needs--clean water to drink--is being denied to their children. The 
other people are community advocates who have spent the last year 
knocking on tens of thousands of doors trying to get the latest 
information to their neighbors about the ongoing health crisis. The 
other people were those whose health has been threatened by a local 
government that was more concerned about saving a buck than protecting 
their residents' lives. Now the Federal Government is failing them as 
well, by a callus dismissal that these are other people's problems--not 
ours, as Americans, but theirs--and they are on their own.
  That is not the America I know. The America I know is one that stands 
together in times of crisis. We saw it in the aftermath of a disaster, 
whether it was first responders running into the burning towers on the 
morning of September 11, whether it was neighbors offering a place to 
sleep and a home-cooked meal to those whose homes were destroyed in 
Hurricane Katrina, whether it was hundreds of people who lined up to 
donate blood in the Orlando shooting. In a time of crisis, Americans 
stand together. We don't dismiss cries of help as the problems of 
others.
  We heard talk of the urgency of providing aid to the people of 
Louisiana in the wake of the flooding, and I agree. But we cannot let 
the people of Flint be an afterthought. Now, some say the majority 
leader is thinking about removing the disaster aid that will help 
Louisiana just to prove a political point. Think about it. He would 
hang out communities to dry because some in his party don't want to 
look out for Flint. If the majority leader decides to withhold disaster 
assistance to both Flint and Louisiana, that would be a cynical stunt 
that would hurt real people and, frankly, we are better than that.
  We cannot turn what should be a question of the basic health and 
safety of our citizens into a political calculation. But, 
unfortunately, the Republican continuing resolution doesn't see it that 
way. It focuses on corporate giveaways at the expense of families, 
businesses, and communities trying to recover from a disaster. While 
our colleagues are fighting over which communities are more worthy of 
disaster relief--a calculation I do not understand--they are also 
shamelessly pushing policy riders that favor corporations over 
investors, constituents, and the American public at large. They pat 
themselves on the back for funding to address flooding in Louisiana 
while quietly working behind closed doors to shield the pathways of 
dark money in politics.
  Let me take a moment to tell our constituents what they won't see in 
their Republican Senators' press releases. They won't see any mention 
of

[[Page 13658]]

a policy rider intended to block the Securities and Exchange Commission 
from requiring companies to disclose their political spending.
  Here is why that is so important. The Supreme Court's 2010 decision 
in Citizens United fundamentally changed our Nation's campaign finance 
laws by opening the floodgates for unlimited and unchecked corporate 
spending on campaign ads, Federal and State law advocacy efforts, and 
many other methods of political communication.
  In the 2012 elections, outside groups spent more than $1 billion, 
with much of it funneled through trade associations and nonprofits with 
minimal disclosure. In the 2016 cycle, which I don't need to remind my 
colleagues is far from over, outside groups have already spent $790 
million. For 6 long years companies have had free rein to solidify 
their influence in politics and maximize their impact on elections. 
With no corresponding requirement to disclose how this money is being 
spent, there is simply no way to know if corporations are spending more 
money to defund Social Security or Medicare, dismantle environmental 
protections, undermine education programs, or eviscerate Wall Street 
reform, including taking down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 
Think about that.
  The Republican Party is trying to make it harder for the American 
people to know how much money is being poured into the efforts that 
hurt consumers. In the past weeks alone, Wells Fargo perpetuated a huge 
scam on their customers, costing account holders millions of dollars 
and creating over 2 million fraudulent accounts. It was the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau that was instrumental in uncovering the 
scam and levying the largest fine in history.
  So here we are just 2 weeks later sticking in riders to hide dark 
money from shareholders. That is exactly the type of dark money that 
attacks the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the American 
people deserve to know who is funding those attacks.
  The significance of this should not be understated. Ultimately, this 
is about silencing the voice of hard-working American families in favor 
of amplifying the speech and magnifying the influence of corporations. 
Unfortunately, it is all too emblematic of my Republicans colleagues' 
approach to lawmaking. When corporations ask Republicans to jump, they 
say: How high? When big banks ask Republicans to roll back critical 
Wall Street reforms, they say: How far? When the oil industry asks 
Republicans for a tax subsidy, they say: How much? It is shameless. 
Clearly, my Republican colleagues are defiantly turning their backs on 
consumers.
  We cannot continue down this obstructionist path paved with the 
shattered remains of our long-held willingness to help each other in 
times of crisis. If we continue down this path when Republicans are in 
charge, no assistance would be provided if the east coast suffered 
another superstorm because those are blue States. It would mean that a 
slow-moving infrastructure crisis in an inner city would be ignored as 
``other people's grief.'' It would mean that when Democrats are in 
charge, no relief would be provided for tornadoes in Oklahoma or floods 
in Kentucky because those are red States. That is not what we Democrats 
would do, and it is not, at the end of the day, the way to govern. We 
need to stop dividing our country into us versus them when it comes to 
fundamental human needs.
  In this election season, let's remember that, above all, we are all 
Americans with common votes and shared values. Let's focus on doing 
right by the American people, rather than telling them we can solve all 
of our problems if we just turn the clock back to a better time and 
blame someone else--those people, the others--for our problems. That is 
not good politics, it is not good government, and it is not who we are 
as a nation or as a people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, today I voted to move forward with a 
continuing resolution because I believe it is a fundamental 
responsibility of Congress to keep the government open. I am deeply 
frustrated, however, that, among the policies included in the 
amendment, the authors have failed to provide funding to address the 
Flint lead crisis or to allow the Export-Import Bank to operate at full 
capacity. As this body continues to work to develop a plan to keep the 
government operating, I strongly encourage both the majority leader and 
my colleagues to address these commonsense priorities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                          National Rice Month

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, famously known as the Natural State, my 
home State of Arkansas holds the proud distinction as the Nation's 
leader in rice production.
  Last year, Arkansas produced more than 50 percent of the total rice 
grown in the country. On average, farmers in Arkansas grow rice on 1.5 
million acres each year. Ninety-six percent of those farms are family 
owned and operated. As the No. 1 producer of this crop, Arkansas has a 
unique role in the industry. That is why I am proud to recognize the 
26th anniversary of National Rice Month.
  I am pleased to promote policies that enable our farmers to manage 
risk and ensure that high-quality U.S. rice remains a staple on tables 
across the globe.
  This industry is not only contributing to a nutritious and balanced 
diet, it is also an economic engine in rural America. Nationwide, the 
rice industry accounts for 125,000 jobs and contributes more than $34 
billion to the U.S. economy. In Arkansas, rice contributes more than 
$1.8 billion to our State's economy and provides thousands of jobs. We 
can increase both of these numbers even more if we open additional 
markets for our rice producers to compete in.
  Rice farmers all across America would benefit from a changing policy 
with Cuba because rice is a staple of the Cuban diet. The U.S. 
Department of Agriculture estimates that U.S. rice exports could 
increase by $365 million per year if financing and travel restrictions 
were lifted. Arkansas' agricultural secretary has said that the 
economic impact on the State's rice industry could be about $30 
million.
  Rice production is efficient. More rice is being produced on less 
land, using less water and energy than 20 years ago. As great stewards 
of the land, rice farmers are committed to protecting and preserving 
our natural resources. I am proud to celebrate 26 years of National 
Rice Month and honor the more than 100,000 Americans involved in the 
rice industry.
  Additionally, I wish to make a comment about the devastating floods 
that northeastern Arkansas experienced in August. The recent floods 
caused serious damage to crop production, including rice. Many of these 
crops were near harvest stage.
  The University of Arkansas estimates that the State suffered $50 
million in crop losses due to the recent flooding. This damage has 
largely flown under the radar, and the final damages may be more than 
this preliminary estimate. The Governor of Arkansas has requested 
disaster assistance from the USDA, and last week the Arkansas 
congressional delegation wrote a letter in support of the Governor's 
request. Secretary Vilsack committed to me that he would expedite this 
request as quickly as possible, and I encourage him to do so.
  Agriculture accounts for nearly one-quarter of Arkansas' economic 
activity. One out of every six jobs in Arkansas is tied to agriculture. 
Rice production is a vital part of agriculture's contribution to 
Arkansas' economy. I am committed to helping our rice producers succeed 
in today's global economy.

                          ____________________